Misplaced Pages

talk:In the news/Recurring items - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IP98 (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 30 March 2013 (→No consensus = No action or remove). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:57, 30 March 2013 by IP98 (talk | contribs) (→No consensus = No action or remove)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

For discussion of election criteria see Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections.


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Proposal: Decommission ITN/R

ITN/R doesn't seem to have a purpose anymore. Establishing consensus for notability on most of these items, and honestly any item that should be on ITN/R, is very quick, with the update generally being the concern anyway. Those items that are controversially notable are still debated at ITN/C, despite the fact that they're on ITN/R. Then there are people who seem to just half-heartedly support items, supporting solely because it's listed at ITN/R and not really feeling it's that notable. This often leaves admins in the awkward position of posting items that are heavily opposed at ITN/C simply because they're at ITN/R. The number of discussions about adding or removing ITN/R items is too large, with the level of consensus here just mirroring that on ITN/C. This suggests a profound misunderstanding of how ITN/R was intended to work and, more importantly, that it is not working at all. So, let's just get rid of it and allow each nomination to be decided individually. -- tariqabjotu 03:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Though it could be argued that this will make it even harder to get blurbs posted at ITN, it is time to take a bold step and give ITN/R a rest. We can always bring it back if ITN freezes up. I was just looking at how many football items there are on ITN/R - really? Let's debate on the merits, and hopefully move forward. My thanks to Tariqabjotu for this suggestion. Jusdafax 04:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and replace it with better guidance on ITN notability: guidelines should recommend prominence in news sources as demonstrated by which news sources cover a topic and how it is covered and in what parts of major news sources and less on what editors individual tastes and preferences are for determining notability for ITN. News coverage and article quality should be determining factors (and article quality should rule all) as to what should and shouldn't get posted. --Jayron32 05:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While there are some valid criticisms I do feel ITNR saves us a lot of discussion. I also feel that that, by and large, the events listed have a consensus gained over time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, I think if we're going to consider such a serious change to ITN we should have a RfC to get the widest possible consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsemlak (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) .
I have been bold and added the RFC tag to the start of the section. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support With regret, I have come to the view that ITN/R is not fulfilling its purpose and is causing more harm than good. I really don't think it saves much in the way of discussion. As has been observed, uncontroversial items such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup will fly through anyway, and the more controversial items get their notability debated anyway on ITN/C. I do agree, however, that an RfC should probably be held before abolishing ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have been bold and added the RFC tag to the start of the section. I would also support a listing on Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion but will leave it up to others to so nominate. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Support listing at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)\
 Done AIRcorn (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree that in it's current incarnation it is not working. LightGreenApple talk to me 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Many items are here with no discussion to establish consensus, others added or retained on the basis of marginal !votes that say "I think this is important", not "I am confident that this will be considered important by the community every year for the foreseeable future". Criteria that were accepted several years ago are routinely challenged now at ITN/C. Despite admonition, items are frequently opposed at ITN/C on grounds that they are not listed at ITN/R. The only items that really ought to be here are such obvious passes on importance grounds that they will go through on snow as soon as they are sufficiently updated anyway. Tiny (or no) discussion here should not trump opposition at ITN/C, which attracts far more eyes and more turnover of editors. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think this is useful without any clearly defined criteria for what should be included. We end up with arguments along the lines of "such and such is included so this should be too", which can lead to some extreme examples. Let nominations live and die at ITN/C. If they truly belong here they should fly through anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support clearly broken as recent events have demonstrated. Allow each topic to be discussed without the spectre of someone claiming "well it's ITN/R, so there"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That would also alleviate the election/sport concerns. Although perhaps we could establish/consensus/method for adding ALL things again.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We've been heading towards this for at least a year. ITN/R was missused by certain editors to "race" for a front page nomination, often doing so at the expense of updating the article. In anycase, there's been far too much argument and far too little real discussion. So let's decommission ITN/R for good, as that should be the best foundation on which to build a new, broader system doktorb words 10:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there is an actual proposal to replace or reform this. Call me a newbie still but I don't think this is so seriously broken that it needs to be scrapped ASAP. I think many of the problems can be fixed by clarifying the criteria for inclusion and subjecting listed items to a review, on a regular or requested basis(which there was nothing to stop people from doing so now or in the several years many items have been listed) 331dot (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reform, or remove items with limited consensus for addition. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd be quite happy just to get rid of ITN/r entirely--noms that are assumed to have consensus will quickly show consensus at ITNC. That being said, wiping the slate clean and starting over per The Rambling Man below seems reasonable. But we'd have to agree on something like a two-to-one or even greater consensus per item, with actual supported arguments, not just votes counting, and the arguments would have to be archived and linked to the items approved. And we should absolutely not approve blanket categories like "sovereign elections" (apologies to Burkina Faso): with over 200 nations and some parliaments falling yearly or more often ITN would just be an election ticker. This would be a long, complicated, and probably very contentious process--and ITNC disputes would still arise. So I'd still rather just scrap the whole thing and stick with just ITNC nominations. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The elections are currently on WP:ITNR and are posted if they are updated, yet ITN is not an election ticker. In my opinion the quality of the project is improved by posting all sovereign country elections on the main page. If the consensus of the wider project approves "sovereign elections" for a renewed ITNR they should be posted until a new discussion removes them from the list. If the consensus is that elections should always go through ITNC that's fine too, but it will result in some oddities, e.g. because of higher percentage of active Misplaced Pages users in country A. In any case, I think a wider consensus for a consistent practise is good whether it is all countries or the 50 most populous. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'd be tempted by the idea of wiping the slate clean and then re-electing each member of ITN/R, from scratch. That would be fine. Trying to dig back in history and finding some dubious "consensus" to automatically include certain articles (like the Struga Poetry Evenings which is both an obscure award and a pathetic article) is pointless, if we want a list of shoe-ins, let's start now by getting true consensus for each article. It's radical, but we probably have no choice unless we discard ITN/R altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the proposed new function below. In any case, as an ITNR consensus is supposed to be considered in subsequent ITNCs, I think it needs to involve more editors than the average ITNC discussion. Perhaps mandatory RFCs for inclusion and exclusion (after eliminating the current set), with a single large RFC (or a few divided by subject) for the first batch. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the first two, but as they are not imminent there is no problem including them in the sports discussion for what to re-enter. The third opens a can of worms (though I propose to open in any case), and the affected countries would probably pass ITNC without problems so it should be discussed.
That is: The list should go as the "shoo-ins" are not imminent and would pass ITNC without problems if they were. I think it is better if all items on the new ITNR go through the same process. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Update 21:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Erase the whole list, start again. That's the only way we can fairly create a new list of items that are considered ITN/R across the whole (current) community. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The reasons why ITNR was first set up still exist. It saves a lot of arguing and concentrates minds. The fact that updates are the problem shows the system is working - we don't get into long notability discussions, and editors can go straight to updating the article. There are years of useful experience and institutional memory in the current page. Yes, there are a few items that could do with being removed, and the talk page should either get some more traffic or be redirected to WT:ITN. But that doesn't mean we should scrap it. Modest Genius 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
So reboot it, allowing each proposed article to be discussed rather than rely on dubious (or non-existent) historic consensus which you claim to include "years of useful experience and institutional memory" (the latter of which is probably a negative, rather than a positive).... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not the proposal under discussion. This RfC is to totally scrap ITNR. Modest Genius 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Point of Order - This proposal is simple: to decommission the ITN/R list and not replace it. It is a support or oppose vote to scrap the list and debate each ITN nomination on its merits. A refactoring or recreation of the INT/R list will involve a massive debate that will be counter productive. Again: this !vote is about us stopping the use of INT/R. If we run into problems, we can always !vote to bring it back. Jusdafax 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure sure, but on a practical level, there's a compromise position which is to re-boot the list, and do it in a consensual way, rather than just for individuals to add/remove items when they see fit. You can have more than a yes/no answer, unless, of course, I missed the rules on this discussion which stated clearly it was a referendum (i.e. Boolean answer) on the existence of ITN/R, as opposed to a discussion to seek out the best solution.... (which is altogether possible). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
      • "So, let's just get rid of it and allow each nomination to be decided individually." -per the proposal under discussion. The genius of this is the simplicity: we get rid of it and !vote directly on the merits of each ITN nomination as usual at ITN/C, but with out this ITN/R list. Jusdafax 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussing other options does not remove the possibility of this outcome. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I don't see the problem with suggesting alternatives to the two extremes. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems rather baby & bathwater to me. ITN/R seems quite useful, one as a list of things we might otherwise forget, and also to save us time discussing that we can then spend on improving articles. I've proposed a reform to ITN/R procedures below that should let the bathwater out while keeping baby safe and warm. LukeSurl 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but would support a reboot. Tariq's rationale is basically fair enough. ITNR is useless if it is constantly throwing up arguments. However, it's also useful if it increases the frequency of updates and helps to ensure balance of coverage along various dimensions. The problem is that it is built on shaky foundations, since it's contents never had a strong consensus and are at least partly random. That can potentially be fixed, so that ITNR stops being useless and carries on being useful. Formerip (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'm not a big fan of ITN/R, but removing it gets rid of certain events that received consensus years ago, but due to the stricter standards of most editors now might not pass. I think we should take into account past consensus and not have to reanalyze an event each time, when most discussion will just be general to the event, and therefore repetitive each year. The purpose of ITN/R is to prevent this, and no matter its flaws, it can still serve this purpose. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Item-by-item discussion is valuable, and ITN/R squelches most possibilities of having this. In addition, the quality of the update that items have is frequently ignored because, having notability established at ITN/R seems sufficient for posting, and there have been several instances in which ITN/R items have gone up before they are ready. Second choice is a major overhaul of items that removes all but the most obvious, notable, and well-publicized events (which could in itself lead to more drama) and use ITN/R for that limited segment of events. Spencer 07:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in principle, having a list of predetermined items makes sense as a way to expedite posting for obvious events (of course people always find a way to filibuster Super Bowls for some reason). However, it needs to be easier to remove items from ITNR without having to jump through hoops to do so. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Many good arguments above. ITN needs to have a good look at itself, including its name, its purpose, its processes aand quality control issues. This change will barely begin to address those wholesale issues, but it's a start. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose scrapping, "the update generally being the concern anyway". ... (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, because I think ITNR should continue to exist in some form. I would prefer that we deleted it, agreed the "standards" for adding something to the list, and then recreate a blank page.

