| Revision as of 22:00, 10 October 2011 editCrispmuncher (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,911 editsm →Replacement of "Space Exploration" criteria: sign← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 10 October 2011 edit undoCrispmuncher (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,911 edits →Replacement of "Space Exploration" criteria: comment on changes madeNext edit → | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
| ::As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it to broadly to where I believe consensus is across the various discussions. However, I am going to leave out anything of a rare nature that is probably better left to ITN/C (ITNR should not attempt to cover all the bases). No doubt there'll be objections but here is the place to discuss them. ] (]) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC). | ::As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it to broadly to where I believe consensus is across the various discussions. However, I am going to leave out anything of a rare nature that is probably better left to ITN/C (ITNR should not attempt to cover all the bases). No doubt there'll be objections but here is the place to discuss them. ] (]) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC). | ||
| :::Now done. I've roughly based them on the proposals given above with a few alterations: | |||
| :::*I've restricted manned spaceflight to ''orbital'' spaceflight: If RIchard Branson is to be believed sub-orbital tourist flights will soon be routine. The first few of those will doubtless be shoe-ins for posting but that is what ITN/C is for. | |||
| :::*I've also specified the ''arrival'' rather than launch of space probes: that tends to be the portion that receives the most media coverage. | |||
| :::As always, happy to discuss, though I don't expect those revisions to stand without alterations hopefully we can get the ball moving. ] (]) 22:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Champions Leageu 2020 == | == Champions Leageu 2020 == | ||
Revision as of 22:10, 10 October 2011
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Women's Golf
I think we ought to include on the women's ITNR on here the four major championships Kraft Nabisco Championship, LPGA Championship, U.S. Women's Open, and Women's British Open. On the subject of international competition, we need to include the Solheim Cup. What do you all think of being more inclusive?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Id support LPGA for sure, but not sure about the others.Lihaas (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
UK Poet Laureate
I've removed this. The rationale for adding it was poor. It was added back in 2009 upon a discussion (word search "and Scottish") that focused on her being the first gay, first woman, and first Scottish poet laureate of the UK. The next UK PL may not break any new ground, so that's hardly a rationale for making something a recurring item.--Chaser2 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- And I have reverted that. The BBC reference was not the rationale for adding it. The discussion mentioned (prominently) but did not focus on her being the first gay, first woman and first Scottish appointee
- A, partial, list of previous holders of the post was included to show the significance. Two of the supporters are non-UK based and reference in French media was noted to show the international significance.
- Also this post will not come vacant for many years so there is no urgency in making a change if one is necessary. FerdinandFrog (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Replacement of "Space Exploration" criteria
The current criteria list "The launch of satellites, shuttles, and any space mission in general." as being ITNR. Under that criteria, we would have about 70 items per year. I would therefore like to propose that this is changed to:
- The launch of manned spaceflights
- The first and last launches of any type of rocket
- Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article
- A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
- The launch of space stations or major components thereof
This should bring it more in line with the de facto inclusion of spaceflights. The criteria should also be renamed "spaceflight", as "space exploration" has misleading implications and not all spacecraft launched are engaged in exploration. Missions not included in the criteria can always be nominated through the usual procedure. --GW… 08:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- This has been discussed several times (here and here) and tends to fizzle out without anything being done. I currently think the best criteria would be:
The launch of the following forms of space flight:
- Manned space flight to low-Earth orbit or beyond
- Interplanetary probes
- Space telescopes located in low-Earth orbit or above
- The maiden space flights of:
- Any new launch vehicle capable of reaching low-Earth orbit or above
- Any new manned spacecraft capable of sub-orbital flight or above
- excluding sub-orbital sounding rockets, airborne observatories etc.
