This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The above conversation was meaningful, but with too many options none garner sufficient support to change. So I offer a simple option.

We have recently declined to post a blurb for "the unexpected death of a prominent figure by suicide." We routinely decline to post "transformative world leaders in their field." We know that !voters at ITNC routinely ignore or emphasize the criteria as it suits them. So why don't we strike the "criteria" all together, and change it to what it really is - "I know it when I see it."

Propose to strike entire section of "Blurbs for recent deaths" from Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths and replace with "The death of certain people of extraordinary significance may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb."

This would not really change what qualifies at all - that has always been and will remain "sui generis." It could limit pointless arguments about "worldwide" influence, whether someone is "transformative," or if their "field" is too niche. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support The discussion did seem to show, among other things, a general support for discussion being necessary. It seems a suitable way to go, especially if it keeps the discussion focused rather than debating if the 'criteria' is applicable etc. each time. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We need a baseline to say the types of things we try not to post as blurbs (Simply being a beloved actor or figure, for example), where as setting other factors as to when we are likely to consider blurbs in depth should be stressed. But these last parts should not be read as "the condition is met therefore a blurb must be posted", but should be considered the type of minimal factors; a blurb can still be rejected. If one is nominating for a blurb, they should give good justification to our guidance why a blurb is merited and failure to show that factors comparable to these would be a good reason that a blurb is not considered. --Masem (t) 23:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Am I correct in the belief that no such baseline exists for blurbs, and the posting of a blurb relies solely on consensus to do so? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• In theory it does: "transformative figure in their field". Other metrics people have personally aren't codified in ITN, but they create unhelpful arguments in discussion. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand and share the desire for a baseline, but we have a baseline now and no one honors it. That in turn leads to criticism for not following the guidelines, and every nom is a novel-length argument. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can predict right now that even with this change, we will get another case of a popular celebrity (but not extraordinary person) being pushed through by weight of !votes and admins that simply read the !vote (which has been happening too often around other ITN aspects too). There's no hard way to stop attempts to give blurbs to non-extraordinary people, but I feel having some baseline minimum of what doesn't get a blurb would at least help - people that are only known for being famous or beloved for example don't fit that, and we should spell that out clearly. We should be clear that extraordinary people are those that have received numerous honors and recognition appropriate for their field (as some type of measurable means to assess that), and not just because Twitter goes abuzz because they died. And if we do go this way, we need admins here to put their foot down, point to this "rule" and say "No, this does not meet it" when some B-list celebrity is suggested for a blurb. We should stop blurb discussions on people that should not have blurbs that fall below my suggested "minimum" considerations so that they don't linger and cause issues at ITN. If admins were more focused that recent death blurbs should be a rarity, rather than "oh, this might be a case", that might help, but I think we've been giving in to allow discussions to happen and thus creating the problems. --Masem (t) 17:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The structure of ITN needs a general overhaul because it is quite dysfunctional currently. Most of the nominations are for RD while there's only about one successful blurb of any sort every three days. The result is that the RDs zoom by as a ticker while the blurbs stay the same for day after day. This compares poorly with the other sections on the main page which change every day.

For famous people, their articles usually get lots of traffic regardless because the readers are going straight to the article. And famous people such as Vera Lynn or Ian Holm have lots of name recognition and so you don't need a blurb to explain what's happened. It's the more obscure RDs that could use some supplemental information to explain who these people are -- something like the short description, e.g. Tony Taylor – Cuban baseball player.

Blurbs are most appropriate when there's a story to tell. For deaths, this would be when the death is unusual or special in some way -- an assassination, execution, plane crash or the like. George Floyd is the obvious recent example.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And famous people such as Vera Lynn or Ian Holm have lots of name recognition: The concept of "famous" is generally regional. Using your proposed model, most Americans would need a blurb for those two names.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's always easy to ask more cultured foreign editors? Of course, as shown with the expedited posting of John Lewis, while it is not the case that there's a US bias when it comes to posting, it does seem that some US editors overestimate the significance of US cultural figures/underestimate foreign ones. Probably unintentionally. Like comparing Eurovision to American Idol. The discussion will hopefully make the significance of the person clear so they can be judged before posting. Kingsif (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What we don't need is for ITN to become WP:TOP25. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course even famous people may be unknown to some readers. For example, I'd not heard of John Lewis (the US senator) before. As such names may be common and so require disambiguation or explanation, my suggestion is that most deaths be reported with a short description too. For example,