    In practise that discussion would have a pretty narrow scope. Obviously any addition would require consensus, and I presume that anything on the new ITNR would be considered postable subject to quality. So essentially we would be discussing the level of discretion admins have to give less weight to overtly nationalistic arguments, when determining whether or not there is consensus for a given item. —WFC— FL wishlist 13:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. At least with the recurring events on ITNR, a consensus has been established that these events are worthy of inclusion, and the only dispute at ITNC is, generally, whether the article has been improved sufficiently to post the news report to ITN. We have enough trouble getting the Super Bowl result posted every year -- imagine how things would be if the crowd of people who are negative toward American football could take the opportunity to challenge whether the event is notable at all. There should be a procedure for adding or removing events from ITNR, but the list of eligible recurring events in general should be maintained. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Many of the events at ITN/R carry no demonstrable consensus, they were added without discussion. The issue with the SuperBowl was entirely due to doubts about sufficient updates. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If there was "no demonstrable consensus", then it should be easy to gain consensus for removing such events from ITNR. My issue was when you unilaterally removed an event that had been unchallenged in five years. I wouldn't have cared if it had been added in the last week or even in the last year, but being on the list for five years unchallenged counts for something. It doesn't even really matter now, since this will either go away or be restarted with a fresh list. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion of my edit a week ago is totally irrelevant here. Metropolitan90 made a !vote supported by an observation that is demonstrably untrue, I pointed that out. Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
An implied consensus to not remove items that, even if added during the creation of ITNR without specific discussion, have survived unchallenged for years is not "totally irrelevant" nor "demonstrably untrue". Metropolitan90 is entitled to their beliefs, just as you are yours and me mine. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Since when has commenting on the reasoning behind a !vote been denying that someone is entitled to his/her beliefs? I thought it was of the essence of debate and discussion.
The matter I dismissed as "totally irrelevant" had nothing to do with M90's opinion: it was to do with your dragging an old specific deletion issue into a discussion of what is true of a large number of items currently listed here.
It is demonstrably untrue that any clear consensus has developed around some of the items listed here. Ignorance is not consent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I pointed that out to show that what you claim isn't "demonstrably untrue", it's a matter of opinion. You say "ignorance is not consent"; I say that if no one was moved enough to remove the items from the list for lack of consensus in five years, they must support them by not opposing them. It's a simple matter to say "this didn't get consensus and should be removed" and for someone else to agree or disagree, about a long-standing item. It's not a matter of ignorance, it's a matter of a lack of action. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
What I initially pointed out to Met90 is that there was no demonstrable consensus on some items. I really don't see how that can be honestly challenged, but if you wish to, demonstrate it. If nothing happens to make people aware of items being listed at ITN/R, they cannot be expected to oppose their presence there, as they remain ignorant of the fact that they are listed: ignorance is not consent. Kevin McE (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I have never said that each and every item had a specific discussion and consensus; I have said that if the opposite is the case with certain items, it should be easy to call for their removal, which should be done by seeking consensus to remove them. It's up to ourselves to make ourselves knowledgeable. ITNR is open and in plain sight, not hidden, with a link on all ITN related pages. Items unchallenged for years is an implied consensus to keep. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That implicit consensus exists may be your opinion, it is not mine. The statement that I made in response to Met90's rationale is that not every item has a demonstrable consensus, and even if one were to accept your principle of implicit consensus, that does not refute my assertion about demonstrable consensus, nor does it make edits a week ago relevant to this thread. Really can't understand what you thought you were adding to the discussion by weighing in here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We post too few items as it is, and completely scrapping ITNR will only make that worse. I would support reforming the process, but I cannot support getting rid of it entirely. I also would not support scrapping during the process of reforming. Ks0stm 21:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel that ITN/R has a very distinct and useful purpose, that it saves time, and it also ensures that we don't get bogged down in things that should be posted, but you have one or two people that don't like the subject and try to stall everything. As has been noted by others above, ITN already has issues on posting enough sense. Decommissioning this would just make things worse, because it would open it up to the "consensus", which at ITN means everyone disagrees and nothing gets posted. Silverseren 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is going way too far. The correct solution is the reform the listing. I propose we review every item on the list, one by one, and determine a general consensus on keep/remove. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Silverseren and most others. This still has a purpose. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per many above; ITN/R is quite useful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the argument that we post too few stories as it is. Nothing wrong with a reboot, but decommissioning should be out of the question. 174.114.112.77 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose ITN/R provides consistency, helps to fill in holes during slow news cycles, and perhaps most importantly of all avoids recurring bickering over the importance of "XYZ sporting event". I don't see ITN/R as broken enough to disband it. Totally absurd. --IP98 (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Not all events get the same degree of coverage every year, and all events should therefore be nominated individually if they are deemed to be includable by an editor. Zaminamina (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support individual nomination and approval. Most of these look pretty obscure to me relative to what usually runs. Neo Poz (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've given my opinion on this before, I think. It represents long-standing consensus and rejects the !voting that seems to be taking hold at ITN. It just saves everybody from a whole lot of needless debates. If an item doesn't meet the update requirements, then it shouldn't go up. That's always been the procedure with ITN/R. Nightw 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why not just remove items with limited consensus for inclusion? Seems like a simpler solution. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No posts for a couple of weeks. Can we close? --LukeSurl 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
!vote count seems to be 21:13 in opposition to the decommissioning, although among the ITN regulars (who will use ITN/R) there is certainly no strong majority in favour of being dictated to by this list. The majority of votes for the retention of the list include some suggestion of a substantive review of the items listed, so this is certainly not a straightforward closure. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
My understanding was that this discussion was about keeping or decommissioning ITNR only; since outright decommissioning isn't going to take place, any discussion which will undertake a review of the items on the list should occur in a separate discussion, to avoid confusion. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is entirely sensible to have ITN/R. Some items are recurring. ITN/R saves us from having to discuss these items every time and brings some consistency to the kinds of events we post. --RA (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Since this is noted at CENT it is assumed that participation from user unfamiliar with the process is desired. I have been editing since 2007, and as far as I can recall had never heard of ITN/R before beginning to read this conversation, which seems to be mostly comprised of folks already very familiar with it. Any chance of getting a sort of "primer" up at the top on what ITN/R is, how it works, and so forth instead of just assuming we already know all about it? It isn't even linked in the opening statement of the RFC, so this is not very inviting to those unfamiliar with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITNR is a (somewhat to extensive) list of recurring events that are presumed to have satisfied the notability neccessary to be posted on ITN when the event occurs. The list also has (or has the potential to have) a beneficial effect on avoiding bias and improving consistency. The problem that sparked this debate is the lack of demonstrable consensus on the original inclusion of several of the items. I agree that the introduction could be clearer, but I'll leave that to those more experienced with the ITN processes. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:In the news/Recurring items is a list of recurring events. The majority fit into three categories, awards, sport and government (i.e. elections and changes of heads of state). It is part of ITN's instructions that a recurring event does not need to be on ITNR to be considered as an ordinary ITN/C nomination. When an item is nominated on WP:ITN/Candidates that is on the ITN/R list the following notice appears:
    Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.
How editors regard this is not universal. WP:ITN generally posts an item once the community have decided the story is sufficiently notable, and that an article update is sufficient. The typical interpretation is that for an ITN/R item, the notability criterion can be considered 'already met'.
Items can be added or removed from the list following discussion on this talk page, however it has been noted that this is a slow and difficult process. In particular is in dispute what degree of consensus is required to remove an item, is it full consensus to remove, simple majority, or should an item need full consensus to remain on the list? It has also been noted that much of the list seems to have been written several years ago, and it is unclear as to what, if any, discussion went into these additions. An alternative school of thought is that because such items have remained on the list for so long they are effectively "grandfathered in" having achieved an implicit consensus by not being removed.
The most dispute ITN/R generates is when editors voice notability-related opposition to an ITN/R item's candidacy. This often happens for elections in small countries or sporting events for minor sports. It is disputed whether these arguments should be considered, or whether the ITN/R listing makes such protests futile.
--LukeSurl 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Japan Series baseball

