Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 6 February 2017 (→Remove: Super Bowl: proper closure (which is the WHOLE POINT of this thread)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Add e-Sports: LoL & Dota2

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

This subject is always controversial at ITN so I hope we can have a rational, argumentative discussion. In 2016, the Dota2 International was posted on ITN mostly because of the ridiculous purse size, over $20M. On the other hand, LoL, with only $5M, got rejected in large part for reasons along the lines of "I don't like eSports". That being said, very few seemed to pay any attention to the number of people following the event. This is partially because viewership numbers are not immediately available during the event like it is with other "classical" competitions. To put things in perspective, according to primary sources, the LoL finals received 32M unique viewers live in 2013, 27M in 2014, 36M in 2015, and 43M in 2016. These numbers are more than say the NBA finals receive usually. I remember nominating the LoL finals posted in 2014 but people wanted a separate article, while others opposed predicting that these events will not have staying power ("video games come and go"). The 2016 League of Legends World Championship got plenty of "I don't want it votes", and by the time the article got significant updates it was buried down at ITNC to the point nobody was paying attention to the nomination. That is even though it received major updates in the immediate days after the event, to the point that it could probably easily pass a GAN in the current state.

Barring any major crashes, should either of these two events be added to the ITNR? League of Legends World Championship and/or The International (Dota 2)? Nergaal (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical of putting events that don't pass ITNC into ITNR(leaving aside the merits of so-called "e-sports" in general). 331dot (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose they have struggled at ITNC, in particular through notability, so ITNR is an absolute no right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would support this idea myself in a year. I think it is slightly too early for these tournaments to be added to ITNR. What I am primarily interested in is seeing how the regular system will judge the various esports tournament that will be proposed for ITN in 2017. If The International makes it through again, I can see definitely see it becoming ITNR. If opinions of the LoL World Championship have even just slightly changed, I can see it get there as well. I'd also like to see how Evo 2017 will be received when it happens, as I am planning to do some good work on that myself. Just generally, let's work hard on these articles first and let's see how much growth these tournaments will see in the next year. For now, I oppose. ~Mable (chat) 14:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• I do tend to agree right now ITNR is not right, but I do think we need to discuss eSports as a legitimate sport at WT:ITN so that these events are not simply dismissed because some don't treat them as sporting events. There are still plenty of other potential aspects to be discussed once you start with the presumption they are world-level sporting tourneys (are they the top tourneys in their field, how big are they, the type of coverage they get -specialized vs general media sources, etc.) but the ITNR request is very much premature. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I am bothered as well by people posting "Oppose – not a sport" or something along those lines. They should be easy to disregard, but they are still unhelpful. When it comes to what esports events are, you may find that they have a large viewership (some tournaments exceeding viewing numbers of most ITNR sporting events) and a global interest. Any esports event that would be elligable for ITN gets players flying in from all over the world. Meanwhile, the specialized media attention is an issue. This may be a side effect of the global scale of esports. Professional gaming is only "mainstream" in South Korea, and even the biggest tournaments are unlikely to be mentioned in every-day newspapers. I'm not sure what to make of that when it comes to ITN. ~Mable (chat) 15:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • They are high-profile competitions akin to Chess Olympiads. The reason I started this discussion is because every single time I saw such events posted they are immediately taken down by superficial opposes, which do tend to influence the final outcome even though technically they shouldn't. I hoped that at least some kind of "suggestions" or "instructions" could come out of this proposal. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think these events are mature enough to warrant ITNC, let alone ITNR. I would advocate leaving it two or three years and see where it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • What kind of suggestions or instructions are you thinking of? One issue that is important is that the article has to be of high quality when you nominate it, as it seemed like the article on the LoL World Championship didn't make it through ITNC primarily because of its low quality at nomination time. This is good practice in general, really, but doesn't guarantee success, as I believe Capcom Cup 2016 showed. Other than that... I'm not sure what suggestions to give. I hope people like The Rambling Man don't oppose esports ITNCs simply on principle, but it is true that despite large numbers, esports doesn't make it on mainstream news channels. I don't even know if this will ever change, or if this is a reason for Misplaced Pages to ignore esports as well. Focus only on the biggest and most prestigious tournaments (which is probably just League, DotA, and possibly EVO), and we'll see, I guess... ~Mable (chat) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Unless/until these events have a track-record of passing ITN/C, I don't think we should be bypassing it via ITNR. The point in ITNR is to provide a fast-track process for items which are bound to pass once the article is of a suitable standard. These are clearly controversial and nominations would not be a foregone conclusion. If and when they have received sufficient support at ITN/C to be posted for 3-4 events in a row, then we can reconsider. Modest Genius 16:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Addition of leap second