• Vera Lynn – English singer and actress
• John Lewis – American politician and civil rights leader
• Ian Holm – British actor
• Ekaterina Alexandrovskaya – Russian-Australian pairs skater
• and so on

This would be more helpful to the readership of the RD section, providing some brief context without recurring argument about elaborate blurbs.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We've had that discussion several times with consensus against such an approach. Primarily due to the limited space, but also as people will no doubt argue over the short descriptions. Avoidance of such time-wasting ventures was one of the prime motivations of RD. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

But the current system doesn't work. We still get recurring argument because putting just a link to a name in a ticker line makes the entries too bland and boring. Whenever I glance at RD I mostly think ((who))? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The current system works brilliantly. There's no "recurring argument" over how RD works at all, that's just made up. Just because you aren't aware of who many of these individuals are, it doesn't mean we need to re-hash age-old arguments which have consistently failed to be adopted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, Lewis was a Congressman in the US House, not a Senator. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If only there was way for a reader to find out who someone was by clicking a link and discovering a well-referenced biography... Stephen 23:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment trying to codify what might be a suitable death blurb is a waste of time. We have Carrie Fisher setting the tone, and there was a consensus for it. That's how this works. Unfortunately, a consensus of people who don't really understand what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia) sometimes results in poor decisions being made, but as this is 100% subjective, the only way an outcome can be judged is on consensus. It would be better, in my mind, to erase any kind of attempt to describe what might constitute a blurbed death. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal by GCG. It maintains the vagueness of the current instructions with less words which is an easy win. Agree with TRM trying to codify blurb criteria for a blurb death is completely pointless. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The existing description of permitted blurbs clearly is not working. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support because the current setup is a failure. The addition of recent deaths was not meant to prevent deaths from being featured in a blurb; it was created to ensure people who would not get a blurb be recognized in some way. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Calidum 16:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't follow that. RD is not at fault in any way here. RD is doing exactly what it said on the tin. Blurbs for RDs totally different from the RD section. And ultimately blurbs should go to those who have a consensus for one, like the way all of Wikipedia's discussions should really go. Trying to codify some vague description of who should ("famous"/"legend"/"ground-breaking"/"pioneering" etc etc) is a complete waste of time and is just a meta-argument. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  This is a good take. The thinking that big people get blurbs and little people get RDs necessarily requires decent people to malign the stature of giants in the hours after their deaths. Let RD handle the bulk, and blurb only when there's no holding back the ocean. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  RD was explicitly created to prevent deaths from being featured as a blurb [1] [2]. I'll continue to apply the Thatcher/Mandela standard. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Those links don't say that, and it was much more nuanced in any case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not explicitly, but the rationale was because of "too many death blurbs" not for "lesser deaths". We were both there ... 7 years ... time flies eh? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  The initial discussion concerning the establishment of a "death ticker" was here. Calidum 16:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  And its probably important to add that sometime after adding the death ticker, we added that any BLP (and then later any once-living thing) with a standalone article would qualify for being on the RD as long as the article quality is there and it is covered in the news. What this should reflect is we have since added far many many more RD ITNC aspects to ITN, wheeas before the RFC Calidum points to (in May 2012), we were only considering deaths for blurbs, and so I think editors were already using selective caution there. Just picking a random ITNC page like Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2011 I count only 8 death ITNCs for the month, and I believe only 2 ended up posted (and staying posted). Now that we're allowing any RD in, we need editors that may consider blurbs to think as we had to do back then if we had no RD line, would this be a person that's we'd feature as a blurb.