- here 'maiden space flight' refers to the first successful space flight whilst carrying a non-test payload
- Note these are slightly different to the criteria I suggested a year ago. Everything else e.g. launch failures, other types of satellites etc. should be left to ITN/C. Modest Genius 16:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Id' ssupport as inhrenetly notable for its rarity (although the first is quite commong):
- The launch of manned spaceflights (maybe)
- The first and last launches of any type of rocket
- Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article
- A country conducting its first successful indigenous orbital launch
- Colloborative projects (india/israel come to mined) excl. usa/russia and with the eu as ONE entity. These are rarer and as nascent projects more notable as they dont have the capacity of the already experiences former superpowers.Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Id' ssupport as inhrenetly notable for its rarity (although the first is quite commong):
- As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it to broadly to where I believe consensus is across the various discussions. However, I am going to leave out anything of a rare nature that is probably better left to ITN/C (ITNR should not attempt to cover all the bases). No doubt there'll be objections but here is the place to discuss them. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
- Now done. I've roughly based them on the proposals given above with a few alterations:
- I've restricted manned spaceflight to orbital spaceflight: If RIchard Branson is to be believed sub-orbital tourist flights will soon be routine. The first few of those will doubtless be shoe-ins for posting but that is what ITN/C is for.
- I've also specified the arrival rather than launch of space probes: that tends to be the portion that receives the most media coverage.
- As always, happy to discuss, though I don't expect those revisions to stand without alterations hopefully we can get the ball moving. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now done. I've roughly based them on the proposals given above with a few alterations:
- As has been noted, this seems to come up every so often, everyone seems in broad agreement that it needs to change when it does so, and then somehow it fizzles out with nothing being done. Therefore I'm going to be bold and change it to broadly to where I believe consensus is across the various discussions. However, I am going to leave out anything of a rare nature that is probably better left to ITN/C (ITNR should not attempt to cover all the bases). No doubt there'll be objections but here is the place to discuss them. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC).
Champions Leageu 2020
crickets premier "domestic" 20/20 tournament (Champions League Twenty20) akin to the soccer champs' league and also a part of the 2nd most popular sport in the world. we should list it here, and the first possible ITNR may be due up within the next few days.
- also for domestic first class tournaments, county cricket in england and wales should be included.Lihaas (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Page view stats for 2010 English cricket season are on GAA-level, while 2011_Champions_League_Twenty20 looks rather impressive. –HTD 03:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- good to go and be BOLD on the latter at least?Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let's wait. A 9-hour discussion won't be enough, anywhere. –HTD 09:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- good to go and be BOLD on the latter at least?Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Page view stats for 2010 English cricket season are on GAA-level, while 2011_Champions_League_Twenty20 looks rather impressive. –HTD 03:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Domestic cricket isn't really like domestic leagues in other sports - in cricket the e.g. county and state sides serve mostly to develop players for the international teams. As for the T20 Champions League, this is only its second incarnation and we're yet to see whether it's going to be seen as a major tournament. I don't think the domestic first class championships are significant enough, and the champions league should probably be left to ITN/C for the moment. Modest Genius 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Any new inclusion from now on (and probably any untested items in the list) should be nominated first at ITN/C before being listed here. –HTD 19:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Most sports are of no practical consequence or historical importance
I propose that all recurring items concerning sports be replaced by a corresponding number of recurring issues concerning labor issues and events. Dualus (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are really no "labour issues and events" that occur frequently and consistently enough (or really matter that much) to be listed on ITNR, whereas sporting events occur at regular time periods and have a lot more people interested in them. IgnorantArmies 06:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the "we'd discuss this endlessly but someone will post anyway but they'll crucify the admin who posted" blurb for the resolution of 2011 NBA lockout if it ends after November 1, 2011?" :P –HTD 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have similar views to Dualus in respect of the amount of sport on ITN - it seems many of the entries are not there because of any intrinsic level of notability or newsworthiness but a view that "it's that sport's turn" even if it is a minority sport virtually no-one is interested in. Personally I'd quite like to see an "automatic weeding" where if eligible stories are not posted or nominated so many times they lose their ITNR status. At the moment it is too easy for a small group of editors to argue passionately for the inclusion of a given entry claiming a great level of interest for the topic but that does not translate into articles being developed or nominations made. When that's the case those entries have no business being on ITNR. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC).