This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Proposed change: RDs roll off in the order they are posted
(non-admin closure). Great suggestion. Close to unanimous agreement. Adoption has already started today. Marking this one as closed. My own minor request would be that given the bursty nature of WP:ITNRD, Admins and Editors consider evaluating RDs from the bottom of the stack. Nicely done everyone. If someone thinks this closure is premature, send a WP:TROUT my way, and reopen this discussion. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2020 (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 current roll-off of RDs means that articles that get posted quicker are up longer. Ironically, this means we tend to hightlight shorter articles over more substantial articles (often for very significant people) that require more work. Many who contribute at ITN do so for a chance to have their efforts highlighted on the main page, but some are hesitant to work on something that will be bumped within hours of being posted, or made stale by a flurry of other noms. If "the central purpose of Wikipedia [is] making a great encyclopedia" and ITN is meant to support that, we should modify this practice to encourage more contributions.
I would propose that RDs are posted to the top of the order, and thus roll-off in a "first in, first out" basis. An unposted nomination would become stale 7 days after DOD/first report of death. Hat-tip to Espresso Addict, who suggested this above. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose RDs are rarely up less than 3-4 days, regardless of order they are posted. This is enough. The difference between "order posted" and "order of deaths" is minor and rare and tracking such differences is not worth the effort for minimal benefit. --Jayron32 13:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Tracking would be dead easy, because we will just post all new items at the top of the list — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Change to support The arguments from those supporting have convinced me to change my mind. --Jayron32 17:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Just guarantee any ITN post is up for at least 24 hours. That should be enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support The massive turnover of RDs means that none are really going to up for any more than 7 days, so it doesn't seem pertinent to have them added/removed to reflect date of death exactly. Most recently, Barbara Windsor was up for less than 24 hours, quite a shame after all the work that went into making that article MP-worthy. We're here for quality articles in the news, after all. Kingsif (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support RDs are frequently up for less than 2 days, and in some instances don't even last 24 hours. This proposal is a trivial change and would make little difference to the readers but perhaps a lot of difference to those who work very hard to get RD items up to scratch. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support - Makes sense to do this.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support - the current rules often dictate against more notable people with long articles which take longer to get into Main Page-ready shape. Black Kite (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support per above, this will also avoid the issues we sometimes have about whether to list by date of death or when it was announced - Dumelow (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support - per nom and above, makes sense to simplify. Levivichharass/hound 18:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support in principle. However, the implementation detail needs to be thought through. E.g. How is the date going to advance? 3 day rolling window? 7 day rolling window? or min(oldest RD, 3 days)? Ktin (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It actually makes a trivial difference to how we do it now. When updating the ITN template, instead of inserting new entries in date-of-death order, admins will simply insert the new entry at the top of the list, and (as now) remove the oldest. The 7 day rolling window for nominations going stale remains the same. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite, yup. Let's try it. 7 day rolling window. There is another problem about the 'burst'y nature of RDs, that will not go away with this solution, but, definitely worth trying. Also, in this new model -- it will be important to go from the bottom of the stack to evaluate readiness / post. Ktin (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support About time we tried this, as some recent entries have been up very briefly.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support. I've suggested this several times before, good to see it finally getting some support :) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Support I remember Stubbs (cat) only lasting a few hours on RD, which brought Wikipedia into serious disrepute. (Why was he not there the entire year, I'll never know. In fact, he should be placed there again right now.) Nohomersryan (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Support The proposed FIFO method is mechanically simpler than a date calculation and there's no reason to have a complex method. For example, consider Barbara Windsor. She died on 10 Dec and there was then a massive spike in readership immediately. The decay curve for readership showed no blip for the ITN posting on 14 Dec and this is typical for prominent people – people read such topics because they are in the news, not because they are posted at ITN. So, we might as well organise this to please ourselves - maximising the reward for nominators and minimising the work for the posters. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 19 December 2020 (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.
Should the template be edited to reflect the new guidelines -- I note recent items have still been added with the hidden-text dates of death. The dates could be removed altogether, or amended to the date of posting, in the unlikely event that we have an RD drought and one remains up for more than 7 days. I have taken a stab at amending the instructions to admins[4]. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict: The new wording says RD items are eligible for 7 days after the announcement of the death, whereas WP:ITNRD says occasionally the date of announcement. It's previously been subjective when we used the death date vs the announcement date. Are we firming that up?—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't intend to change this, sorry; I think we should continue the current practice ie using date of death unless the announcement was greatly delayed. I have amended; see what you think. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
RD: Let's talk Filmography
To start off with, I will admit that this might not be an WP:ITN/WP:ITNRD problem to solve. However, truly at the tail end of the article life (literally at the end), this group comes in. Having been here for the last few months, the most sticky point that I see is the filmography sections of most articles. It just is extremely sad to see that while some articles are good, most of them are quite poorly referenced. While prose can be fixed, filmography sections are almost always the sticky point.
First things first, I agree with all of the quality thresholds that we have here on WP:ITN and I think everything that we can do to keep the homepage clean is worth continuing to invest in. This is to say, that I do not believe that an article with less than full sourcing should ever make it to the homepage.
Coming back to filmography, in my view, we might be better served if we try relooking our WP:CITINGIMDB principles. There are appropriate uses, disputed uses, and inappropriate uses called out at this link WP:CITINGIMDB. Filmography falls in the disputed section, i.e. in between appropriate and inappropriate. I understand that some sections of IMDB can be user generated etc. etc.
Currently, in the absence of IMDB, we end up sourcing filmographies from a whole range of sources, BFI, TV Guide etc., some of them are clearly not as good as IMDB, but, make it because they dont have the same degree of brand / name recall to be a blocked site.
Now, my thinking is that -- specifically for the filmography section, we will not be making the article any worse off by adding an extraneous source for IMDB. E.g. there was a wrestler's article this morning, which went stale pending filmography citations. It didn't stand a chance with 200+ films pending sourcing. But, then, IMDB directly had 220 films listed.
Something to think about. Ktin (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We can bypass that by changing "Filmography" to "Selected filmography", where only most notable or recognizable films are listed. That would save time and make it easier to source. The same principle would apply to artists and writers who produced outstanding number of works, with "Selected works". A full list of works could be accommodated in a separate stadalone list, and, AFAIK, this has been done before to resolve quality issues in the parent article. Brandmeistertalk 08:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Brandmeister, Agree. Yes, that's definitely an option, and we have seen that be used as well. Ktin (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
A spinout of a long filmography can be OK. However, I would not want short lists to be broken off just to expedite an ITN post. And never delete potentially verifiable works just because they are unsourced. Some equivalent of WP:BEFORE should be done.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, Agree on both points. The spinoff particularly makes most sense for huge article with a (very) long listing for filmography. Ktin (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This approach (selected films) would only be acceptable for top-tier actors (eg those like Tom Hanks or Judi Dench) who would be expected to have rather hefty articles before even considering a filmography section. When we start getting into the B-list and lower, which is easier to judge based on how little about their career beyond film/acting we can write, this doesn't seem to make sense. There are sub-tier actors with probably 100+ films (as the case with Lister) but there's so little about them that the split of the filmography to a separate page makes little sense in terms of size issues, and its sweeping the sourcing problem under the rug. I can see possible exceptions if this list starts getting huge like over 250 films but that's an exceptional situation. And further this would encourage too many editors to do this for lower-tier actors just to get an RD passed. This should be something these pages are to have at all times as BLP. It's a shame that editors on these actors pages aren't sourcing film credits as they add them, but that is a BLP sourcing requirement and not ITN's responsibility. --Masem (t) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as (what I consider to be) a novice editor, I find citing filmographies to be among the easiest contributions to ITN. I have neither the time nor courage to do much heavy-lifting on WP, but if I see a nom that only needs this, I'm all over it. There are a handful of go-to sources (BFI, TV Guide, TCM) that can be used for the bulk. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I loathe "selected filmography" as it is simply arbitrary (think about the readers here, what criteria are being applied here?). What would be better would be to keep it as filmography, add {{incomplete list}}, add a hidden note saying only "sourced" items should be included, and keep a list of those unsourced items on the talk page. Oh, and we don't use IMDB for WP:V, it's not a reliable source. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I never really thought about "selected filmography" before; I recently started clean-up of an actor bio that has what looks like a selected filmography and I never changed it because 1. the bio is quite long, 2. the filmography is not only long, it also covers film, TV, stage, music video, and commercial acting and film and music video directing; it would need a lot of new subsections in the bio and is really fine as a standalone. I assumed the separate article is fine, but I never thought if having a list of 18 works on the bio was fine. Maybe I should ask at WP:FILM but since we're here, do you think this is this a valid use, and do the works in the short list need citations, and does the section header need to say "Selected filmography" instead of just "Filmography" - there's a main template link in the section. Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's a cheap fix: Unless the actor is little known and only notable for a breadth of background word, any filmography over some set number gets spun out into a separate article, so that sourcing questions lie there rather than at the main biography. BD2412T 16:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No, that's a terrible fix. It's hiding the sourcing problem that still needs to be fixed, and in many cases, the actor's bio is often short enough that the filmography can readily fit into the article with no SIZE issues (that should be the only reason to split off a filmography or other section). Again, it is not ITN's responsibility to deal with the fault of editors that failed to make the right sourcing when they built out these articles to start, and we shouldn't be trying to make special concessions here. --Masem (t) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Masem, agree on the former set of statements. re: size being the driver for spin off. A part of me says that irrespective of who worked on it before, when the article comes to ITN (either by way of news or at the end of life by way of RD), the metaphorical baton has been passed to this group. Ktin (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, this is definitely a good idea. The thing I always fear is if we might end up being guilty of cherrypicking. e.g. we know that a movie exists, but, we don't find an RS to confirm that for citation purposes. Are we better off leaving the movie name with a citation needed tag and failing RD or like you note, are we better off moving it into the talk page, marking incomplete list, and passing RD. One stream of thinking suggests that 'passing RD' is only a manifestation of the outcome, the true outcome is that the article rises up to a particular hygiene standard (and that outcome is lasting as opposed to a few hours on RD). Ktin (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We're better off removing it. An ITN/C nom will bring more eyes to fixing referencing on that article than it will ever see again. If we can't find the reference then, it should be removed. "Verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." It doesn't matter what I know, it only matters what I can prove. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem is, isn't the film itself a source? Like, the film has a credits. Printed right at the end of the film. Why do I need a separate source to note the same thing? Like, if I have an author, and I have a bibliography of their written works, isn't the actual work itself, with their name written on the cover, the source for the fact that they wrote that work? That meets the requirements of WP:V: Is the work in question publicly available to check? Yes. Is it published? Yes. Is it reliable? I don't see why not, absent good-faith errors that creep into even the most stringently reliable works, the author's own name on the cover of the book they themselves wrote does not seem to be the sort of thing one would have doubts about. Checks all of the necessary boxes. I'm not sure what else we need. Do we honestly need a footnote for every author that says "The cover of the book itself" or a footnote for each film of an actor saying "The credits at the end of the film itself" or for a musician "Their name is on the front of the CD"? --Jayron32 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This would be possibly reasonable if the limit was only films but then we get those uncredited cameos, the Alan Smithees, and into television appearances and the like that are also not readily credited that way. The other factor to consider is that for WP:V's purposes, we want to make it less of a chore for the reader to confirm the information. If the person is a start of a movie, that's easy to find out and that would be reasonable but most of these are usually the minor roles delegated to the end credits, and that could be considered too much work to readily verify (not everyone has DVD or streaming access to films to zip to the credits). --Masem (t) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Then those specific ones would need separate citations, but certainly not all of them. Also the "not everyone has access" applies to many if not most sources used at Wikipedia. For example, sources that exist in print only books; not everyone has access to that book instantly. Sources behind paywalls, not everyone can check it instantly; etc. That is not today, and was not at any point in the past, a criteria for sources. --Jayron32 13:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You're exactly right, and this has been bugging me for a while. In the article for the film itself, the plot section needs no citation, because it's understood that the film is the citation. Most film pages don't have citations for the cast, either. So why require it in the actors' articles? Davey2116 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
BLPs (including those of recently deceased persons) are expected to have stronger sourcing requirements than a work itself. There are somethings that are completely obvious that we can likely get away with without a source, like Tom Cruise being the star of Top Gun, but then when you get to those appearances that require scurrying to the credits, like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, that's where for any other claim that would be in a BLP we'd expect a source, otherwise it may appear as rumormongering or the like. That's the primary difference. --Masem (t) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
MOS:LISTSOFWORKS says Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. The latter part is a bit peculiar: if the list was, in fact, "freely available", it wouldn't be too hard to just simply source it either.—Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The difference between books and films is that the former have several well-established unique identifiers that can be used to drill into databases that reliably list the complete list of authors/editors, almost always a much shorter list than cast/production for a film. Films just have IMDb, where (rightly or wrongly) the consensus has solidified against reliability. In my experience patrolling speedies, most actor articles are started by cutting & pasting from IMDb, so the problems with verification are there from the outset. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, agree. Very well articulated. Does someone know why filmography has been not been included in the "inappropriate uses" section of this link WP:CITINGIMDB, but, has been included in "disputed uses". What does that delineation mean for folks in this group? i.e. being in the disputed uses does that get us some rights over and above inappropriate uses section? Ktin (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I think they're just reading consensus - that some folks still argue for its inclusion. I think those people are confusing accuracy with reliability. Both WP and IMDB are overwhelmingly accurate, but both have reliability concerns given their user generated content. WP addresses this by WP:V, IMDB does not. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
RD Temporary Request - Spill over into the third line
Admins:
Given that we have moved to this new model of cycling the carousel by having RDs join at the leftmost position on the carousel (which, I still think is the right decision), as noted by me earlier, we will need Admins and Editors to work articles from the bottom of the stack. The problem is accentuated because the rate of inflow (new articles coming into RD nominations) and rate of outflow (Admins promoting articles to homepage / RD) is not roughly synchronized.
That said, we have a problem currently where articles last night and this evening were posted from top of the stack rather than bottom of the stack. While that was done in good faith, we can not change that. I have a temporary request to restore RDs till Brodie Lee including Sugathakumari and leave them on the carousel at least for 36 hours, they are currently off the carousel at ~11 hour marker. This will mean that we will temporarily spill over into 3 lines, which is not a big deal, given that there are only 3 news blurbs and there is tremendous amount of space available.
This is only a temporary request until the backlog is cleared.
I'd be delighted to remove the item that's now nearly 3 weeks old, which would make plenty of space. (Actually, having removed the even-older bottom item a few days ago, I've twice had to bulk up OTD with extra entries to balance.)
Also formally mentioning here the notion I mentioned on ITN/C, we could have a whole Recent Deaths box, modelled on the de wiki's Kürzlich Verstorbene box -- at least until the news picks up again. I've been embarrassed at the ITN template's staleness for days. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Restore Brodie Lee and Sugathakumari; this might spill into three lines which is not a big deal with the current spacing that is available as you note.
As new RDs come along, at least until the backlog clears hold until the last RD is at least 24 / 36 hours before dropping them from the carousel.
I am not encouraging you to WP:IAR but if you are alright, I think this is the right thing to do. Going forward, my request to Admins (for posting) and Editors (for evaluation) will be to work from the bottom of the stack. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Due to the way I was impacted, I'm hesistant to suspend my disbelief in this bureaucracy. I'm going to sit here with arms crossed, shaking my head at any progress that seems to be made. That attitude is subject to change, dependant on the overall semblance of performance exhibited, might make a full public statement later. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, yup, and the problem is only accentuated with the time that the articles have been awaiting a posting. e.g. Sugathakumari article waited ~76 hours (~3.16 days) to go to the homepage after the requested edits were done. Jack Lenor Larsen waited ~2 days. Both were articles I invested time into. So, the problem is not fully the rate of inflow, the problem is that we are not able to roughly synchronize the rate of outflow with rate of inflow. Ktin (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
To be strictly fair, Sugathakumaristill does not have all the edits I mentioned (the lead is woeful), and I checked Jack Lenor Larsen at least 3x before being satisfied that nothing important was solely sourced to the subject's highly promotional website. The best path to getting material posted is always to make the requested edits (if necessary cursing and rolling your eyes) and then someone will come along and post.
I long since gave up submitting RDs here, preferring just to work on the bios of the recently deceased quietly. In the end what matters is whether readers are served with full, accurate, balanced (non-promotional) information on the recently deceased (who often get huge numbers of hits whether or not they get onto ITN; look at the hits for Sugathakumari, for example), not whether editors go away feeling satisfied with the kudos afforded by getting an article on the main page. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, fair enough. I disagree that the lede is 'woeful'. There are other things that should induce woe here, but, the lede certainly is not that. But, in the grand scheme of things that is alright. In the spirit of festivus, let me continue -- My problem has always been that feedback needs to be specific. Feedback when specific makes it easier to incorporate; Else, we go nowhere. And, to be very clear -- my argument is never to lower the quality of homepage / RD articles. And, the someone will come along and post has not always worked well in a timely manner.