  And then going back through, I see that at one point we had a "Deaths" section in the ITN instructions. At the end of 2012 it looked like this [3]: The death must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region. 2) The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. 3) The death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion. In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) and the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect. Now I have no idea when this section disappeared on the current instruction page, but this appears to be what still would reasonably apply for death blurbs (separate from RD). --Masem (t) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  It changes nothing, all those criteria are subjective: "high-ranking", "significant contribution/impact", "widely regarded", "very important figure", "major (!!) international impact". None of it is useful and all of it provide talking points on which people will necessarily disagree because their opinion (i.e. their subjective feeling) it was is being asked for. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Those criteria for RDs were removed in 2016 following a trial and RfC - see Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal for all the background, rationales and discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Those weren't for RDs (or at least that version), those were for blurbs. And they were not initially removed, they were changed in Dec 2015 here [4], where we first introduced the RD line (but before making RD broadly open later in 2016). Note that the blurb conditions still were there, just condensed into the bullet point. Those parts were split off in Nov 2019 [5] to WP:ITNRD, which is basically where they are now. But I see where things went, and where this ties into this question, so more just completing the history at this point. --Masem (t) 15:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Abolish 'em all! We already have an RD line. If certain stiffs are so important, their household names should (in theory) jump off the page and away from the pack. At least to people who recognize them as hot shit, leaving those who don't the freedom to carry on regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, but this has been rejected and will continue to be rejected. My proposal is meant to be a positive improvement that has real potential to garner consensus. Would you support this? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  No. But I won't oppose it. I'm just going to pretend death blurbs aren't there if I see them. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I find the guidance to be useful, as it frames the reasoning why a death may be worth arguing for a blurb rather than an RD posting. All postings are sui generis and subject to consensus discussions, so reducing the criteria to that is not helpful. --Jayron32 15:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose going from some guidance, even if it's debateable whether it is sufficient, to virtually none at all.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Abolish 'em all! – Unless the news of the death crashes the internet (e.g. Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson) or the news has an earth-shattering effect or at least large effect on world or national politics. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The currently listed guidelines are better than the median justification offered in discussions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So I posted the RD nom for Konrad Steffen, a notable climatologist who's article had no (apparent) problems when I posted the nom [6], and at that stage, was not stale, with two other names on the news box (Sheehan and Kamala). [7]. However, I posted the nom just after 00:00 August 15, but the death was first reported on August 10 locally (the actual death on August 8), and only until the 13th did international papers get coverage, so I was "following the rules" at least on the date. But, as you can see by the state of the ITN page on my diff, that nom is buried among a bunch of "finished" nominations in the TOC, and just now it was closed as stale with only one comment that found the article ready to go. And basically what I think it is is that editors reviewing this page and glazing over the TOC where we have all the "(Posted)" or "(Closed)" days or just forcing on the top few days and nothing lower. This also applies to admins reviewing RDs to add. (eg there was an RD added that was much higher up the page after AlphaBeta135's comment on this RD [8])

Now I could have BOLD/IAR as both an admin and nom to post my own thing w/o any further input but that's a can of worms I'd not want to open. And this is not something I'm personally upset over, but it is something I've seen happen many times before and a longstanding issue with how we've got this page working now. We do have these stories get lost in the weeds at times that don't get posted at ITN, but we should to eliminate any issues with those that come in, not stale, in good shape, and just need a few thumbs-up and admin to post them.