Japan Series baseball. This sticks out like a sore thumb. Domestic tournament, doesn't appear to have a big international following (no global TV audience to speak of). Formerip (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the world's tenth most populous country. But it's the only non-Anglophone country to have a domestic sporting event listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not ITN/C. Whether contributors consider the event to be important or not is irrelevant. This is ITN/R: the only relevant issue is whether we are confident that the community will consider that the event is so important that it should be included at ITN every time it occurs. The only evidence for that is the unanimity with which previous nominations have been accepted. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That's nothing to do with the way the ITNR list was put together, you know. Each item was added because there was an agreement between editors that it was important enough. So removing an item because editors agree that it is not important enough would seem logical.
Any road, in this case we seem to have something that has never actually been posted in its own right. It was nominated in 2009. It got equal supports and opposes and then it was added to the blurb for the World Series: . Formerip (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As I argued above, a large part of why the ITN/R experiment Mk 1 failed was because fulfilling the meaning of ITN/R was never, or at least very rarely, the basis for electing items to ITN/R status. There is no point in repeating the error.
It has been demonstrated many times that it is false to claim that "Each item was added because there was an agreement between editors that it was important enough". Kevin McE (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you saying that the problem is that editors didn't follow your idea of how ITNR should be put together, but that it has been demonstrated many times that they did? Formerip (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove this can always be renominated on an ad-hoc basis; there's no evidence it's notable enough for an automatic pass. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove never heard of it and it would be useful to discuss why it should be ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per Medeis. Modest Genius 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Someone "never hearing of this" is not sufficient reason to remove something, as I'm sure that would be the case with many, if not all events. There's always someone living under a rock somewhere relative to an event. How does one person "not hearing of this" demonstrate that it is not notable? That said, I would need to see more proof that it is equivalent to the World Series as a top-tier tournament to support its retention in ITNR, and as such I support remove. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep having never heard of it is totally irrelevant. I've never heard of the Six Nations Championship, but still recognized it's relevance. Being a domestic tournament is also irrelevant, it's highly important in Japan, and remember Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.. Re-nominating on an ad-hoc basis leads to inconsistency and the usual bickering about the importance of XYZ sporting event. Lastly, the articles are updated to a decent quality and are definitely good enough to feature on the main page. So for all those reasons, a strong keep from me. --IP98 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid an annual discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No, but I am distinguishing between a !vote for posting at ITN/C ("I believe this is important enough to post today") and a !vote for inclusion at ITN/R ("This is something that I believe the community would consider important enough to post every time it occurs"). It makes sense to !vote in the face of non-trivial opposition in the former case, not in the latter. See comments on the Olympic ice hockey below. Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. I interpret that to mean "if an item is opposed on ITN/R then it may be opposed on ITN/C and therefore should not be included at ITN/R". Is that interpretation correct? --IP98 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If there is enough opposition to make the conclusion that consensus to post will be present dubious, then yes, I would oppose ITN/R listing and encourage others to do likewise. Do you accept the distinction between ITN/C style votes and ITN/R votes that I make above? Kevin McE (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
What is "enough opposition"? I'm asking because you're proposing a major change to the way Misplaced Pages operates. Suggesting "no consensus to remove" an item from ITN/R === "it should not be on ITN/R" it a big stretch for me, and I strongly oppose that notion. --IP98 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You ask a question by selectively omitting the answer to it: "enough opposition to make the conclusion that consensus to post will be present dubious". That is probably best not treated with a strict mathematical formula: an administrator should decide upon, and be answerable for, closing a discussion with due consideration to the effect of the closing decision.
It is clear every time that it is nominated at ITN/C that the inclusion of the All Ireland Football Championship is contentious (not unthinkable, but contentious), but we are told that we may not even discuss it each year because its removal was discussed with a 6-6 stalemate.
I am at a loss as to how you believe that a decision here that has no meaningful consensus (anything less than an overwhelming "retain") can have enough authority to disqualify any discussion regarding consensus as to importance at a page with far more participants.
I ask again, do you accept the distinction between ITN/C style votes ("I think it's important enough to post") and ITN/R votes ("I am confident that the community will consider this important enough for the foreseeable future) that I make above? Kevin McE (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final