The page view uplift from WP:ITNRD is ~1000-3000 per day, which pales in significance compared to direct inbound page views (from GOOG etc.) e.g. Sugathakumari on the day following her death was ~90,000. But, I still feel it is worth investing the time and effort to keep the homepage a living breathing entity (no irony intended). Ktin (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Ktin: FWIW, it's not a requirement, but nobody marked those nominations as "Ready" either, which helps filter those needing attention.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, Agree. These two very particularly gnarly because of my back and forth with EA. Anyways, I think the more that we let time pass, it might be too late to restore Brodie Lee and Sugathakumari on the carousel. Maybe we call it a #miss and move on. Shame since Brodie Lee was a good article for sure and a lot of time investment had been made by me (and perhaps others too) on the other two articles. Ktin (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I had nothing to do with making Brodie Lee that damn good. I was just over the moon to see any wrestling bio finally win over a historically tough crowd of regular people (they like Kevin Greene, but not Pat Patterson and Zeus?). If I'd have had my work insulted to boot, I'd have blown up the moon; sorry for your losses. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The earlier discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_79#Recent_deaths_displayed_less_than_24_hours proposed formally allowing expanding the RD list, as needed temporarily to > 6, was not supported. It seemed the perception was that posting without ordering by death date would solve all issues. This shows that having items up < 24h is still possible. I dont have a problem allowing it. Some felt it was too much for admins.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, yup, I had called it out earlier. The variable to be optimized is the rate of outflow, because inflow can (and often times) be bursty. We need to ensure that we don't batch up the posts to homepage, and ensure that we work from the bottom of the stack. That's the only way we can attempt avoid this situation. Now, specifically to where we are, this is primarily because last night we had a whole batch going together to homepage / RD and articles were NOT posted from bottom of the stack. We can solve this by restoring Brodie Lee and Sugathakumari and ensuring we give each of them atleast 24 hours and during that period, go to the third line if needed. There is no dearth of space given the news blurb that has been freed up. Ktin (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The RD list is currently at 7. The two items in question had been up for at least 14 hrs, making me wary of IARing to expanding to 9. Discussion should continue on how the community wants to generally handle this.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, fair enough. Ktin (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I was away over Christmas and not editing for a number of days. I am aware of a number of pings to post RDs that I couldn't action. I suspect a major part of the issue here is the relatively small number of admins (both in general and those that are involved here). People are naturally doing other things over the holidays rather than posting ITNs and those that do log on may do so less frequently, resulting in "bursts" of RDs being posted which leads to this problem. Hopefully things will even out after the next week or so and posting will become smoother. More participation by editors and admins at ITN would, of course, be helpful but we are all only volunteers and doing what we can - Dumelow (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Dumelow, not an issue at all. Please do not be sorry for spending time off-wiki. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Ktin (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Going forward
Admins, please consider:
Always going from the bottom of the stack when posting
Avoiding a batched up promotion of articles to RD, instead focusing on more frequent promotions.
Put a clipper on the article falling of the carousel and if that article has not spent 24 hours, consider letting the article stay on the carousel; Real estate is never really a problem (this is a web page after all) and 3 lines is not terribly bad.
Always going from the bottom ...: Items can only be posted if they are ready. They are more likely to be noticed if they are marked "Ready". I don't know of (m)any cases where an item not marked "Ready" was posted while overlooking one that was marked.—Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, fair enough and I agree that we have not seen items marked ready being ignored. Ktin (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Avoiding a batched up promotion: Volunteers choose when they want to come here to look for items ready to post. If more than one is ready, the current system says to post them. I for one never schedule a set time of when I will be back. —Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, this will definitely be a problem in the new model. Batched promotions e.g. 4-5 will mean that one article (i.e. right-most) will be ready for an immediate roll off from the carousel whereas the other (i.e. the left-most) will stay for a significantly longer time. Ktin (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
the great conjunction
For an astronomical event such as the great conjunction, I, as a reader, would expect to be given the exact date, not just a statement that it happened. "The closest great conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn since 1623 occurs." feels incomplete; it's simply begging for "on 21 December 2020" to be added. 78.28.44.204 (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The related discussion was here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Is it over yet? – Sca (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
According to astromologers it isn't over till Jupiter's 8 or 10/360ths of a lap ahead which is at least 2 months from now (13 months of conjunction), even more wishy-washy astrologers say the fat lady doesn't sing till the last millisecond they're in the same sign which is almost 2022. Then it's a short wait to 2038 for more conjunction fun. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Best oppose
The best reason to oppose an RD nomination: [5] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Also a pretty cool to thing for a husband to hear (per a Fox News interview) while shooting a mourning for Inside Edition. Hope she's reported "not even sick" soon! Sheena and Midge are both great characters. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
How many days?
An editor has just closed all the remaining 25 Dec entries with the commment that they were now stale. Realistically, I doubt that anyone was planning on spending the first day of the new year in working on these, but I had planned to see whether the violinist could be salvaged. But the general point remains, how many days lag from the death/announcement date are we allowing? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I am assuming "stale" means that the oldest RD in the actual ITN box is more recent than those dates, hence being stale. A lot of RDs have happened in the last few days, so I could that being the case. --Masem (t) 04:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought with the new fill from the top system, that was no longer the case? The oldest news item is 21st, and the EU–UK deal is dated 24th, so I would have thought 25th would still be acceptable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, Espresso Addict -- Agree with Bagumba. Please can one of you undo those closures. In the new model of posting that we have gone onto -- an article goes stale only after 7 days. Ktin (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
That info page supplements Wikipedia:In the news#Procedure for posting which suggests that any death older that the oldest currently posted recent death is stale, even if its within the last 7 days - has this changed? DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh - I see the oldest isn't the one at the "top" or the "bottom" but rather Lorraine Monk from the 17th and in the middle of the list DannyS712 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
DannyS712, That's right -- this change happened little more than a week ago, I want to say. We are uncovering some gnarly teething issues as we go about this new way of posting, but, overall it still seems like a net positive. Ktin (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
This seems very problematic to me. We are already struggling with too many RD entries, and having to sometimes IAR extra entries because some haven't been live for 24 hours yet. I think, realistically, if people haven't actioned items within a certain time then they should be considered stale. Otherwise we're just piling to much on to the template. — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That "certain time" is currently 7 days. What would you propose changing it to?—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
4 days. Any more than that is increasingly unwieldy.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I had initially called this out as one of the implementation details that need to be thought through and had asked if a three day rolling window needs to be considered. But, that said, I was pleasantly surprised at the number of articles the community was working on improving within the 7 day window. That itself is a big WIN for the project. i.e. the number of articles being improved and brought up to homepage levels of hygiene. I would also recommend that someone with the ability, collects some data on the community gains (e.g. number of articles expanded) enabled by this effort. Back to the issue at hand it is not too complex. Worst case we spill over to a third line. If you think the third line is sacrosanct and must not be stepped into, consider going into a brief waitlist of some form. E.g. Article RD8 waits until RD1 falls off the carousel (minimum of 24 or 36 hours based on consensus here) to get onto carousel. No additional instrumentation is required for this. The enabling Admin just tags the post as "(Ready; Wait)" and when the carousel is ready to move again, picks from the bottom-most post that has either a "(Ready)" or a "(Ready; Wait)" tag. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I've not been involved in many of the discussions leading up to this point, including the original RFC on changing the rules for RDs. To be honest, I don't care that much either way, but as an admin I do want to know what's expected of me in terms of which items to take from the queue, and whether to drop them off when they get replaced on the carousel. At root we seem to have three variables at play, any two of which - but not all three - are within our control:
How many items to list at RD
How long to allow editors before we consider an item "stale"
How long an individual RD should remain on the main page.
Given that we can't control the rate at which nominations come in (but it is, by and large, reasonably constant), we have to choose which of the above levers to pull in order to attain the situation we desire. The problem is that we can't specify all three of them. If we specify any two of those variables, the third becomes out of our control. So I sense that people's preferred scenario is to have 6 RDs, with a 7-day window for noms, and at least 24 hours on the main page. But that just doesn't seem to fit, given the noms we have. So the big question is - which of the three things are we most willing to compromise? I probably have no opinion on that, but we have to pick one of them to be flexible on. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru for your question. At the end of the day, this is a queue management problem which is a tad complex, but, not something that can not be solved. In this queue, we will not have any control on the inflow rate, but, the outflow rate is totally under our control, and the volume of the service window is absolutely under our control. So, here's how I would solve this problem.
Agree on a duration that is acceptable for folks as a minimum period for an article on the homepage - let's say 24 hours. Though, I was unsuccessfully making a case for 36 hours (earlier).
Agree if going occasionally into line 3 is an acceptable action.
Using the above, we will come to an answer that we should solve for a max RD count of 8 or max RD count of 7. Let's assume 7 for this exercise.
Once that is done, it is a pure queue management problem. When we have more than 7 RDs, we pause the 8th one (call it RD8) until RD1 has spent 24 hours on the homepage. Mark it as a wait on the ITNC page so everyone knows that the posting Admin has that lined up.
As the posting Admin, start from the bottom of the page, post articles that have either a "(Ready)" or a "(Ready; Wait)" tag. If there is an article with a "(Ready)" tag but, there is no space on the carousel just as of yet, mark it as "(Ready, Wait)". The next Admin who comes along will come by and process it.