I know the reverse chrono order (newest events at top) is the easiest to follow for getting new noms into the process but it does lead to this behavior; DYK works the other way and that's to encourage people to look at the oldest. Obviously, a possible step with absolutely no change in what we do otherwise would be to strongly encourage all readers wanting to comment to start at the bottom and work up, rather than top down, and this would be even moreso for admins looking to see what is ready to post. The only other ways I can see making it easier for highlighting ITN noms that are still needed comments would either to have some means to have a split on this page, top half for active noms (those not posted or closed) and bottom half for ones posted or closed to keep there for any additional commentary, but I can see that getting messing in case where a story was posted too soon or the like or there is debate over a blurb. Alternatively, if we used the archive templates to visually "close" discussions more often after the item is posted or closed, or even more so, if there is no additional comments after posting/closing within 24hr, just so that visually, you can block out the discussions that need no further input from those still needing some. There's probably other ways, and I think we need to brainstorm here. --Masem (t) 06:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That nomination was already working on a limited timeline. By the time it got it's first "support" 21 hours later, it was technically already stale, as the oldest RD by then was August 11.[9] Still, I understand your general point. A few weeks back I nominated an RD, which had 2 supports and 0 opposes when someone else marked it "ready". After 48 hours w/o a post nor oppose, I IARed and posted it myself. For me, it's a bit clumsy having to scroll the list, even the TOC, and sifting past the (mostly) done requests. Perhaps a bot could maintain a separate box on top linking to the open ones.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Two things here: 1) we frequently have to wait for hours and hours and hours for admins to pop by and post "Ready" nominations which doesn't help the workflow and 2) perhaps a big NOTE at the top of the page reminding people that nominations may be open and still valid further down the page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder if any of our "regular" admins would be open to a ping? Sort of an opt-in list at WP:ITN "These admins can be pinged to post ready nominations". At least for RD, where we threw out the "significance" critera eons ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, like ((@FAC)) perhaps? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Category:Wikipedia_In_the_news_frequent_administrators exists but would work better as a template. P-K3 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  In fact we actually have @Admins willing to post ITN: - don't recall it being used that much though. P-K3 (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Pawnkingthree, well fwiw, it just worked lol —valereee (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  So ... fixed then? Maybe the volunteers in the category listed would add themselves to the template, and as a basic courtesy we wait a day or two before invoking it? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• WRT to "uninvolved admins" for RDs I see no reason why an admin can't posted their own nom if one individual shows consistent poor judgement the community will address. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have absolutely no problem in admins posting their own RD noms if there is a danger of it going stale. Unlike blurbs there is no subjective judgment of "significance" so if an RD meets the minimum quality standards, post it. P-K3 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Have done the same thing occasionally, and if done in good faith, I have no problem with it. As a side note, when reviewing noms, I entirely missed this one; my apologies. Feel free to ping me, but since my schedule is irregular I unfortunately can't guarantee that I'll be able to get to it within a reasonable time frame. (I am listed on Template:@ITNA. Spencer^T•C 15:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  If there are people that are fine with admins doing this (and on the presumption that the admin is vouching for sourcing, quality, etc. due to the "timing" factors, and thus should be responsive to issues that follow) as an IAR type thing, then that's fine, I'll keep that in mind in the future. I still think there's a "noise" issue on closed/posted threads that we still lose possible posted stories w/ minimal !votes to be addressed. (different from cases of long-drawn out debates of postability that end with no consensus to post). --Masem (t) 15:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yep, this "solution" doesn't work for non-admins either, but progress. I'd just say that if you are going to self-post, still do a nom so there is a discussion point if needed. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not being posted at ITN is not a big deal because, if the topic is in the news, then plenty of people will be reading it regardless. The subject in this case used to only get a couple of readers each day but, since his death, there have been thousands.

The article in this case is not free of issues as the way it describes the death is quite misleading. It says that the subject drowned whereas what actually happened is that they disappeared and their body has not been found. Their fate is therefore a conjecture and the press seems to be basing in their theories on Twitter posts from colleagues. The article also suggests that crevasses are unprecedented but they are a standard hazard of icesheets and have been for centuries. If ITN is expected to fact-check articles then you need many eyes to find such issues.

So, admins should not be posting their own nominations because they are obviously involved and will be inclined to overlook such issues in their haste.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• On the cause of death, it's not "Twitter posts from colleagues." If you check the New York Times reference you will see Police investigators said he had fallen into a crevasse in the ice and drowned in the deep water below.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• These article-speific comments are a barrel of red herrings and not the main issue. If we trust our admins and if they post articles which have received support from at least another editor and no issues come up, then it's just fine. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• The NYT's account is weak and short on detail. Amusingly, for a more detailed account, see the Daily Mail,

  After going missing on Saturday, police initiated a search operation and on Sunday found evidence that the 68-year-old researcher had suffered a fatal accident. Police spokesman Brian Thomsen told local newspaper Sermitsiaq: 'We have found signs that the person fell through a crack in the glacier. 'An accident has probably occurred and it is highly probable that the person in question has passed away.' The search near Ilulissat in southwest Greenland was then abandoned, without the body being found.

So, like I said, the body has not been found and so the person is missing, presumed dead, but we can't be sure exactly how he died. The Daily Mail's account is better than the NYT's because it gives its sources – the names of the local newspaper and police spokesman. Of course, if we were to cite it, then some busybody would soon be along to tell us that it's not reliable and we should trust the NYT instead. This is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, eh? In such cases of uncertainty, ITN should be cautious rather than skimping on due process. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat polemic to accuse those of enforcing community-led decisions of being busy-bodies, but somewhat typical. Finger/dyke anyone? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And literally none of what is being said here relates to the main topic, so I suggest it's hatted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In this specific case, we're dealing with a couple distance and language telephone games on the actual method of death where no one was around to witness it in a remote part of the world. For the purposes of an ITN posting of just an RD (not blurb) simple confirmation of death and rough details in the article would be sufficient with the expectation that these would be improved over time. We don't want false death reports and we don't want where death is known, things like false suicide or murder claims or the like to be in articles, obviously. My point is I posted this thread that at the time when I made the nomination, the article was source-complete and this "but the death news wasn't sourced exactly right" would be bickering over nothing (as TRM says, the wrong problem to be concerned about). --Masem (t) 15:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• As explained above, the item in question needed good scrutiny and ideas for bypassing this are not sound. To address the issue of nominations getting "lost in the weeds", a more structural change might be sensible. Masem suggests a division so that closed nominations go "below the line" and so don't bury the nominations which are still active. That sound reasonable and there is some precedent at DYK. DYK had a problem in that the number of nominations was so large that it blew a technical limit on the number of templates on a page. The solution was to split the page in two -- one page for open nominations and one page for approved nominations. That seems to have been working ok but required a bot to move nominations from one page to the other and there were some glitches with its recognition of the approval status.