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

I propose to add the insertion of a leap second to ITNR. Per Leap_second#Insertion_of_leap_seconds this occurs from time to time. An extra leap second will be added this year on December 31 and in the following, while no leap seconds were added in 2013 and 2014. From 1973 to 1979 a leap second has been added in each year, while from 1999 to 2004, for example, none has been added at all, so it seems important to know when such an addition occurs (also because there are two dates when they are added, December 31 and June 31, according to our article). The proposed regular blurb could be: The International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service adds a leap second to Coordinated Universal Time. Brandmeister 09:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• It would be an interesting way to mention the New Years in the ITN. 27/44 years means about 2/3 years there is likely bee a leap sec. Nergaal (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• I would support this. Its infrequent enough but a interesting scientific fact. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the article will just be updated with a new date, and nothing else at all. Not particularly interesting, and because of its regularity, not particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to add: Jules Verne Trophy

This is currently related to an ITNC, but I believe that any win of the Jules Verne Trophy (given to the yatching crew that holds the fastest time for circumnavigating the globe) would be an appropriate ITNR. Since its creation the award has only changed hands less than dozen times, so we're talking about one story every 4-6 years , though there's clearly no regularity towards it. To be clear, this should only be ITN when the Musée national de la Marine in Paris affirms the record and awards the trophy, and not after a crew claims they broke the record (as the current ITNC stands) --MASEM (t) 14:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose how many times has this been posted in the past? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Within the period that ITN has existed, it has only be awarded twice (this current ITN is the 3rd). No, it wasn't nominated at the previous times, but with only 2 possible cases to evaluate, it's impossible tell if that was a pattern or not. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't know what article you're looking at but the one I can see implies the race was run in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009 at the very least. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • It's not a race, it's not run in any regular or annual basis. A team, at any time, says "We're going to try to get the trophy", they pay a fee so that the museum can prepare to track their time; they run their course (starting and ending at fixed points), and then the museum validates if their time broke the record. Several attempts have been made but not all led to the Trophy being awarded. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
        • • Got it. Maintain the oppose based on the fact the JV trophy article is a mess, and there seems little reason to give it a free pass at ITN regarding notability when we've never even had it nominated, let alone posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• An interesting trophy, but I think if we're going to post something like this it will be because it broke the around the world sailing record, rather than the award of the Jules Verne Trophy per se. As such it should be considered at ITN/C like any other world record, rather than listed on ITNR. The article is indeed a bit poor and we haven't said anything about popular or media attention. Modest Genius 17:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with ModestGenius; this award itself doesn't seem to garner much wide attention, even if circumnavigating the Earth does. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Polo?