It seems odd to single out a single Olympic event like this. The Olympics are covered with blurbs for the opening and closing ceremonies. I could see a case for mentioning the marathon in the closing ceremony blurb (as the medal ceremony is part of the closing ceremony), but no single event should have its own blurb. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Remove agree with nom, no reason for special treatment. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove yep, no need for a single Olympic event to be treated in this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact is, the premier event of many sports is the Olympic games. I wouldn't take Men's Ice Hockey to be that special, but I'd interpret this that we should be including more content on ITN during Olympics, not less.
During Olympic games we should reserve a sort-of sticky entry in ITN for recent events regarding the Olympics, updating a blurb frequently with quality-updated articles. (e.g. • 2014 Winter Olympics: Eddie the Eagle wins ski jumping gold in the large hill individual classification) I had this thought during the last Olympics. I wasn't going to propose this for a few months, but it would negate this ITN/R entry. LukeSurl 21:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea. However, at London 2012 there were up to 32 gold medals per day (Vancouver maxed at 7), so there may be some problems to be worked out. (It would certainly be best to test the idea at a Winter Games.) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Haven't the foggiest. Presumably it could pass ITNC under the current regime. If desired, the ITNR entry for the World Championships could exclude Olympic years, if those championships are truly less important than other World Championships. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. I realise it's odd to treat this one sport differently, but it's the top level of international competition in an internationally popular sport. The Olympics are the only time that the world's top players appear for their countries - the IIHF World Championships can only use NHL players if their team didn't make it to the NHL playoffs. Ice hockey is a popular sport in a large (and diverse) set of countries, so the top club (Stanley Cup) and international (Winter Olympics) competitions should be posted. If the ice hockey tournament was held separately to the rest of the Winter Olympics, it would be notable enough for ITNR on its own. So I think its worthy of its own blurb. Modest Genius 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The point is that, with very few exceptions, the Olympic Games of either type is the top level international competition for . Singling out one event for blurb level notability seems odd, especially when based on importance or notability within the selected sport (as opposed to importance or notablility compared with other Olympic events in the context of the Olympic Games). 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, but very few of those sports are sufficiently popular in their own right to merit coverage of their international championships, if they were separate events outside the Olympics. Ice hockey is. Modest Genius 13:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Then again, some are. I guess we just disagree on what's the relevant comparison for an Olympic event. LukeSurl's idea might render the point moot, in any case. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Men's ice hockey final is the top level of international competition, as the World Championships don't necessarily have the best players(as MG pointed out) and are not as widely watched as the Olympic Hockey final. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Agree with 331dot, but also agree that the sticky is enough. It should be noted that blurbs were posted for records in track and field in the 2012 and 2008 games, and also for a medal count record at the 2008 games. Summer games seem to get plenty of extra blurbs, even with the opening, closing and sticky. --IP98 (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of interest I checked the nominations for the relevant month in 2012. Two world records where posted as ITNR. World records where subsequently successfully removed from ITNR. Other suggested Olympic blurbs were not posted. This includes the 100 m event, which I believe trumps this for worldwide notability. A cursory glance at the opposes show that it was opposed for roughly the same reason that I oppose this. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every occurence. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid a quadrennial discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No decision on Misplaced Pages that I am aware of requires complete or near-complete agreement on an issue. Why should this? With every issue I'm sure one could find someone to oppose it. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. If there is considerable dispute as to the importance of an event, then the assumption that it would be deemed important enough to post every time it occurs is fatally flawed. If we are going to remove from the community the opportunity to establish a consensus in future years, we had better be absolutely certain that our consensus is as solid as it can possibly be.
I know of no other decision on Misplaced Pages (beyond the 5 pillars, which are not up for discussion) that seeks to invalidate the right for contributors to seek to establish consensus in relation to a proposal. This usurping of consensus is why I oppose the existence of ITN/R, but while it exists, its extraordinary claim to authority requires extraordinary levels of consent. That need not be 100%, but should be sufficiently overwhelming that it makes it clear that further recurrent discussion would lead to a foregone conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, maybe you're right, I'm not sure, but this isn't a discussion to add it, it is a discussion to remove it, thus it's up to you (well, anyone who opposes this listing) to rally the troops and get consensus to remove it. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion about deletion of ITN/R contains many calls for thorough redrafting and relisting: there was little unqualified support for ITN/R as is. Regardless of the opening position, this is discussion about whether Olympic Ice Hockey should be at ITN/R, and at present the !vote is 4-2 against it. Kevin McE (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the discussion is. This is entitled "Removal proposal" not "Whether this should be here or not proposal". I have called for (and continue to support) a thorough review of the list, but none has taken place yet so I have continued to proceed as has been done before. If there is consensus to remove, fine, but that's what is being sought. It's on the list and you need consensus to remove it, not consensus to keep it. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not what the discussion is. This is entitled "Removal proposal" not "Whether this should be here or not proposal". A strange distinction: if there is consensus for it being on the list, it will either be added or retained, and if there is not, it will be removed or remain from it, so any discussion is a "Whether this should be here or not proposal". Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly; it's up to those who support removal to gain the "sufficiently overwhelming" consensus to do so, it's not up to supporters to gain support to keep it. I'm not really sure 4-2 meets the criteria you have laid out for yourself. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see that not being on a list that overrides the right of the community to discuss consensus demands overwhelming consensus. That is simply illogical, regardless of whether it is addition to or failure to remove from such a list. Granting of extraordinary authority is an extraordinary decision: being treated the same as any other suggestion does not. I am by no means seeking a decision that this should never be on ITN, or that the right to raise it at ITN/C every 4 years be infringed. Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal:World Nine-ball Championship

