| Revision as of 03:19, 8 September 2013 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →Inclusion proposal: Election of the President of the International Olympic Committee: + oppose← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:58, 8 September 2013 edit undoModest Genius (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,287 edits →Inclusion proposal: World Aquatics Championships and IAAF World Championships in Athletics: tweak self, as there was one against aquaticsNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| == Inclusion proposal: ] and ] == | == Inclusion proposal: ] and ] == | ||
| {{archive top|Non-admin closure. Near-universal support for both events, with decent participation over one month. I'm discounting the only oppose !vote as ]y and not relevant to this proposal. Adding both. ] ] 14:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am surprised that there is no athletics and swimming in ITN/R and there is plenty for a majority of other sports. These are the biggest events other than the Olympics, considering we successfully got the recent WAC listed and the athletics have started today. ] (]) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | I am surprised that there is no athletics and swimming in ITN/R and there is plenty for a majority of other sports. These are the biggest events other than the Olympics, considering we successfully got the recent WAC listed and the athletics have started today. ] (]) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| ::::I'm not going to retype the reasons above that I agree with, instead of simply saying I agree with them, just for you. I did not say your reason was "invalid", I said it was not relevant. This isn't a discussion about the existence of ITNR in general or how people arrive at their opinions. This is about discussing whether or not this item should be ITNR. ] (]) 03:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | ::::I'm not going to retype the reasons above that I agree with, instead of simply saying I agree with them, just for you. I did not say your reason was "invalid", I said it was not relevant. This isn't a discussion about the existence of ITNR in general or how people arrive at their opinions. This is about discussing whether or not this item should be ITNR. ] (]) 03:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support IAAF World Championships in Athletics, oppose World Aquatics Championships''' I've seen the world athletics gain quite a bit of coverage where I'm from, but I've barely seen much from the world aquatics. Just because it happens to fall in the top Olympic revenue share category doesn't necessarily mean it translates into international media coverage. ] (]) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) | *'''Support IAAF World Championships in Athletics, oppose World Aquatics Championships''' I've seen the world athletics gain quite a bit of coverage where I'm from, but I've barely seen much from the world aquatics. Just because it happens to fall in the top Olympic revenue share category doesn't necessarily mean it translates into international media coverage. ] (]) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Inclusion proposal: ], ] and ] == | == Inclusion proposal: ], ] and ] == | ||
Revision as of 14:58, 8 September 2013
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In the news toolbox |
|---|
Link to draft revised list
Per the suggestion in the closed discussion above I have placed the events that have been discussed and passed so far onto this page. I still feel new with how things work here so feel free to change what I have done, move it, etc. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is the aim to change the scope/remit of ITN/R, or to simply make sure all items are "accountable" to a discussion? If the latter, there are a fair few items which are on the current list with citations for community consensus (e.g. the Sumo item). LukeSurl 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The biggest aim is indeed to make sure all items have a discussion where they obtained consensus for inclusion, something which doesn't exist for all items now(or it may have changed). If there are items that had consensus or are otherwise not controversial, they can be proposed much like the above "non-controversial" discussions above. The goal is to create a new list that will replace the current one once said current one has been reviewed. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. We could do an "items with recent consenus" list once the discussion above has concluded. --LukeSurl 10:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The biggest aim is indeed to make sure all items have a discussion where they obtained consensus for inclusion, something which doesn't exist for all items now(or it may have changed). If there are items that had consensus or are otherwise not controversial, they can be proposed much like the above "non-controversial" discussions above. The goal is to create a new list that will replace the current one once said current one has been reviewed. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is a good idea. I added a section for references so people who are wondering "why is Item X on this list" can look back on past discussions. Hot Stop 22:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagged Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections as historical
BOLD edit, revert if you disagree. No-one had edited the page for months, so I've tagged it as historical and removed the link from the top of this page. A third-level discussion page seems rather overkill anyways. If these elections need to be discussed, I can't see a good reason why it can't be done here. --LukeSurl 00:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion proposal: World Aquatics Championships and IAAF World Championships in Athletics
Non-admin closure. Near-universal support for both events, with decent participation over one month. I'm discounting the only oppose !vote as WP:POINTy and not relevant to this proposal. Adding both. Modest Genius 14:56, 8 September 2013 (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.