Hope this helps. Regards. Ktin (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Ktin - and in fact I did see your comment earlier, my point here was in a sense an attempt to define exactly what the issue is. The issue seems to be that, if I read the situation correctly, most editors here prefer to be completely flexible on the duration that a post is live - the highest number of !votes in the survey above is to have no defined minimum at all, not just to define it at 24 hours, 36 hours or even 12 hours. And there also doesn't seem to be appetite for baking in a provision for having more than six. So it seems like we're probably stuck with the status quo, unless you can do something to convince others. Regarding the proposal of having a "wait" flag, I think that would be a recipe for even more confusion unfortunately. And it would bring in the risk of an actual backlog forming, which might grow beyond our control. So I do think we have to stick with the system of posting things when they're ready, and just decide once and for all what to compromise on. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Jan 4 overflow In the just completed Jan 4 (GMT) cycle, 12 RDs were posted in one day.[6]—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks, Amakuru for a very clear statement of the current situation. I agree as an admin active here, there needs to be more clarity as to what the community expects; it's annoying to be criticised for posting & for waiting, for leaving a 7th up & for not leaving a 7th up &c&c. I'm in favour of leaving the total as usually six, with a discretionary up to seven if that fits on the template nicely (which depends on figure legend length, number of bullet points and the length of OTD, among other factors), where the 7th has received short shrift, in the admin's opinion. (My personal short shrift would be <12 or so hours.) I am enjoying the wider range of posted articles, but it is getting hard to keep up at all. Previously when I was active here I'd try to edit every bio within my sphere of interest, now there just isn't time. I'd suggest that we retain the rolling 7-day window, BUT only allow new RD suggestions to be posted for the first 5 days. That would mean new entries got enough scrutiny, both here and in new-page patrol. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: thanks for the reply, and this sounds very reasonable to me. What you say seems to match quite closely the status quo. For what it's worth, I agree with you that if we do ever go down the road of imposing a minimum posting time with a larger number of available slots, then 12 hours is more than enough, and nobody should particularly feel they are absolutely entitled to a full 24 hours. DYKs, which take a similar or longer time to prepare than an RD, very often only get 12 hours during a two-sets-per-day cycle. If, as Bagumba says, the average number of RDs per day is going to be 12, then it seems to follow that around 12 hours is about what each one will get in a six-slot RD list. — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I was thinking of DYKs too; they used to get 8 hours (3 sets per day) in my "youth" here. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru: The 12 RDs is probably the peak (or close to it). It's not the norm.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I tried following this proposal, honestly. But there was too much math, too many questions, even math questions. Good luck with whatever's happening next, community, I recuse myself from the gallery. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Proposal: Allowing RDs to stay on the carousel for at least 36 hours.
Folks, apologies for interrupting your holidays with this proposal. But, given the previous discussion, I want to float this proposal.
Proposal:
Allow the last RD falling off the carousel to stay on for at least 36 hours (duration up for debate per below) before rolling off the carousel. This will mean that we will go over the 6-7 count for number of articles on the RD carousel, and we might also go over occasionally into the third line. As discussed in the previous post, going into the third line is not a terribly bad thing, particularly because we almost always have white space / space balancing issues. Ktin (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: There is a concern below that the RD carousel will be flooded. That is not true based on the data from the last two months. The average number of RDs promoted to homepage in a calendar day (rate of outflow) is 2.91 Details here User:Ktin/sandbox/RD_Math. Even if the rate is doubled for whatever reason, you will not have a deluge on the carousel. This data should make this choice a pretty simple one. Ktin (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Please mark your responses below.
Support
Support at least 24 hours. It would be easier if we didn't have to keep track of the exact time that a link was posted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your signature here
Support (but, a different duration) e.g. 24 hours, 48 hours.
Support at least 24 hours. At minimum. Brodie Lee didn't even hit 12 hours. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Support 7th item to increase likelihood that items can stay up for min 24h. This already happens often via IAR. Rarely, 8+ items appear or items up < 24h due to severe backlog (extreme IAR). Straw votes like these typically preclude a wider discussion, such as how much more space (if any) RD might reasonably allocate on the MP.—Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Support 24 hours. It is troubling how some RDs only stay on there for a few hours. ~Destroyer🌀🌀 20:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Support at least 24 hours. People spends time and effort to improve the RD articles, and it is a shame that they don't stay longer in the main page, after all these articles are open doors to new readers/editors. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Your signature here along with recommended duration
Oppose
There are currently 31 RD candidates, with 11 on one particular day. The RD section on ITN would blow out if a proportion of those were raised in quality, and we had to keep them for a set period. Stephen 22:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes this is just going to happen. There's not a huge amount we can do about it. I would suggest, though, (and I will start doing this now) that if an admin is posting multiple RDs in one "hit", that they're added from the oldest first. This may help alleviate a recent RD being overtaken by a number of older nominations that have been improved. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite: RDs will be "overtaken by a number of older nominations" because of the nature of the new posting procedures. The death date is no longer accounted for in a post's sequential ordering. If the date is really important, then we switched to the wrong procedure. At the end of the day, if N noms are ready, N old RD items will eventually be displaced on the MP, regardless of the timing of its posting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Per Stephen and my comment below. Talking about average flow rate is all very well, but 11 deaths on one day can't be handled, and there is likely to be an above-average rate of death until at least spring. The increased eligibility window is resulting in an increased success rate, which is feature not a bug. We could perhaps improve the admin instructions, which don't really codify what happens in practice per local consensus. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - posting more RDs means less time in the spotlight for each. That's a tradeoff I believe most of us are willing to make. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
We already WP:IAR and extend the list to 7 when an article gets too less time, I would support a provision to increase that to 8, but nothing beyond that. --qedk (t愛c) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's codify that, to help editors/admins understand this unwritten protocol — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
About 6-7 RDs seems about right when we consider users of small resolutions, phones etc. Admin discretion is already used to increase to 7 when appropriate. Most items seem to be getting around 24 hours at the moment which I find acceptable - Dumelow (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Having 6-7 RDs also imposes a quality metric. I've seen too many RD's where they were "well-sourced" but only because they were small/recently created and thus easy to upgrade. We have a hard time putting up truly notable people because if article was written a few years back, some sources were inevitably done more poorly. Albertaont (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Albertaont: Limiting the list size does not change/improve a post's quality. The size affects how long an item will remain posted. It does not change whether an item gets posted or not. —Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm unbothered by the short main page posting, or indeed not making the main page at all if the article isn't updated in sufficient time. --Jayron32 13:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't find thinking of RD as a "carousel" particularly helpful. The important thing is getting a quality article posted, not how long it stays up. I would encourage admins to start at the bottom of ITN/C and work up to catch older noms, but that's it.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Editors can also help by marking them as ready. Otherwise, my guess is posters otherwise might naturally work from the top or target a recent death that they have an interest in.—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Quit treating this like a sausage factory and quit acting like you're obligated to indulge obvious hat collectors and you might not have these problems. Ever since this RFC that I'm certain most of the community knew nothing about, there's been a cult-like mentality about "article quality". I'm tired of pointing out that the concept of article quality as practiced here has been proven time and time again to be purely superficial. You really think the readership lacks discernment? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments
Just from the point of view of practicality, it's really hard to work out quickly how long things have been up. The summary I made above took me at least half an hour of offline cutting and pasting into a text file to work out the history. Admin discretion has always been the rule, and if that were to be changed, I fear it might make the problem worse, not better, as it would make it far more difficult to update. On the specific proposal, 36 hours is clearly impossible. 24 hours is the current norm, where I understand admin discretion to operate. I would not be in favour of altering that. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I think 24 hours is fair, if we can write it down rather than leave to discretion. Regarding practicality on figuring out how long an RD has been up, it is simple it can be viewed here. Alternately, the comment tag that was earlier used for date of death, which is no longer used, can be repurposed. But, I think the history feature should work just fine. Thanks for the consideration. Ktin (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Stephen: Thanks for your vote above. But, you are conflating the inflow rate with the outflow rate. 11 RD submissions on a particular day is the inflow rate; Apply a 60% conversion rate (i.e. % of RD nominations that pass the bar and are promoted) and you are left with ~6-7 RDs for promotions which is right in the wheelhouse that we are looking at. So, definitely not a deluge. Easily implementable. Ktin (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Update -- furthermore data from the last two months indicates that the average daily rate of promotions of RDs to homepage is 2.91. Details here User:Ktin/sandbox/RD_Math. This is the outflow rate that you need to optimize for. I see no reason why the carousel will expand to unmanageable levels if you afford a 24 or even 36 hour leeway. Based on this data and allowing for a 1.6 to 1.8x spike, you should be good to go up to 48 hours. Ktin (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your average promotion rate is largely under the old system, Ktin. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Espresso Addict, ofcourse. Hence, the allowance factor of 1.8x (which could either be absorbed by the spike allowance or flow into the third line). Will not flow beyond the third line even if you go for a 48 hour window. Ktin (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I see that you have updated your vote to an oppose, that is perfectly fine, and it is your prerogative. But, allow me to correct your understanding / math. Queuing systems are never designed to averages. You should build queueing systems to a handle a fraction of the spikes. So, it is not uncommon to measure a deviation threshold and then design to a fraction e.g. 80% of 2x spikes. In this case that would be 1.8x. Furthermore, you are again conflating inflow to outflow when you talk about 11 RDs a day. 11 RDs per day is the inflow rate (and a spiked one at that). Theoretically assuming that you match that rate for outflow, which you will not because of conversion rates not being 100%, you will still be alright. Ktin (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I think there would be more clarity if the proposal specified a minimum amount of time on the MP (e.g. 24h) and a maximum RD item count (e.g 9). Otherwise, !voters' queue models will vary.—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