I don't know much about this sport, but as it failed to get posted in 2011 and failed to get nominated in 2012 it doesn't seem to be ITNR material. (Also consider: 2012 WPA World Nine-ball Championship) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (I tested WikiBlame and found the addition based on this discussion where "9-ball" was mentioned twice.) 88.88.165.222 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete The fact of opposition above makes it clear that one could not expect it to be deemed important enough every year. Listing at ITN/R would not serve to avoid an annual discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is the only reason for listing something at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove. If it's not getting posted despite being listed, then it shouldn't be on the list. It clearly isn't that notable. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion proposal: Olympic host city announcements

The two most recent had unanimous support. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Since we are going to be reviewing the entire list(see above discussion about ITNR decommissioning), I would suggest any further suggested additions or removals be held in abeyance and discussed in the context of reforming the entire list and once how such a discussion should be carried out is determined. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Any thoughts on how this discussion should be carried out? 88.88.165.222 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
My initial suggestion would probably be that we simply start the list over and determine what should be on it anew, but I'm sure the community will fashion a means to carry out the review of the list. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd support the idea of re-working the list but I don't think it is at all clear from the above discussion that there is consensus to do it. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Many of the votes opposing decommissioning outright (and some who supported it) still conceded that the list should be reformed or reworked in some fashion; that was the sense I got anyway. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So having discussions about which items should be added/removed is a good thing. No need to stop having them while we wait for some unspecified action. Modest Genius 13:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, but I just hope we don't end up discussing these issues again relatively soon. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose announce the city once it's selected, otherwise it's just a bunch of "also rans". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The final selection (i.e. IOC's announcement) is what I've nominated (see links). I would not support posting (let alone listing on ITNR) variations of "London announces its candidacy to host the 2012 Summer Olympics".88.88.165.222 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, hence the link to the 2018 announcement. While less notable than the Summer Olympics, I think the Winter Olympics are sufficiently notable. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we post the opening, closing and sticky the event, there is no need to post the host city or other cruft surrounding the games. --IP98 (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The opening/closing event is entirely different, both in significance and timing, to the awarding of the host city (which is usually something like seven years before the event itself). It costs host cities billions and billions of pounds/dollars/euros to host the Olympics. The award of the host city could hardly be considered "cruft". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, if ITN/R 'must' exist. It is removed from the event itself by several years, so repetition of same event not an issue. Hard to imagine that there would be appreciable opposition on any occasion on which it is nominated, so listing at ITN/R would serve to avoid a recurrent discussion with an entirely predictable outcome, which is its purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly notable and of wide interest, which is not expected to change for the foreseeable future(except to perhaps only grow in such interest). 331dot (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - As a news item of worldwide interest and limited occurrence. As it appears consensus does not exist at this time to remove INT/R, this is a logical inclusion. Jusdafax 21:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding Exhibitions, fairs and summits timing

For Exhibitions, fairs and summits, should these be posted when they begin or when they end? It would be good to clarify. --LukeSurl 12:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say opening for fairs and exhibitions, by comparison to the multi-sport events. Additionally, the link to the article will probably be more useful if available when the event is active. For summits, I can see post-summit being preferable, in case something gets decided. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - opening for fairs and exhibitions. Closing for summits, because that's when the decisions/agreements are announced. Modest Genius 21:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Struga Poetry Evenings

The last two winners (Mongane Wally Serote (2012) and Mateja Matevski (2011)) weren't featured on ITN, nor was Struga Poetry Evenings ever. This is not a genuine ITN/R. I'm not sure how this was added to ITN/R. Seems particularly anomalous when "Struga Poetry Evenings" gets 36k hits on Google while the much "less important" Forward Poetry Prize records nearly 200k. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No consensus = No action or remove