Another basis for the split which might be easier technically would be to put Recent Deaths on a separate page (which might have the shortcut WP:ITN/D). This would be sensible because RDs seem to be at least half of the ITN nominations and the process for considering them is somewhat different, in that their significance is not such a factor. If the RDs were dealt with separately then their similar nature might make for a more streamlined production line. On the other side, the paucity of non-death nominations would then be more apparent and this might encourage improvements there too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Policy or page changes aren't going to help anything. For better or worse, RD has become very popular over the years, and the space for accommodating them hasn't grown as much. Years ago RD noms would get archived before they went stale, and now staleness sets in after a few days. Chronological order will train editors to hit <end> when coming to ITN/C. Splitting RD and ITN noms onto separate pages will probably result in less editor attention to RD noms, as I feel that many editors come to ITN/C for the ITN noms and look into RDs only occasionally. Unfortunate that some noms go stale before review, but c'est la vie.
• I wonder if we've reached the point where RDs should be hived off to their own subpage. There are some editors who comment assiduously on RDs and others who only engage with blurb nominations. I know I often gloss over RDs unless it's a name I recognise. Personally, I would prefer to impose a significance criterion on RDs to reduce the number of nominations, but consensus has consistently been against me on that. Splitting blurbs and RDs onto separate pages would reduce the volume on each and make it easier to spot items further down the list; we could also consider removing the Current Event headers. A down side is admins needing to monitor two pages rather than one. Any death that might also merit a blurb would need two sets of discussion - one to get into RD and only after that is successful another to discuss a blurb - but that's roughly what happens informally already. Modest Genius ^talk 15:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I wish there was some way to include profession and nationality for RD listings like Spanish Wikipedia does. I would take much more interest in RD if I didn't have to click on every single name to figure out if I'd be interested in reading about them. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe bold the "Ready" text in the header?  Nixinova   T   C   23:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of review, Ready doesn't work, but something like Please Review or Needs Help could draw attention.130.233.2.170 (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Is there an emerging consensus on the best way to handle this? Seems like a notification / ping might be a good idea, but, I am not sure if that is disruptive to the Admins. Should we try using this @Admins willing to post ITN: as someone suggested upstream? Ktin (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Per the ITNC about removing the COVID banner, it is SNOW-clear there that we don't want to remove it but I postulated the idea of cutting out some links that now are less critical to be featured on the front page (given that its still dangerous, but if you don't know about it at this point and its dangers, you must have been living under a rock), as to get back an extra line or two in the ITN box overall.

So right now the banner looks like this:

Cutting some links and making it to one line looks like this (from my sandbox)

(This is not formatted with any special CSS, but just gives the idea).