Could we please add polo tournaments?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s Please suggest a specific article so it can be discussed, e.g. World Polo Championship. Many thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s or even better, look: I found this... The Varsity Polo Match! It's a shoo-in! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A competition restricted to two elitist universities!? That will never be posted. Stephen 11:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That one is more outrageous than elitist to be honest--lots of Pimm's! I'm working right now but will make suggestions later.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that polo tournaments have featured at ITN before? Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. However, there is a long list of sports here--why not add polo?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Let's have a serious and mature discussion about it. If you have any other more niches sports you'd like to see at ITNR despite them never having been nominated at ITNC, it would be good to get them all out of the way sooner rather than later so we can return to discussing things in a less pointed fashion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We are very serious. I've created many articles about polo clubs and players. I do think covering polo in ITN is essential.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Jolly good, let's hear which article(s) then. I imagine you would absolutely need to start with the World Championship, right? After all that's the pinnacle of the game, so please, write out a proposal that we can discuss and get consensus on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• My initial thought is that polo is too niche a sport to get the news coverage needed for ITN (let alone ITNR), but I'm willing to be corrected. I'd like to see it pass ITNC first. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It has a huge international following in all corners of the world! I read Polo Times, but I'm sure we could find many sources for the main tournaments.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really, it's a very niche sport in very niche corners of the world, as exemplfied by the various "World" Championship articles we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• If we could show that a major polo event makes it through ITN/C uncontroversially for a few years, I'd be in support of adding it to ITN/R at that point. --Jayron32 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• The poor quality of the World Polo Championship article would be a problem for me. It's hard to imagine an event being on ITN/R when its overall summarising article is in such a poor state. A quick perusal of the articles for the various championships themselves, none of those articles would be suitable for main page posting. You could try an ITN/R push here, but I would strongly recommend instead putting your efforts behind getting the 2017 Championship through ITN/C and then looking to ITN/R. This would be helped immensely by putting together a good quality 2017 World Polo Championship article, and also improving World Polo Championship. --LukeSurl 15:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Open Polo Championship is a horror show too. Wow.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's probably partly as a result of the lack of interest in such a sport. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I think what's needed is to show that there's a sufficiently large enough interest in the sport to merit an ITNR. Yes, it's played internationally and there's international competitions, but you don't see this televised broadly (in contrast, even the most contested ITNR event the Boat Race has been shown to have viewerships in the millions in addition to attendees). It is a very much a niche sport as identified, but that said, being proven wrong as to its viewership/interest would help. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A really good proxy for all of that would be to show that Misplaced Pages's articles on the subject are thorough, well referenced, and continue to be updated year after year at a high quality standard. If an article on a Polo competition could uncontroversially make it through ITN/C for several years, it would show that the subject has consensus as a sufficiently important event, AND that Misplaced Pages has a community of editors willing to keep the articles on that event at a high standard. That would show consensus for an ITN/R addition. --Jayron32 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the "did it make through ITNC the last X years?" as that is a process that takes forever and with the variable population of editors here, a lot of things can change over that period. I do think that we should look to previous articles of that recurring event to evaluate if they have been regularly updated in a timely manner after the event occurred, in addition to evaluating whether the event itself is something editors here feel is sufficiently significant to a global audience to include, taking into account all existing events within the same field to make sure we're not overrepresenting that field. The ITNC test is one of those that gets caught in a catch-22 loop, because with the event not listed at ITNR, sometimes it will be as less significant, and thus the entry rejected. (That said, if there does happen to be a case of a repeating ITNC event that gets consensus each time, certainly using that to justify ITNR is fine). I don't think that this applies to the polo situation (eg article quality is not there, and we're debating significance now), but we shouldn't use ITNC repeat postings as the only metric here. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I assume you all realise this is a joke nomination?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suspect we're all aware of the ITN/C background to this nomination. We have had a civil and productive discussion nonetheless. --LukeSurl 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion which has consumed a vast amount of bytes and editing time and produced nothing beyond the obvious I'm afraid. Time to close this down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

When one acts in good faith, it highlights when others clearly are not. It's a good way to make such actions stand out by contrast. If everyone behaves badly, then we can't tell anyone apart. If we behave politely and give due credence to suggestions as though they were in good faith; if they were not, it would make the bad faith actions stand out starkly. If they were in good faith, then we are also proper to respond in kind. Either way, the proper response is to take the suggestion seriously and to offer constructive ways forwards. --Jayron32 21:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Remove: Super Bowl

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

It's clear there was some movement, albeit small, towards opposing the Super Bowl being on ITN/R. I'll summarize the main arguments as follows: the Super Bowl is a national interest story for a national sport that has little to no coverage or playtime outside of the United States; there is a large number of Western European/U.S. based national sports and events dominating the ITN/R listings; and in terms of newsworthiness this event has little importance. It does not have the same bent on national or global politics as do elections, disasters or governmental actions. Granted, some time ago this was considered a "low-controversy item". Given the fever-pitch tenor of the news media nowadays, however, as well as the general changes in consensus that have occurred at ITN/C, it seems fair to evaluate whether or not these events can still retain the sufficient newsworthiness to merit an automatic yearly posting. Incidentally, any consensus we reach from this decision could be assumed to apply to other postings of national sports that have equal or similar levels of influence in their respective countries.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Addressing two points:

• The event is broadcasted internationally (albeit far less than the Olympics) and while it's not yet confirmed for this one, past SBs have brought 30-40M viewers in addition to the 100M+ in the US. I also see post-game coverage from the Guardian, the BBC, CBC, and others, so there's international coverage (far less volume compared to US papers, but still...)
• On the "same bent" argument, this would then be reason to remove all sporting news from ITNR, which is far too drastic.