Normally "no consensus" defaults to "no action". However, in the context of this list I believe that "no consensus" should mean "remove". The main reason is that a lack of consensus on ITNC results in the item not being posted. A lack of consensus to remove cannot logically overrule a later lack of consensus to post, something a clear consensus to keep or add can. An additional point to consider is the lack of discussion for some of the older items on the list. 88.88.164.36 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Should mean remove, which will not surprise anyone who has seen my other posts here. Inclusion in this list effectively removes the right of contributors to discuss consensus when an item is raised at ITN/C. To prohibit such discussion on the basis of no consensus is thoroughly illogical. I would further move, for the same reason, that consensus for inclusion at ITN/R (whether addition or retention) should be overwhelming. Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Firstly, if some significantly older items are on the list that had little or no discussion, it should be easy to suggest and gain support for their removal. It's being done for a couple of things right now. People can do so at any time.
I furthermore do not see why this page should be treated any differently than other pages. Each discussion should be considered on its merits and consensus obtained. We don't need to change what lack of consensus does here. Consensus can change and presence on the list isn't writing the subject in stone. If consensus changes that much, that can be brought up on this page at any time. Having such a rule just undermines ITNR by tilting the process to those opposed to it in general.
Lastly, I sort of agree that a little more support than 50% plus one or two might be helpful with votes on these items, though I'm not sure when items that barely break for either support or remove have action taken on them now. If they're that close, the relevant topic of discussion shouldn't go through anyway. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
"I furthermore do not see why this page should be treated any differently than other pages." This page seeks to do something that no other page on Misplaced Pages (that I am aware of) does. It claims the authority to override any attempt to establish consensus on a matter at another page, where that other page has a large impact on a page of huge viewership and far wider participation in establishing its content.
For example, it is absolutely crazy that on the basis of the undiscussed addition of an event and an inconclusive review of its status on the list, that people actively involved in the discussion of main page content are gagged.
If it is assumed that consensus can change, then codifying a temporary consensus and using it to suppress discussion of consensus seems illogical. ITN/R rarely attains a high profile: for most items, the fact of their inclusion at ITN/R only comes to wider attention after it has been nominated at ITN/C, and then it is considered bad form to challenge it here. Small tail wagging large dog, in a manner not like any other page. Extraordinary powers require extraordinary level of authority. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question At what interval should the "older items on this list" be re-considered for your version of "consensus"?
  • Question If an "older item" had consensus to add to the list at the time (even through light discussion), should it be re-evaluated regularly so that whomever happens to be participating in the project at that time can re-consider the item? --IP98 (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose No consensus means exactly that, no consensus to change. Items on ITN/R that had consensus at the time to be added, cannot be removed simply because the current participants in the project cannot agree if the item should remain or not. --IP98 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
False assumption: many items were posted at the beginning of the list with no discussion at all. Kevin McE (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
--IP98 (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please provide discussion links for each and every one of the 34 items added to this version of the ITN/R page which was posted by User:Random89 exclusively in February 2008, many of which we still have today.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That is formatted as a reply to me: I'm guessing the challenge was intended to be laid before IP98 rather than at my door. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it was formatted as a reply to the template, (check the colons!). And indeed, it's now up to IP98 to demonstrate where the consensus was reached to add those initial 34 items to ITN/R.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for my miscount. Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course, the contributions made by User:Random89 would have been prevented of WP:ITNR was protected from non-admin editing, and if a closure process was required to move an item from WT:ITNR to WP:ITNR. --IP98 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well that's silly because he/she added those 34 items before ITN/R was even considered a legitimate repository for candidates to be posted without further debate. Now then, onto the evidence, please show us all where these items gained consensus, or else remove your assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
My response was a challenge to Kevin McE to back up the statement many items were posted at the beginning of the list with no discussion at all.. If my misuse of colons and templates has caused confusion, I'm sorry, and would appreciate technical counseling on the correct use of those items. --IP98 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've provided a link to 34 items which had no consensus to be posted. Don't forget, you can't prove a negative, so unless you can prove that these 34 items did have community consensus for inclusion at ITN/R, you'll need to retract your assertion that "items had consensus at the time to be added". Please provide evidence that this assertion is true. You only need to do three or four of those 34, I don't expect the whole lot... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I won't perform tricks for you. Kevin McE has made a claim, and I've asked him to back it up. If you have an objection to the 34 items you've mentioned, feel free to start a new discussion topic on those items. --IP98 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, as I've said, you cannot prove a negative. I (nor Kevin McE) can prove there wasn't a discussion for those items to be added, but you, at the very least, to back up your claim, should be able to do that. So unless you can provide evidence, please remove your blatant lie. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
There are archives of past ITN/R discussions. You can review them at you're leisure. I've linked to some discussions at recent ITN/C discussions. I have rephrased my remarks to remove the implication that all items had consensus. The statement "please remove your blatant lie" is exceptionally hostile and unpleasant. --IP98 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Well clearly it was a lie because you couldn't provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your fake assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It was an accidental inaccuracy caused by poor choice of words. Simply pointing out that I had given a false impression would have been adequate. Instead, you've twice accused me of being a liar. I do not understand why you've used such hostility. --IP98 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It was not an "accidental inaccuracy", it was an entirely false assertion. Note, I asked you courteously " please provide discussion links for each and every one of the 34 items" and then "please show us all where these items gained consensus, or else remove your assertion" and then " Please provide evidence that this assertion is true". You refused, on each occasion to do so. You had a chance. Or three. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You asked please provide discussion links for each and every one of the 34 items which was totally unreasonable. All you had to say was "you've given the impression that all items had consensus, this is not totally accurate". Instead you immediately adopted a confrontational position, then twice called me a liar, and have continued to insist that my intentions were malevolent. --IP98 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I then suggested just three or four linked discussions would be a good start. You adopted a deliberately erroneous position to start with in order to promote a fallacious belief that everything on ITN/R had a consensus to be there. I asked then asked you to provide evidence of your declared consensus based on a link where 34 items were added (including the recently removed "world record" item). You didn't do that. You need to be more careful when you make false assumptions. Especially when the whole debate is over whether items had/have consensus for inclusion. Your failure to do so entirely undermines much of what you write here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You adopted a deliberately erroneous position to start with in order to promote a fallacious belief that everything on ITN/R had a consensus to be there. Again, that's false. I didn't adopt a deliberately erroneous position. You have no idea who I am, or what my intentions are. At any point you could have explained why you were asking for these links. You didn't. Instead you called me a liar, twice. Then have insisted that it was a deliberate act, twice. I have no idea why you've done these things. --IP98 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
This whole debate was about whether items had consensus. You claimed they did. Then you couldn't prove it, worse you refused to prove it. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I accidentally gave the impression that all items on ITN/R had consensus. Rather than point that out, you made unreasonable demands, called me a liar then accused me of malevolence. Why you adopted that path, I have no idea, but it's as simple as that. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Not really, I just asked you to substantiate your outlandish claim. You said you wouldn't "perform tricks". Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it was formatted as a reply to the fact template, (check the colons!). And indeed, it's now up to IP98 to demonstrate where the consensus was reached to add those initial 34 items to ITN/R.... That was your statement. Since I hadn't commented on 34 items (you introduced that), I had no idea what you were talking about. I said I wouldn't perform tricks for you, and you replied please remove your blatant lie. From that point on you proceeded down a path of unrelenting, unrepentant and utterly unnecessary hostility, twice calling me a liar, twice accusing me of deliberately promoting a "fallacious belief", and stating that "worse still" I "refused" to prove a position I hadn't realized I had taken. I have no idea why you behaved in this exceedingly hostile manner. It's been thoroughly unpleasant. --IP98 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I introduced "34" because I actually bothered to do some research, before making basic errors in claims about "consensus". Perhaps next time you'll do some research, before it becomes such an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Your statement is predicated on the notion that I intentionally attempted to mislead the community. That's a notion which you've repeatedly attempted to promote, despite having precisely zero evidence. I looked at the past discussions, saw a number of items which had consensus. It wasn't my intention to suggest that all items were thoroughly discussed. Instead of pointing out my error, you called me a liar. That's the issue here. You could have diffused this "issue" easily, but instead embarked down a path of sarcasm ("look at the colons!") and hostility ("remove your blatant lie"). That's the real issue here now, a pattern of unremitting hostility. --IP98 (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The colon comment was a response to Kevin. The other issues I've already dealt with, I gave you at least three chances to defend your clearly fallacious statement. You declined or ignored each opportunity. You could have diffused this "issue" by supplying the evidence (or even some of it) to substantiate your claim. The problem here is the unremitting falsehood. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I corrected the "falsehood" (an honest mistake of word choice, not even of poor research), after I finally understood your objection. Since then you keep throwing about the terms "falsehood" and "lies". That truly is the issue here now. I don't know why you didn't state your objection clearly at the start, instead of demanding evidence to support a claim I hadn't realized I had made. Calling me a liar is totally unacceptable. --IP98 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
My objection was clear, you needed to prove what you said (which was a lie) and you refused to do so. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
It was not a lie. A lie is a deliberate attempt to deceive. This was not the case. Stop calling me a liar. --IP98 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
During the above discussion, you have edited your comment to change it from "Items on ITN/R are there because the items had consensus at the time to be added, and cannot be removed simply because the current participants in the project cannot agree if the item should remain or not" to "Items on ITN/R that had consensus at the time to be added, cannot be removed ...".
So what is your proposal in regard to those that fall outside your lately introduced qualification? Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well; I didn't really say it outright above. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This usually comes up at Misplaced Pages in deciding if "no consensus" means no endorsement or no change. I firmly believe that the least controversial way to handle these things is to assume always that "no consensus" should always mean "no changes to the status quo" whatever the status quo was before the issue was put to a !vote. So, if the issue at hand is the removal of an item from ITNR, and there is no consensus, the item should not be removed. If the issue at hand is adding an item to ITNR, and there is not consensus, the item should not be added. --Jayron32 17:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I understand the viewpoint of Jayron; however, considering the purpose of ITN/R, any discussion that doesn't result in consensus for inclusion of a topic should result in the removal of that topic. If consensus cannot be reached remove or retain a topic, it is clear that the topic is controversial enough that it shouldn't be on ITN/R. Ryan Vesey 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Minimum level of discussion required

The IP has indicated An additional point to consider is the lack of discussion for some of the older items on the list.. The IP and Kevin McE have further indicated that a lack of "consensus" should be grounds for removal. Given that a

  1. Not all editors routinely check WT:ITN/R
  2. Many recurring items only occur once a year
  3. Editors who may be interested in advancing recurring event X to the main page may only check WT:ITN/C when their event occurs and that
  4. Those editors may be surprised to find that suddenly an event which they felt was routinely going up due to being on ITN/R is now being kicked around annually on notability grounds

I would like to propose that:

  1. No single item be removed from ITN/R until everyone who has commented on that item during it's last three ITN/C cycles be contacted and advised of it's consideration at WT:ITN/R
  2. Any of those contributors who chooses not to comment here be considered a keep !vote, if they !voted Support at ITN/C. It's logical since those individuals took the time to comment on the item at ITN/C.
  3. And finally, that it be a requirement for whomever nominates an ITN/R item for removal to make the necessary notifications or to find that removal nomination nullified.

I think it should be considered as seriously as an AFD nom, where people who had contributed to an article be notified of it's possible deletion and be given a chance to stop it. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction creep, too complex, though I appreciate the intent here. I think we do need some sort of review and overhaul of ITNR, but this is far too messy and complicated to work. --Jayron32 15:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron, though I too appreciate the intent. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply Thank you both for understanding. I knew it was a long shot, but threw it out there as a genuine suggestion. I do think we need to work out some process, instruction creep not withstanding. If items can be flippantly removed and deleted from ITN/R, then it negates one of the key benefits of ITN/R, and essentially makes the whole sub-project irrelevant and dismissible. --IP98 (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and I find the suggestion that we allow non-reply to be a keep vote an abhorrent innovation. Proposing that, especially while not considering previous opposition to default to a remove vote, appears to be a deliberate attempt to manipulate the outcome. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose if people are still interested in ITN/R, this is the place to find out about it. Items should be discussed here and unless there is a positive consensus to keep the item on ITN/R, it should be removed. All the bureaucracy proposed above is honourable but quite over the top. However, it is pure fallacy to suggest that someone who thought something three years (or more) ago would think the same thing today. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply Thanks for your feedback. I concede that 3 years is a bit much. Here is the scenario I'm trying to avoid: Given recurring event X which is on ITN/R and has been for many years when the threshold for inclusion was a bit cloudy. During the last occurrence of X, it was nominated at ITN/C, got a few support !votes, was updated, and posted to the template. If X is nominated for removal here, it may be deleted from ITN/R even though it got support during it's last cycle on ITN/C. Further, if the proposal from the IP above, supported by Kevin McE is adopted, then no consensus would have an item stricken from ITN/R, even if it had been here for some time and had easily passed it's last ITN/C. I don't think it's a far fetched scenario. --IP98 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Removal from ITN/R does not mean prohibition from ITN/C. If someone interested in annual event X's appearance on the main page does not visit ITN/C at the appropriate time, they have pretty much lost the right to complain if it is not nominated. However, I see no reason why there could not be a template on talk of the article of the main event to draw attention to ITN status, and removal of this would alert aficionados to the need to petition at ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Protection for WP:ITNR

ITN/R is changing. There was no consensus to scrap it, and some items are now under discussion. I would like to propose the following:

  1. Protect WP:ITNR so that only admins can edit it
  2. Require admin closure of a WT:ITNR nomination before the change is made on WP:ITNR
  3. Link to the revision ID of the WT:ITNR discussion where consensus was gained for the item