I am surprised that there is no athletics and swimming in ITN/R and there is plenty for a majority of other sports. These are the biggest events other than the Olympics, considering we successfully got the recent WAC listed and the athletics have started today. Donnie Park (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support both Big events that get international coverage. My only concern is that I don't like blurbs that just say "X has started/finished in Y", without imparting any real news. I therefore think that posting the end of the tournament (as we did for the recent World Aquatics Championships) would be preferable, since then we can at least include the country that tops the medal table (and any particularly noteworthy achievements, such as Missy Franklin's in the recent one). Neljack (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support both: As mentioned in the Aquatics ITNC nomination they are two of the three Category A Olympic sports. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support both as per nom. From a procedural POV, I'd suggest not putting this into effect until after this year's IAAF World Championships in Athletics nomination has been posted (can't imagine much trouble on notability grounds). --LukeSurl 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support both It's pretty strange that the World Championships in two of the most popular sports in any terms are underrated to the team sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support both (at end of events) - both recently passed with no opposition so I can't imagine them failing in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose both ITNR itself is based on a false premise that prior !votes establish a precedent. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Philosophical problems with the existence of ITNR are not relevant to this nomination, and should be discussed elsewhere. It should be supported or opposed on its merits. Prior !votes are one, but not the only, way to determine its merits. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I daresay you're wasting your breath trying to convince Medeis, but I'm sure whoever closes the proposal will disregard her vote. Neljack (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Philosophical problems with the existence of ITNR are not relevant to this nomination, and should be discussed elsewhere. It should be supported or opposed on its merits. Prior !votes are one, but not the only, way to determine its merits. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support both per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- You've got some nerve giving a mere support "per reasons" while declaring my expressed reason invalid. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to retype the reasons above that I agree with, instead of simply saying I agree with them, just for you. I did not say your reason was "invalid", I said it was not relevant. This isn't a discussion about the existence of ITNR in general or how people arrive at their opinions. This is about discussing whether or not this item should be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- You've got some nerve giving a mere support "per reasons" while declaring my expressed reason invalid. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support IAAF World Championships in Athletics, oppose World Aquatics Championships I've seen the world athletics gain quite a bit of coverage where I'm from, but I've barely seen much from the world aquatics. Just because it happens to fall in the top Olympic revenue share category doesn't necessarily mean it translates into international media coverage. 31.205.31.31 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion proposal: World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, World Artistic Gymnastics Championships and World Figure Skating Championships
As another user said "Category A Olympic sports" in my previous proposal, I discovered that Gymnastics is the third in that category which is not also in ITN/R yet, so I proposed two championships that have a lot of history at the World Championship and the Olympics. I also proposed ice skating as it is one of the biggest sport in the Winter Olympics as I was surprised that it was not being included nor nominated yet. The former two is coming up in a few months time. Donnie Park (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Gymnastics, along with athletics and swimming, is surely one of the most popular sports and always attracts many spectators at the Olympics, but I'm afraid that the gap in the popularity of the Olympic events in gymnastics and the World Championships is so big that it doesn't merit inclusion simply because it's gymnastics. Also note that there are separate World Championships in artistic and rhythmic gymnastics, which further diminishes the significance of the both events. As for the figure skating, the World Championships are surely very significant among the Winter sports, but there are other significant sports like alpine skiing, biathlon and cross-country that must be taken into consideration.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. The gymnastics articles are almost prose-free. That indicates to me that the events are not held in high esteem, at least by Wikipedians. Formerip (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Interest among Wikipedians should definitely not be considered an important factor in overall notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Au contraire. For any sporting event that is among the very most important in the world, so that it might be considered for membership of the exclusive ITNR club, I would expect to see a fair amount of prose, outlining the history of the event, its governance, qualification structures, noteworthy controversies, design of medals, what the actual things are that competitors do etc. But Wikipedians don't seem to have found these events important enough. Granted, Wikipedians only represent a sample of all English-speaking people, but I think its a very good guide. Formerip (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Artistic Gymnastics. I believe it is more popular than Rhythmic based on e.g. the number of Olympic events and coverage in my country.
Weak support the other two. They certainly compare favourably to several of the included sports events.
Naturally, if editors don't care about the events are they won't be posted for quality reasons. Hopefully listing them here may be an extra motivation for creating quality articles on them. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC) - Oppose both ITNR itself is based on a false premise that prior !votes establish a precedent. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Philosophical problems with the existence of ITNR are not relevant to this nomination, and should be discussed elsewhere. It should be supported or opposed on its merits. Prior !votes are one, but not the only, way to determine its merits. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to be expressing my opposition, not inviting you to comment on the validity of my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Show me where I am forbidden to comment on your opposition, and I will stop right now. In such a scenario I would assume you would give me and others the same courtesy. 331dot (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to be expressing my opposition, not inviting you to comment on the validity of my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Philosophical problems with the existence of ITNR are not relevant to this nomination, and should be discussed elsewhere. It should be supported or opposed on its merits. Prior !votes are one, but not the only, way to determine its merits. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support Artistic Gymnastics only. It is the more popular of the two and is followed for Olympic prospects. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on Figure Skating; the Olympics is typically the only time that is followed closely. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer the items go through the regular ITN process at least once. Doing so provides a good chance to evaluate the level of coverage in "real time" rather than trying to gauge it from the past (incomplete archives) or the future (speculation). At the moment, I would lean support for artistic and skating and lean oppose to rhythmic. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support figure skating. Neutral on the other two. OhanaUnited 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Inclusion proposal: Election of the President of the International Olympic Committee
The President of the International Olympic Committee has a prominent role in the world of sports. She or he has a very visible contribution every two years during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games, events which are followed by hundred of millions, for instance she/he proclaims the Games closed during the Closing Ceremony. In addition she/he is the person who announces the host cities. The election of a new president is a rare event, once every eight or twelve years. Hektor (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Question. If it's such a rare event, does it really need to take up space on ITNR? ITNR is meant for more regularly occurring events. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Let's nominate this as a regular ITN/C item when it happens this session, then think about ITNR. --LukeSurl 10:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I believe the IOC Presidential election is usually conducted at the same congress at whichh an Olympic host city is chosen. They can therefore be incorporated into one blurb. I think the election of a new president would probably be important enough on its own, but that can probably be left to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure that the re-election of a president would be sufficiently important by itself. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Why the hell do we need to put something on ITN/R that's only going to happen once every dozen years? How about we put Transits of Venus on ITN/R as well? Maybe ice ages? The heat death of the universe? (Ok, that last one isn't recurring.) -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)