As to the Western bias, that's one of those things we should try to fix, but going to the Polo nomination above: it requires people to identify events that are outside the Western sphere of influence and nominate them, to make sure our coverage of those events is generally of high quality shortly after the recurring event, and to show that the event does have significance in the region that it is in that might not be picked up by Western sources. Unfortunately, all those aspects are a function of the existence of the WP:BIAS that we need interested editors to find and promote these, such that when we evaluate here for ITNR we should try to ignore our Western-coverage bent to accept these. So I don't feel this is a proper argument to remove events as much as to encourage more events from broader areas to be included (like the polo one, though that clearly has some problems). --MASEM (t) 17:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is one of the most-watched events in the US the entire year, and it is broadcast internationally, is usually top headline news, a subject of interest to many readers, and typically gets a decent article to post. Objections that are based on this being a US event are not valid or at least highly discouraged("Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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.") If the objection is to sports in general, then we should be discussing that(though I would oppose that as well) Bias can and should be addressed by nominating more events that would merit inclusion, not removing events. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose I can muster Per WP:ITN/C: Please do not oppose an item because the event is 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. And yet, it's become an international event with lots of viewing outside of the U.S. This is one of the biggest sporting events in the world. We're not removing it. The fact that this is even being considered by anybody is a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the following reasons:

• The Superbowl is the headline event of a major sport (American football) with a large and international audience.
• This is the sole annual posting for the sport, one a year is an appropriate and proportional level of ITN coverage for this sport.
• The articles are of decent quality and a good showcase of the English Misplaced Pages's ability to create timely and informative articles on current events.
• Many people are coming to Misplaced Pages to view this article. Looking at the pageview stats for today, right now numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 are Superbowl related. Readers are coming to Misplaced Pages to read about this event so it is useful to our readers to link to this content from the main page.
• The Superbowl is widely covered in the news media, both in the US and internationally.

--LukeSurl 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• We are posting Premier League and even La Liga, which have a high viewership but nowhere near the totals of NFL. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I similarly oppose to the suggestion of removing the Super Bowl, as it seems to me, as a foreigner, to be the largest-scale United States sporting event there is. Even people who do not follow sports will know about it, which is not something you could say of many other sporting events in ITN/R. Of course, this is for a large part because of the US' global cultural dominance, but even taking this into account, the event still a massive economic event "considered by some as an unofficial American national holiday." It is the most-watched annual sporting event worldwide, which is worth something, I'd say. Almost the entirety of its audience lives in North America, so it's not a "strong" oppose, but it's a pretty solid oppose nonetheless. ~Mable (chat) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and I know why Walt is doing this, unlike, it appears, do any of the preceding commentators! Time to snow close, consensus re-assured, we can move on to next year's debate over whether it should be Superbowl 52 or Superbowl LII. I can't wait for Superbowl LIX! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I know what's really behind this proposal; I was part of that back and forth on ITN/C. It's important that all of us reaffirm in the strongest language possible why this is ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Well in that case Support instant removal this is a parochial game played by two parochial "franchises" in some random location in "America" (at the moment), it's an unknown sport, not like polo for instance. The fact that it was watched by hundreds of millions of people is simply a typo in the ratings, those people were actually watching The Apprentice (with Arnie). Honestly, I can't remember the last time I heard anything about this so-called "event", it's trivial and meaningless and nothing compared to two canoes full of snobs bob-bob-bobbing along the Thames in front of a load of snobs getting shitfaced. I'm burning my bra if this remains on ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Time for a WP:SNOW close? I think we're done here. --LukeSurl 21:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)