The top two points would have ITN/R function the same way as ITN/C, and the third is a convenience for our descendants so that their future discussions of ITN/R items will be able to reference ours. I think this is fairly easy and non-controversial. --IP98 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. --IP98 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose On what grounds? Is it currently being vandalized or is there a current edit war going on? I don't see either looking at the history, the ITNR page has been edited like 3 times in the past month and a half. If there isn't, then I don't see any reason to protect it. Insofar as there isn't any shenanigans, then ANY editor should be able to close and interpret a discussion here regarding the addition and removal of items (or even the complete scrapping thereof) and enact the results. Admins absolutely do not have special privileges to close discussions and enact their results, except in the limited cases where their tools are needed; the ITN template is protected because it appears on the main page, which is why admins are needed to add stuff to it. There is no other reason for that, if it weren't so protected, it wouldn't need any admin involvement at all. Same here: ITNR is not highly visible, and is not being disruptively edited, so it doesn't need protection OR admin involvement at all. The fact that the discussions here have opposing viewpoints is NOT a compelling reason to protect the page, lots of discussions have opposing viewpoints, and the fact that those opposing viewpoints have NOT spilled over into the ITNR page in the form of edit warring is proof that everything is working just fine, and that admins DON'T need to invoke their tools to fix anything. No, nothing it to be gained by protecting anything, and any editor in good standing should be allowed to interpret consensus from discussions here and enact their results. --Jayron32 15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply I strongly disagree with the last part of your statement, that "any editor in good standing should be allowed to interpret consensus from discussions here and enact their results". I think having some admin closure of a discussion is important to give the discussion finality, and to keep the process orderly. You'll notice that admin closure was needed to implement the RD section, and to lift the requirement for the image to be aligned with the top most item for living persons. How is this different? All ITN/C discussions take admin closure, why not ITN/R? Why not have the same process for both? --IP98 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, admins weren't required to implement the RD section, and to lift the requirement. You'll notice that at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure it states "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need to follow a formal process for closing and summarizing the result." (bold mine). You will find nowhere, in no official policy at Misplaced Pages, that admin status is required to close and enact any discussion whose closure would not involve the use of admin tools. The only discussions that do require admin closure are those where enacting the results would need an admin to use their tools. ITNC requires that only because the ITN template is fully protected, and that is only because it is on the main page. In almost no other contexts (and I use almost, just as a hedge against someone finding one, not that I believe there is one) does the admin status carry special weight with regard to closing and enacting discussions, except those as noted that specifically require admin tools for technical reasons. Now, admins often close discussions where there tools aren't needed only because they are highly experienced editors, but it has nothing to do with the admin bit. If there is not a compelling reason for the specific use of admin tools (protection, deletion, blocking) then there is never a reason for admins specifically to be needed for a task. Ever. The admin flag on someone's account is not and endorsement that those editors have a special status that any other well-experienced editor doesn't have except in regard to the specific use of those tools that admins have been assigned. If you believe this to be otherwise, if you think admins should be granted special powers beyond the use of their tools, you'll find that you are definitely NOT supported by consensus at Misplaced Pages. You will find no policy or guideline that recognizes that, and if you wish to make that explicit, you would have to start a discussion to do so and see where the community lies. Having seen hundreds of those discussions myself, consensus has ALWAYS been that admins do NOT have special preference in the scenarios where their tools aren't being explicitly used. This is one of those scenarios, which is why admins DO NOT have special status to do so over other editors. Admins are of course allowed to close such discussions as this, but in doing so they do so merely because they are experienced editors, and any experienced editor, even without the mop, has the same standing. --Jayron32 17:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you, that was very thorough. I do think overall that an ITN/R nom should follow a similar process to an ITN/C nom, but you've clearly indicated that admin involvement is not required. As a sort of off-topic, how to other Misplaced Pages discussions not turn into revert wars and battlegrounds? --IP98 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Simple, if people do that, they get blocked for being disruptive. There's enough admins around who will block people who stand in the way or otherwise disrupt normal processes at Misplaced Pages. That the person who closed the discussion isn't an admin shouldn't cause someone else to revert them anymore than if they were an admin, and if that happens, action can be taken. --Jayron32 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #3; that can only be helpful in related discussions. I think #1 and #2 should only be done on an as-needed basis. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support #3, the other two clauses are entirely unecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, if and only if a thorough review is undertaken, including comprehensive discussion of the principles for inclusion at ITN/R. ITN/R claims extraordinary authority, so it needs to be held to the highest account. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ITNR review process proposal

OK. So there seems to be some general consensus that we need some sort of review of the way ITNR runs, or at least some review of the items currently on ITNR, as many people have objected that there isn't any clear evidence that some or many of the items had specific consensus to place them on the list. So I propose the following simple procedure for ITNR review. This is designed to match, as closely as possible, how any other consensus reaching discussion works at Misplaced Pages, and still allow us to have the discussions necessary for ITNR that people want to have.

  • We start discussions in batches of 10 items from ITNR, which is to run for seven days each. Thus, ten new discussions per week, and the discussion remains open for seven days, where people decide to remove or keep items on the ITNR list.
  • At the end of the week, an uninvolved editor (we can ask at WP:AN/RFC if we need to find someone) makes the call and either removes or keeps each item. For the purpose of this discussion, no consensus is treated like no consensus elsewhere, which means that the status quo (what existed before the discussion) stays.
  • After the discussions have been closed, and results enacted, a new batch of 10 items is brought forward and discussions run for another seven days.
  • Once the entire set of current ITNR items has been reviewed, new items can be proposed, or existing items can be removed, by individually nominating them here on this page just as always.

The idea behind this procedure is to allow for us to review the entire list in an orderly manner, to use procedures and standards familiar to Wikipedians and not introduce any new novel procedures, and to eventually get the entire list reviewed. Let's just take them in order as they are now, take the first ten for the first week, and then just keep slogging through them until they're all done. That may take some considerable time, but it will at least allow for a complete review, give adequate time for people to find the discussions, think on them, and make their opinions known, and then when it's all done we can be done with it. So, what think everyone, what's the opinion on doing a procedure like this?

  • Support as nominator. --Jayron32 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle I think that maybe going by category (sports, awards, etc) might be easier to keep track of then a hard limit of 10. Also think the current ITN/R should be frozen while the process runs. It would be extremely helpful if the discussion where the item was added to ITN/R (if available) and the most recent ITN/C were linked to for review. Are you volunteering to do the work? It's quite a task. Lastly, we'll need some process for adding new items in the future. --IP98 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I can handle the technical aspect of starting the ten discussions. I thought about doing it by topic, but in the end just clearing the whole list ten at a time seemed like the best idea. I also don't think we need to necessarily link to any prior discussions per se as this is supposed to act as the consensus itself; the existence of prior consensus becomes irrelevant since the idea behind this review is to be the final say. That is, the point is not to decide how any items got on the list the first time, it is just to decide if it belongs on the list, period. If it belongs, we keep it, if it doesn't we remove it, and it isn't necessary in this process to decide how it got there in the first place. The idea for creating some new process for adding or removing items after this review is done can be done in a separate discussion. This is just about building a full ITNR list that has unambiguously been discussed for every item. --Jayron32 18:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly be essential to get a thorough review of ITN/R, if it is to survive. Looking at 10 for a week at a time would be ambitious but good if the pace can be maintained. However, I would counter suggest:

  1. Opinion at the discussion above is evenly split as to whether no consensus means no change: majority against if TRM's 4:49 comment in another thread is taken into account. It would be very contentious to apply the assumption that you propose until there is a clearer resolution, especially as there was in many cases no explicit consensus for addition.
  2. Before we start, there should be agreement as to what constitutes proper grounds for listing at ITN/R. I repeat what I have said higher up the page: there is a distinction to be made between ITN/C style !votes ("I think it's important enough to post because ...") and ITN/R !votes ("I am confident that the community will consider this important enough to post for the foreseeable future because ...")
  3. Within the stated ambition of 10 reviews a week, space should be allowed for timely reviews: for example, it would appear from current ITN/C that the inclusion of BRICS summits cannot be taken as a confident predictor of consensus. It would be good if we had spare capacity to discuss such issues while the iron is hot.
  4. A degree of humility is necessary. If only a few editors are party to these discussions, I do not believe that this review process can claim authority to dictate what can and cannot be discussed at ITN/C. But I throw the floor open as to what we would hold to be sufficient as a quorum, and where ITN/R stands if reviewing it cannot garner enough support to be trustworthy.
  5. The more items that are admitted to ITN/R, the less attention will be paid to the ITN/C exhortation "Please do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." Warning to this effect should be part of the review. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)