14 hours for Brodie Lee is no tragedy; we've had people up for 15 minutes in the past. I do agree there is some minimum (between 15 minutes and 14 hours) where we should reconsider our practices. If we start routinely rolling people off after 6 hours, we should expand the section. Bear in mind that a) we are nowhere near that, and b) it would be a great success for the project that we are improving so many articles. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, not challenging your viewpoint, but, let me ask you a question -- what is the scarce resource that we are optimizing the consumption of that we do not want to afford a time minimum? The scarce resource being some whitespace on a computer screen? Ktin (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Why are you posting this sarcastic, off-topic, rhetorical question to me? I made no such argument. Established consensus is that the 6-7 is aesthetically correct, and we defer to established consensus. Before we compromise on those aesthetics to solve the problem you present, we must first reach consensus that a problem exists. I believe that one RD being removed after 14 hours is not a problem. I believe that every RD being removed after 14 hours is not a problem. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, Greetings and pardon me if you believed my question had intonations of sarcasm. The question was not off topic, and definitely not rhetorical. So, today, we do not exceed the 6-7 count for RDs on the carousel because they spill over into three lines. This is specifically on mobile phones, and is not really a problem on Desktops where we almost always have half of the second line empty / whitespace. The intent of this whole proposal was to get that leeway to retain articles on for a longer period of time at the cost of consuming that available whitespace. But, anyway, I do not think this proposal is going to make it / yield change. Disappointing. But, I guess, it is what it is. Good day. And, again, I do not intend to challenge your opinions. Regards. Ktin (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
"If an editor has concerns about the overall recurring event, such discussions should not take place on WP:ITN/C when one instance of an event is nominated. Instead, discussions on proposed inclusions and removals on the recurring items list should take place on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items." as seen on WP:ITN#Sports and other recurring events has to be changed. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Tide rolls, Rolltide pisco, I assume y'all gonna get this on the front page tomorrow. I'd do it if I could catch a ride with AuburnPilot. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Kiril made the point that this event has been nominated every time over the past 10 years, and each time it has failed. Similar to how we have WP:ITN/R for recurring items, I wonder if we should also have a "no-go" list where certain items can just get SNOW closed upon nomination because a firm and relatively (insomuch as WP:CCC allows) unalterable consensus exists not to post these items.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If it's posted this year, it can be considered for ITN/R. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
We've screwed up before. See also Carrie Fisher.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, we used to post annually the biggest event in hurling. There isn't even an anime about hurling. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Give it time. I'm pretty sure there's a snooker anime.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there even a cricket anime? That's supposedly the #2 sport on Earth. How many cricket ITNRs do we have? Not all of those are "top-level competitions", isn't it? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Big Van Vader was literally American football and Japanese comics combined, before featuring in countless PAL region computer games, and yet world championship wrestling still regularly isn't considered a legit recurring sport. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, gotta come vote on the item if you want to see it posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I vote to support this, obviously, as a completely disinterested and neutral editor. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, what a strange affair. There's no-votes from people who seem to think that this is a couple of amateur hobby teams playing some local thing. And on today's ITN is the news from the Georgia election--which was days ago already. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, some of the ITN/C commenters just don't understand American football. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu, it's probably two things. First, football is just a weird and stupid sport that you have to work on to understand and love. It makes less sense than rugby. Second, it's the amateur thing (and you see that in there), or the college thing. For many Europeans the thought that a university would do sports, and that it would be important, is just inconceivable. For sports, we have clubs. Well, the Rambling Man does university rowing, but I think that's about it. Haha, so imagine me being dropped in the middle of Tuscaloosa at the beginning of the fall semester! Yeah, I have no doubt you're right--but then again, the media coverage alone should be convincing enough. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
ITN/R Proposal: Formula E
A very simple one. Formula E, may be considered as the electrical version of the Formula One, is officially at the world championship status now. Six seasons have been finished, with viewership estimated over 400 million; believe it is time to add this one. Unnamelessness (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen it posted as far as I can recall under the regular ITNC process; that's usually considered an informal prerequisite. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it wasn't posted because it wasn't ITN/R. Logical circle. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly getting more popular, but I've not seen as much coverage in mainstream media as the other motorsport events we already list on ITNR. It's also unclear whether this would pass ITN/C. I suggest you nominate it at the end of the next season to see how it fares. For now, it would be premature to put it on ITNR. Modest Geniustalk 11:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose can't even recall it being nominated at ITNC let alone get consensus for posting. Let's see a year or two of it getting on the main page before we consider an INTR listing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Inauguration
Not historic? This is the beginning of detrumpification, which will be the No. 1 story in the English-speaking world for a while. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's safe to say that the fact that Biden will labor to effectively reverse all of his predecessor's acts is an assumed fait accompli, and really not worth the act of quantifying.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This. It is a vastly well covered event, but one everyone on the planet knew was coming, and certainly not something we need to highlight. This is where we are "not a news ticker" coming into play. --Masem (t) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
ITN readers will wonder.... – Sca (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I oddly wouldn't mind this as a blurb this time. The "new President sworn in" aspect is routine. The "worst President in modern American history, perhaps ever, no longer has a job" part of it is pretty historic. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Just remember this when we don't post Charles' coronation once Liz kicks the bucket. -- Calidum 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
That's going to have three blurbs -- one for the death, one for the funeral, and one for the coronation.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
More likely, post the death, the funeral proceedings would likely fall to ongoing if the ceremonies around it were anything like Thatchers. (week+ long event) --Masem (t) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ol' Queenie would get more than a week. Anything less than that would be faltering to republican grievances.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Occupy all those bits outside England and that happens. technically even the west is occupied right? From Celts.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No burial? Fun fact: If she makes it to 120 the technological singularity could happen and after that no one knows. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In general , we have to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. we are not here to serve people that are coming to WP to look for breaking news because that is 100% not our function, and while pageviews may belie that for the more popular events, we can't let that distract our main purpose. --Masem (t) 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The inaug. leads French, German and Russian ITNs, w/pix. – Sca (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
the different language wikis have different policies so this is a non-starter argument. --Masem (t) 00:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, what could Wikipedians possibly know in mere non-English-speaking countries? – Sca (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Why can't we have a policy of mild systemic bias? The non-systemic bias parts of the world can be ~77% of the stories instead of ~85% Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
There's a precedent not to post inaugurations, and this has been discussed for other countries with a similar system, too. And as much as the beginning of the end of Trumpism is something to call news, I can't see how we make it into a neutral blurb. Of course, if we want to, VP Harris as first X, Y, Z, might get past ITNC. Glass ceiling and all that. Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The formal ascension of a new head of state, and of government, of a major country is news, regardless of that person's political affiliation or views. – Sca (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Whilst I understand why this wasn't posted, it does seem somewhat anti-intuitive that the impeachment blurb is still up there with (seemingly) no mention of the bigger story. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe we ought to pull that blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 00:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem as it turns out, the LauncherOne blurb kicked it out. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe little rocketmen prefer the term "ejected". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I learned from the Apollo in Real Time website that the phrase "kick it" was used by astronauts and flight controllers as lingo to push the Apollo 13 spacecraft out of a free return trajectory and into an accelerated return to the Earth re-entry corridor. Good stuff! --WaltCip-(talk) 14:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Include I disagree with leaving it out. It not only happens every four to eight years (an astronomical times-scale in terms of news), but the transfer of power in the US has tremendous ramifications for the entire world. In addition, we just added two new presidential swearing-ins, so apart from "people already know", I see no point in not featuring this gargantuan event. Additionally, the article for it is something people will definitely be looking for, especially people from other countries trying to learn more about US politics. Let's please include it. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Biden's election was posted on ITN in November; there is no need to post an ITN item for his inauguration as well. Chrisclear (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This actually isn't the place to be doing this.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Include ages in RDs?
Seems to me this could get across the main point of what we blurb about some people, but for everyone, and using less space. Pipe it like Larry King (87), Brodie Lee (41), etc. A picture for some RDs is totally feasible, if a mob insists on elevating a roughly consensual favourite now and then. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Your passion on this topic is really quite breathtaking. WaltCip-(talk) 21:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
First time I suggested it, but thanks, I try. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I oppose this interesting idea but it seems superfluous to me. The article would provide the age information. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The point would be that the main page provides it, at a glance, no more or less already-inside than the links in the relatively verbose blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
My first thought is whether there would be any confusion if there was a mix of people with ages and people without (e.g. if their age is unknown)? There are also a small number of people for whom their age is a matter of controversy or dispute, and larger number of people whose age we know only to the year. We would need to decide how to handle these cases. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
If someone's age is unknown, their biography would seem to need improvement, and article quality should still decide whether they show up at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Good morning, and good point to you. But consider how these folks don't have obituaries yet. Obituaries are great for disclosing ages at death (I count only 17 ageless humans at Deaths in 2021, and one Happy Man Tree with a ballpark figure). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose good faith, but unnecessary. The recent spate of death blurbs are a separate issue. Regarding RDs, it would use up characters in a space where every character counts. I empathize with the OP, but think this isn't the right approach. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your empathy, LP, do as thou wilt and to all a good night! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment. I forget who it was, but, someone here had suggested a German Wikipedia style box Kürzlich Verstorbene with name, age, and a short description. E.g. John Doe (83) - German author. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, but their main page is somewhat different from ours --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
ITN/R: College Football Playoff National Championship (NCAA)
I think we've had this event nominated often enough that we ought to bring it to a formal discussion as to whether or not it qualifies for ITN/R. For those who weren't in the loop, this event was nominated in 2020 and successfully posted. Then it was nominated this year, 2021, and came to a "no consensus" decision. Rather than go through the same arguments every year, I think it's time to settle whether or not this event truly qualifies for continued posting on ITN.
Some key points of interest about the CFP: This is a nationally broadcast and televised game between universities participating in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision. Teams from leading universities in the U.S. compete against each other after a series of games played throughout the regular season and the subsequent College Football Playoff. The event is broadcast via ESPN and this year received 7 million viewers (compared to 25 million last year) - no doubt the dip was a result of COVID-19 and its impact on sports. Although putatively considered an amateur sport, players who are successful in NCAA football tend to "move up" to the professional equivalent of the sport, the National Football League via the NFL Draft. There have also been ongoing discussions as to whether player-athletes should be paid due to the tremendous amount of financial gain the sport brings to the university and to the staff (college football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for universities making up the Power 5 per Fortune.com).
This is an annually reoccurring event. Not even COVID-19 prevented this sporting event from taking place. If ITN/C intends to start taking this event seriously, then it needs to be ITN/R - plain and simple.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Neutral as nom.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Support Viewership down to 19 million this COVID year from usual average of ~25 million. Still usually the most watched non-NFL sporting event in the U.S.(Yahoo.com) That's a lot of potential English readers that this affects.—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose the mere fact it gets discussed so much and barely gets posted should tell you something. I also think this shouldn't have been opened based on it being proposed last year, not getting added, and the ITNC nom not being posted this year. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, it tells me that Euros don't understand the game or its importance in the U.S. and have used faulty logic to oppose it year after year. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Or perhaps people from around the world are taking the importance in (not all of) the U.S. on good faith but are still not seeing it as newsworthy enough based on more measurable metrics. Of course, in any other ITN/C nom for a blurb about something specialist, a simple oppose saying "I understand it's really important in its field but I'm not seeing wider significance" would be accepted, so why is there an annual insistence from a small group that in the case of college football such logic should be disallowed? Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The sports of ~40% of our readers isn't that niche. When I click non-English Wikipedias I seem to see a compromise between systemic biaslessness and systemic bias, I'm not sure why that's so bad. Americans are only 4.3% of the world's population but roughly 40% of readers, is it that bad to aim for 10% of that systemic bias so that 7.87% of the topics are American? And the same thing with all other countries with more reader share than share of the people of Earth. If readers were all thought experimentally in the same native Anglophoneland the number of systemic bias topics the non-bias countries would only decrease from c. 90% to c. 81%(10% of the way from 90% to 0) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
While I love meaningless percentages in nonsensical sentences, please stop. Kingsif (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Why do we keep having the exact same discussion? Are you expecting a different outcome to the failed nomination from less than a week ago? This is not the top level of American football in any sense (that's the Super Bowl). It's an amateur sporting event only open to students at certain universities. Teams in the final are selected by a subjective committee not on-field performance. ITN should not be posting any student sporting events; I have consistently !voted against all of them (including NCAA basketball and the Boat Race). Let's stop having the same argument multiple times a year. The only time we should be posting amateur events is if there's a highly popular sport with no professional competition. Modest Geniustalk 18:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Modest Genius, (1) if it's not "top level", should all sports be reduced to one item a year? (2) There are amateur events on ITN/R, and the best college programs get the best players and the best records, hence get into the playoff. It makes no sense to be against amateur events that are newsworthy for the sake of being against amateur events. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Not necessarily one event, no. But for each sport if we're featuring n events they should be the top n events in that sport. I don't think American football is popular enough worldwide to merit two blurbs a year. Modest Geniustalk 11:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Bullshit, the semifinalists are chosen by committee, based on on-field performance as much as is possible for a system where there's ≥130 teams in the top league and up to ~70 relevant ones and only 12-14 games a year and over half of them are outside their own league of 12-14 or so to reduce travel time on this country the size of Lisbon to almost Siberia. There's only 5 major "leagues" (Power 5) of c. 12 each and a few other teams who are skilled enough to join but don't for tradition and if there isn't a quintuple tie for best win percentage in the 5 "major leagues" then getting the best win percentage on-field will likely guarantee a mini-tournament spot. When the committee thing started teams tried to play the strongest opponents they could get and tried hard to dominate after victory was assured instead of substituting substitutes for stars. They do this so committee members don't have to try to guess things like how much more their team would've dominated team X if they didn't substitute everyone after victory was assured (there's no substitute limit like soccer). The unfairness of not having a bigger tournament is not much different from the unfairness of the top handegg league where one half-league is much more successful this year but doesn't get more tournament spots or all American sports since they play c. 15 of 30-32 teams and especially 3 or 4 specific teams more often and some of those sets are groups of death or baseball where the Yankees used to clobber the other 7 teams but the other half-league had a much easier time being "selected" cause they didn't have to win the group of death or college basketball where there's like 32 leagues and the c. 36 non-winners including most good teams get in by committee. But those are all ITNR anyway. To reduce travel cost and cover the whole Lisbon-to-Kazakh sized country we just don't have that play every team same number of times home-and-away thing you have in Europe. Also handegg players can only play once a week and 16 or so weeks in a row or there'd be so many injuries, there just isn't 260 weeks in a year plus the occasional week off they get to play each team from the continent once home and away. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a lot of words to confirm my assertion that a subjective committee choses which participants advance. I apologise for neglecting that that happens at the semifinal stage rather than the final. The point still stands, and none of the rest of your meandering comment has any bearing on my !vote. Modest Geniustalk 11:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the current methodology for selecting teams for the playoffs is any more arbitrary than the now-defunct BCS system which, run by computer algorithms, spat out some really questionable pairings wrt. the teams eligible to compete for the national championship.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Why are you judging the selection system by European standards? It's not as unscientific as you make it out to be. Everyone knows Alabama is the best team of this era and lo and behold they won half the last dozen championships. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose in addition to the above that this is not the top level of gridiron football nor professional, there is now serious concerns that this is exploitive of the participating students (see National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston a pending SCOTUS case). We should be sticking only to professional sports unless the event is the top tier for that specific sport and lacks a professional event. --Masem (t) 18:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Masem, there are amateur sporting events on ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Support It is one of the two major American football games of the year, and having two ITN/R items would be quite appropriate given the significance of the sport. All arguments about excluding it for being "amateur" have been debunked as irrelevant, and contradictory to the NCAA basketball championship and The Boat Race being ITN/R. It has great significance as demonstrated by TV viewership (all sporting events have had drops in viewership in the pandemic) and news coverage. It gets international coverage too. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
We should resolve the contradiction by removing NCAA basketball and the Boat Race, not by adding more amateur student sports. Modest Geniustalk 12:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose There's no excuse for losing that many television viewers during stay-at-home season except good old-fashioned decreasing popularity. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If championship sports is a dying genre, that's even less reason to start adding new games to our schedule. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
A likely story. I stopped paying for MMA years ago. But I remain unimpressed by the numbers we can see. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Support There's room for two American football stories a year, I don't think the fact is it is amateur is a concern. It generates a large amount of interest and coverage every year. P-K3 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Support I don't understand the opposition's rationale. It shouldn't be posted because it's never posted? It shouldn't be posted because it's talked about it every year? College football was started in 1869, predating the Super Bowl by almost a century. To say that college football and it's championship have little cultural relevance is absurd. Do other countries across the world participate in collegiate football? No, but it doesn't matter: "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. From what I can tell, all of those who oppose up until now are not American, so they seemingly lack the understanding of the massive amount of American cultural significance that this game and NCAA Division I football have. Nihlus 02:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Trump tried to boost election votes by bringing back football and Obama by supporting a playoff and one of the greatest presidents (Teddy) by brokering a committee to stop the frequent deaths on field and Kennedy used college handegg as an important metaphor in that famous why we're trying to put a man on the Moon speech, now that's cultural significance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Did anybody in Washington mention this bowl? Either this year or in general? I just read/wrote how the district doesn't have an FBS program. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Maryland's University football team is apparently really f*cking close, you could probably walk to DC from there in like an hour. A few states don't have FBS teams, even with more population than the District of Columbia (another name for USA's capital, I do not know if anyone on this thread doesn't know). Washington DC only has 0.2% of the US population, it didn't have a baseball team for last half of 20th century, or skyscrapers (banned) or even an Ivy League school and old subway like a "real" Northeast city, and it's 15% the acres and 8% the people of New York, it's both the most important city in the world and not that important at the same time. It had no hockey team till long after other northeast US cities, that's how Canadians know it's not important. Maybe there's too many Washingtonians who didn't grow up there too, this is why Florida teams don't make as much money per capita, too few fans. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a great response to my formerly deleted comment, but it doesn't answer either of the relatively important questions I tried to withdraw. Did these Alabama heavyweight champions get the ol' attaboy from any federal hotshot this year? Tweet, secure landline conference, skywriting, elbow bump, anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
U.S. sports interest was never much driven by the fandom or affirmation of federal politicians, even before COVID and Capitol riots. Not to be confused with the outgoing president's tweets about Black athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to take that as a "no" from both of you. You know who isn't talked about enough lately? The big cat, Ernie Ladd. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that politicians aren't a major cause of people liking sports it's free relatively unpolarizing publicity to congratulate the college football champions every year. The President traditionally invites the college football champions over to a fancy dinner at the White House, Obama got along with them, the current President fed them hamburgers cause he didn't like their support of the NFL guy who knelt instead of traditional national anthem behavior or something like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Tell whoever's president when or if it ever happens again to not call Nick SabanLou Saban. The old chief made that mistake in July and was never linked to the team in Google News results again. Sad. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
He probably stopped inviting teams he didn't like after people made fun of the hamburgers, this was 2 years ago when Alabama lost to Clemson.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Has Clemson beat Alabama since choking down that disgusting common trash? If not, is there perhaps a simpler explanation than poison? Back in high school, my hockey team was supposed to lose to a Russian team that conveniently came down with a sudden case of the spozdaz. Not saying we got the Chechen team to invade their pre-victory banquet with bad mayo or anything. We just proved the bookies wrong the honest way, by scoring (two) more goals in an hour! Wish I could say I helped with one, but I was never a hometown hero. Those bastard fans should've paid more attention to the goals the other team didn't score, though. Who do you think freaked those meddlesome teens out? Exactly... InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The Clemson Tigers are South Carolinians, Clemson only sounds Texan. There's a Florida team 1 league below FBS called Stetson which sounds even more Texan. They're the Hatters, which is better than South Carolina who are Gamecocks. The Gamecocks are doing a lot of man-on-man today and the Gamecocks are creaming the Tar Heels are 2 of the infinitely many funny things you could hear on South Carolinian radio if they didn't talk carefully. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that answers my edit summary. Puntastic! I guess I'll uncover the reasons for the Tigers' shocking decline in 2020 on my own. If I mysteriously vanish, suspect poachers. But not the sort you'd expect! It was the Buckeye, in the Sugar Bowl, with the 17-yard pass. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Heard it through the grapevine that the Tigers beat the Tigers before the last big game, which got me thinking. If American football is a manly man's sport, why are so many teams proud cats and birds? Where are the dogs, the gorillas, the stallions? The argonauts, the rough riders, the other rough riders? Not saying all birds preen and all cats are pussies, but as a rule, it is what it is. Baffling! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
College football has the opposite problem actually, where bird logos of the past weren't enraged (the Pittsburgh Penguin wasn't (especially the excessively cute 90s logo) and that's a manly sport) but recently they twist their faces into un-birdlike angry shapes which remind me of dogs going grrrr! (American sports animals in general are becoming aggressive or more aggressive, check out the minor league Fighting Artichoke that looks like a vegetable in need of an exorcist, I actually like that one) Tigers are poor examples of cute meow meows as they are 2 to 4 meters long depending on sex and individual, bite necks and weigh up to 680 pounds. Georgia and Yale are bulldogs, I haven't heard of gorillas (probably because that would be racist), Boise State are a team of broncos (wild or semi-"broken" horses). No major non-Canadian Argonauts or Rough Riders I think but Wyoming Cowboys' 85-year old logo is , the near-identical silhouette that state's government chose for their millions of US$ quarter loonies is cooler. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Good points, thanks! I vaguely recall a sportsbird that flexes its bicep while grrring, hard to suspend disbelief on that. Certainly no bird or cat is all that pretty when it's tearing its prey to pieces, but for blunt force tackling, even a bald eagle is more likely to break against a window than vice versa. I guess you're right about gorillas; it would need to be a team without black players, and that's even more racist. Wyoming has always struck me as a ballsy state, glad to not see a bucking budgie there (not that there's anything generally wrong with budgies). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Support, we have 4 major sports and if the secondmost watched championship (2 is less than Primier League+Ashes+Boat Race I note) isn't posted then that is ridiculous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This sentence literally makes no sense. Kingsif (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
There are 4 top pro sports leagues and (besides the Super Bowl) their championship finals average less viewers than the college football final. Sure if the New York Yankees play Los Angeles in exciting baseball final they'll probably beat college football that year but decade-scale average they seem to be number 2. So if those finals are ITNR then why should another final with more viewers than them never get posted? There's not that many of them, only one or two I think (amateur sports!) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Still not making sense. I don't even know what your vague argument is trying to be. That in your opinion college football is bigger than all baseball except those two teams? What even is the relevance of that? Kingsif (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm saying that to make sure no one says "Aha! I checked 20XX AD and college football ratings weren't 2nd highest that year, you lied!". Television ratings will vary from year to year due to multiple factors including city population. My argument is that ITNR includes all 4 major pro US sports finals and college basketball (and pro soccer?) and it'd only be 1 more event a year to let college football in cause it gets more viewers than most of the US sports events that are ITNR. 3 US golf majors are on there, 4 tennis majors from various countries, Canadian football, Irish football, Aussie football, snooker, darts, 2 rugby league events a year.. so many events yet you can't spare one more. For the record I don't mind the ones obscure to me being posted cause being ITNR means some part of Earth must care. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. ITN/R is only for events where there is a clear consensus that it should always be posted, that it has been posted only once in the past 5 or so nominations shows that this consensus does not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Boat Race klaxon. These are not really comparable. BR has been on the go since the early 1800s and gains a wide international television viewership and hundreds of thousands of live spectators. It would be better to stop trying to lump the BR and this event into the same box. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hundreds of thousands view marathons in person too, because the route is 277,000 feet of streetfront and anyone at a window or kerb can see for free. The largest crowd of any sport that's not a race or horse jumping etc at Badminton House or golf with stadium seating or that communist stadium with field 9 times the hectares of soccer was 199,854 in 1950 World Cup, Boat Race crowd to any kind of football is apples to oranges comparison. Age isn't a huge difference actually, the Boat Race is 191.5 years old, the first (retroactive) college football championship is 151 years old and the U.S. Boat Race is 168.5 years old, it just has far less percent of the country or Earth who care. Age is apparently importance by definition in Britain since your billions of ex-colonists rarely beat you in that (imagine if someone claimed 130 teams competing or the continental scale beats Boat Race (or even the superior skyscrapers of the countries involved)). So the national tournament where the most lubricated possible men wrestle in nothing but oil-saturated black lederhosen-y shorts while their slippery opponent tries to squirm out of a pin is 675 years old, no one can beat that. You were the planetary superpower in the Pax Britannica, of course you're going to beat a U.S. which was a more land-oriented backwater with less people till ~1850 and less GDP-per-person till the 20th century. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Close this discussion. An ITN/R item has to be posted in the latest consecutive times it occurred. This hasn't happened for this item. Maybe in two years? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Why close it? Shouldn't we at least come to a solid consensus as to whether or not this item merits further posting? This is an annually recurring sporting event. It seems like a waste of time to mince the same arguments every year when we can decide right here and right now if it should ever be ITN/R. College football has been around for over a century, and despite the musings of some of the above commenters, it's not going to get any more or less popular.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't merit further posting. It hasn't been posted recurringly (is that even a word). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Support meets any objective criteria necessary for ITN/R sporting events other than "I don't know about it, so it can't be that important" or "it isn't important to me, so it should not be important to anyone else". --Jayron32 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Or "the committee is very unlike my zone's postseason, so secondmost watched league final in ~half the readers' zone isn't important" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. We don't post the second-most important domestic event in a given sport (which I'm assuming this is). For example the FA Cup final in England, a highly-watched and sought-after trophy which is probably on a par with college football in national significance. In fact, for some sports we don't even post the most important, e.g. Serie A, one of Europe's top leagues. The fact that many of the players are amateurs who will never make the grade in the NFL only adds to the sense that this is not momentous enough to create a regular carve-out. There might be arguments for it in a specific year due to special circumstances, but this should not be an automatic shoo-in. — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Why not add Serie A? It would cause too many percent of the section to be football for awhile? If Italy isn't last couldn't it be posted then removed when there's too much football? They're only amateurs cause the colleges want a fig leaf over the fact that the top teams are second-level professionals who will make a living from football (they will have no problem getting a job as a high school coach at worst) and they only have to be unpaid and complete a fifth or sixth of a degree a year cause reasons (like being much older than pro football and desire to not be bad influence on those child athletes who happen to have low to average IQ as some of them don't realize how much they'd have to crush peers to be "coast through life on sports"-material, I've seen non-"mental challenged sounding" adults with great difficulty reading cause they neglected school, and they spent their whole life in America) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
So it's the college football of English soccer?Fair enough. Don't you also have a thing where anyone (even the weakest 11 drinking buddies) can guarantee one of the excessively numerous English championships "just by" winning a tournament of everyone? That sounds pretty cool actually, we don't have tournaments of everyone in North America. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
No, the Championship is fully professional, as are the next two leagues down, but more people watch the Championship than Serie A. Probably because Serie A (and most European leagues) are dominated by two or three clubs and are a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's far from amateur but still like college football in that it's the second level. And I've guessed that's why those are the three ITNR too, Juventus, Roma and AC Milan are the dominant ones right? Isn't Spain dominated by 2 teams? Is Germany more balanced? Why is England (and Germany?) not dominated by a few teams? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The Bundesliga is dominated by Bayern Munich (8-time defending champs), but the also-rans there can give other contending teams from the "Big 5" European leagues a run for their money. (Example: In the 2019–20 UEFA Champions League, both Bayern and RB Leipzig made it to the semifinals. The other semifinalists were from France and Bayern's final opponent, Paris Saint-Germain, have won 7 of the last 8 French titles.)
Don't let the cumulative statistics fool you. The EFL Championship had higher total attendance because it had more teams (24) and therefore more games (552) than the Bundesliga (18 teams and 306 games) and La Liga (20 teams and 380 games). The latter two had higher average attendance (In 2018-19, EFL Championship had 20,181, La Liga had 26,811.) That article only covers pro sports. The Southeastern Conference's 2019 (American) football season had an average attendance of 72,735, and that was down(!) from previous season. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose given that there was no consensus to post this year, it shouldn’t get a free run for next year. Stephen 05:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That seems like circular reasoning. If, during the course of this discussion, consensus had developed to put this into ITN/R, then whatever the outcome of this year's ITN/C nom was ought to have been superfluous. Still, it looks like we are in the same place as before in which this will close as a "no consensus".--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Not circular at all - ITN/R is only for events with a consensus they are always notable. A prerequisite of this is (ideally multiple) successful nominations at ITN/C. The event did not get consensus at ITN/C so it fails the most basic requirement and this entire discussion is a waste of time. Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
While that might be a best practice in theory, I see no indication on the WP:ITN/R page that even one successful nomination is required to nominate for ITN/R. I nominated this with the hopes of getting all the facts regarding this recurring event front and center, so that we aren't judging on a limited subset of information. I think Sagittarian Milky Way has also done a decent job of explaining the metrics of this event and of the sport surrounding it.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:ITN/R explicitly says Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. but there is not and has never been a consensus that this event is as important as it's supporters think it is. This is not due to a lack of understanding of the event, that's been explained many times in many ways, it's just that the explanations and arguments have failed to convince those not firmly inside the bubble of American sports. Unless and until there is some fundamental change in the significance of the event and/or ITN(/R) policies this is never going to be suitable for ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
...have failed to convince those not firmly inside the bubble of American sports. Therein lies the problem. From an outsider's perspective, it seems that there are a lot of ITN/R entries for association football. All I know about association football is that there are a lot of leagues, some domestic and some not. I don't know much about their relationship with one another in terms of levels or the caliber of each league. It seems to be common sense that I–one with little knowledge of such activities–would defer the decision making to those more familiar with the topic. Merely because one has not heard of a story, or does not personally care about the story, is insufficient when assessing significance.
Let's take a look at significance:
The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?); – There is extensive coverage of every game and much more for the final game of the season.
The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?); – Every national and most local new sources have dedicated sports journalists that cover the game, some only cover college football itself. This includes both the United States and Canada.
The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?); – There are many articles about the game, including the lead-up to the game, whether certain players are playing or not, the results of the game, and the ramifications of the game on professional sports (NFL draft, possible coaching changes between college and the NFL, etc.).
The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?). – Yes.
So while I understand the opposes here are based on a technicality, a lot of what I have read has failed to mention a reason it should not be posted when looking at the guidelines. I don't think WP:WORLDVIEW applies here; there are no limits to the number of ITN/R entries for a sport or region; and the fact that the Super Bowl is more widely known is completely irrelevant. College football stadiums have the largest stadiums in the United States, and the valuations of some programs are above one billion dollars despite being amateur programs (for reference, top college football programs have valuations similar to Juventus and Paris Saint-Germain). It's rather puzzling for someone who is familiar with the topic to see such resistance to include one game per year. Nihlus 22:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Every stadium over 82,300 in the world. Everything with an American flag is college football except the last one.
Holy school of mackerel, look at the size of those Wolverines! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
They were second to May Day Juche Stadium till recently. By beating the capitalists they bring glory to the motherland. But seriously they're real big on world's superlativest X's. They built the tallest pyramid in the world to be the world's tallest hotel and I think concrete building. It has 105 floors. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking about those Michigan Wolverines, to be clear, I already know too much about Collision in Korea (Minnesota's Scott Norton was almost fed to the dreaded Asian timberwolves). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh wait, you said "second to". Cool beans. I'm going to discover that pyramid, later! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
But first, speaking of fruity nicknames, don't let Wild Pegasus, the first man to pin another in Parts Unknown, fool you. He later married a woman so womanly, they named her Woman. Then he became infamous in Georgia, at which time CNN finally acknowledged he was The Rabid Wolverine all along. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You can post as many statistics as you want, but none of them are relevant to this discussion because we are not discussing whether or not it should be posted, we're discussing whether it should always be posted. Given that there have been many consensuses that this is not important enough to post, including the most recent time it was discussed, literally the only way it there can be a consensus to add it to ITN/R is following at least 2-3 consecutive consensuses to post at ITN/C. Additionally, all these statistics are showing is that college football is popular in the United States, but nobody is saying otherwise. The arguments against posting are (mostly) that the championship of a second tier of sport popular in only one country is not significant in the context of an international, general purpose encyclopaedia. If you want to see this posted at ITN/C next year then that is the argument you need to address (and don't bother trying now, this will not be added to ITN/R until it's been posted at ITN/C). @Nilhus: The decisions about what is significant are made by a consensus of people familiar and unfamiliar with the topic because that's the only way that significance for ITN purposes can accurately and fairly be determined. If it was just left to those familiar with the topic then we'd be adding the top several events from nearly every sport in nearly every country, and equivalents for non-sporting topics. Thryduulf (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thryduulf, that is why I said I understand the opposes here are based on a technicality. That being said, nothing on WP:ITN/R or WP:ITN states that it must be added through WP:ITN/C a certain number of times prior to inclusion. Saying that we are unable to prove notability on any page but ITN/C is odd when the guidelines say to do it on this page. I also don't understand why you are saying that it's a "sport popular in only one country" when that is completely irrelevant. This is found on ITN:
Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community.
I am actually utilizing the standards as a framework for its inclusion rather than resorting to whataboutisms and slippery slope arguments. I demonstrated the significance required and have shown its notability. Those seem to be the only requirements for inclusion other than consensus, which I have stated before has been difficult to get due to non-American individuals not knowing its actual significance. Nihlus 04:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You've completely misunderstood or missed the point of everything I said. Non-American editors perfectly understand the significance of the event, they just disagree with you that American Football as a sport is significant enough that it merits more than one posting a year and/or that a second tier, amateur competition that selects it's winner partly by committee is important enough to post to the front page of a global, general purpose encyclopaedia. I quoted last time exactly what ITN/R says about importance and how this event does not demonstrate that - nothing you say about what a page does or does not say can change the fact that an event that has failed to reach a consensus that it is important enough to post individually cannot, however much you might want it to, have consensus that it is always important. This is not singling out this event - look at the Formula E nomination below: editors are opposing it's addition to ITN/R because it has never been posted at ITN/C. I've never seen anything added to ITN/R that has not been posted multiple times at ITN/C, so even if it is not explicitly written down in policy it's very clearly the de facto practice. Thryduulf (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm curious, does this mean if the NFL changed its rules tomorrow to cause a split the size of rugby or Austrirish footy then college f. would suddenly get monster support? (Cause Irish football is kindof like Australian but far more parochial than U.S. footballs (even the Irish of the 2 countries don't care much)) But since American football rules have diverged less than the required fraction of the rugby or Austrirish splits it is 1 sport and thus gets 1 event fewer than rugby league cause parts of 3 major but small countries and maybe some nearby Oceanians like rugby league? If college baseball split to the extent of rugby would it take just one niche American sports fan to successfully nominate even if no one from baseball countries cared enough to !vote? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I understood everything you said, which is why I take issue with it. Your insistence on mentioning a "global, general purpose encyclopedia" is puzzling given everything I just laid out before you. And informal prerequisites are only that, informal. Regardless, I don't plan on giving any more of my time to this discussion. Nihlus 04:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. People can oppose the event on its merits without needing to invent a bureaucractic excuse also (WP:NOTBURO).—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment College basketball was already approved for ITNR. There's no hard-and-fast rule that an amateur sports event can never be ITNR if the pro title from the same country is already on the list.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This discussion, as those in year's path, has nothing to do with the CFP. Some Wikipedians have just decided they will not allow this one through, come hell or high water. Every objection is ludicrous, and disproven by some other event we do post: no amateur, only the top entry, not followed in enough countries. Every oppose is met with proof the oppose makes no sense, so the opposer moves the goal posts. There are countless events already in ITN/R that have substantially less interest than CFP. Don't try pointing that out though; they all have billions of phantom supporters that are impossible to measure. Just drop it all ready. The gatekeepers have made their decision. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Support per Nihlus and Sagittarius. The purpose of ITNC is to connect readers with quality articles about topics they may be interested in because they are in the news. College football championship is such a topic. It's of more interest to more readers (as determined by page views, edits, global news coverage, revenue dollars... pick your metric) than many (most?) other sports ITNRs (like snooker, which gets a whole week, or the 2929 rally car championship, which was blurbed for three weeks in December). To me, the opposes seems to come down to "damn the evidence, college football isn't important enough because it's college football". We are here to serve our readers; we are not here to tell them what is and isn't "important enough". Levivichharass/hound 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
– Sca (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
, the near-identical silhouette that state's government chose for their millions of US$ quarter loonies is cooler. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