You'll see I've deemed the Timeline, By Location, and Notable Death links as unnecessary at this point, as those are still one click away, but any other suggestions would be fair as well. --Masem (t) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Would the redesigned banner have any wordwrap issues that would defeat the purpose of cutting it to one line? If so, we need to consider that. If not, I like it as a good start.--Jayron32 16:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That's why I'm putting these next to each other. You can see the width of the widest line in the current and as long as we don't exceed that in the new, there should be no wrapping issues. Fewer links would assure that. (But we need the right CSS to do that, I don't have that coded into my example). --Masem (t) 17:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Something else to think about: Can we trim the margins by a few pixels? I know nothing about how that is coded, but there's a lot of white space in the banner itself. If we could bring in the upper and lower margins more snugly to the text, perhaps we could gain even more space without losing information. Just an idea. It may aesthetically suck, or it may be not feasible, but it's another thing to consider. --Jayron32 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I zeroed the header margin and it looks more in-form. If it needs any less, it has to be done using the mp-itn-h2 element in Main Page's templatestyles. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Something else to think about: Can we trim the margins by a few pixels? I know nothing about how that is coded, but there's a lot of white space in the banner itself. If we could bring in the upper and lower margins more snugly to the text, perhaps we could gain even more space without losing information. Just an idea. It may aesthetically suck, or it may be not feasible, but it's another thing to consider. --Jayron32 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Impact is a giant list, we could probably nerf it too if we needed to drop one more to prevent wrapping. Else Support the proposal per Jayron32 --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Will hopefully allow us an extra blurb more often. P-K3 (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support reduction to one line. --Tone 17:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Template has been quite crowded at the expense of blurbs. Spencer^T•C 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support — single line with only the most important articles linked is ideal at this point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine with removing the links to the timeline and geographic summary but would like to suggest adding something that directs to any of COVID-19 drug development, COVID-19 vaccine and COVID-19 drug repurposing research (all articles look great).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Ready support is pretty obvious, a lot of admin here supported one of y'all should just use your admin powers and implement please. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not ready as I said, the CSS is not properly set in my sandbox example. I need someone that is better knowledgable on that to make sure it is right before we replace it. --Masem (t) 17:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    •  Done Added nowrap and fixed the additional div (no idea how I missed it, but nothing broke, so ), it was mostly good-to-go. Also checked it on my phone and it looks as expected. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• The template has been updated by QEDK.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 18:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good on my 1024x768 display no wrapping smaller box. Thanks everyone for thinking about the ask. Cheers --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Heh, now we need a 4th blurb for "balance" too --LaserLegs (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Can we run the numbers on the the links being dropped for the last two to three months to see if they are indeed the right links (sub-pages) to be dropping? If someone gives me the actual page names, I can run the numbers. Ktin (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Here's a link to some stats for the last 60 days. Seems like we should reconsider the links being dropped. Not opposed to dropping a few links in the spirit of streamlining the page. But, the links being dropped should be lower on the metrics. Link_here Ktin (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have to disagree that page views should factor into this, unless we're talking about pageviews orders of magnitude larger than others. Quality of the target pages and relevance should be the larger role, but if it should have been the case that, say, recent decents of COVID drew a million views a day while any other COVID page only a thousand, okay, that's reason to keep. But that doesn't seem to be the case. --Masem (t) 20:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, Am I reading the link wrong in that 'By location' seems to be have significantly more page views ~6x of most of the other links? Ktin (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  The portal features "By Location" along with a lot of other good content so "By Location" and the portal are redundant. Sometimes you have to look at the content instead of just counting views --LaserLegs (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  To me, 6x is not the "magnitudes" greater that I was talking about. --Masem (t) 20:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, 6x is precisely 500% more than the other comparison metric, jfyi. Anyways, seems like precisely the kind of subjectivity that we would want to avoid. Ktin (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Question Is it possible to move the COVID banner to the bottom of the ITN box? Normally our navboxes are down the bottom and it always looks wrong to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this:
Ongoing: Belarusian protests - COVID-19 pandemic: Disease · Virus · Testing · Impact · Portal

or even
Ongoing: Belarusian protests
COVID-19 pandemic: Disease · Virus · Testing · Impact · Portal

--LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

LaserLegs, i like this last one ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The banner's syntax has now been amended to comply with MOS:ACCESS's guidelines on horizontal lists and bring it in line with similar instances on the Main Page. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I feel like a significant amount of main page users still look for COVID-19 specifically instead of general ITN stuff. Plus, "putting it next to ongoing" was part of the initial proposition in the first place back in March, and we ended up with a banner. Juxlos (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Swap out testing for by location?

I saw the new streamlined banner appear on the Main page and I'm very glad it has—some of the less important links had definitely outlived their welcome. The one tweak I'd make, though, is that I think it'd be better to remove testing (a topic covered pretty well on the pandemic/disease/virus pages) and replace it with COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory (previously labeled as By location). The rationale is that, going off of the pageview report, people seem very interested in the articles for their home country, and the "by country and territory" page is the jumping off point for getting to those pages (as well as the second most popular COVID-19 page itself, after the pandemic page but above even COVID-19 itself). It also contains the popular ((COVID-19 pandemic data)) template, which we unfortunately had to remove from the pandemic page because of technical size limits. How does that sound? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly we should swap out impact (which is a list of lists) for "by location" (which is a decent article with links to each country and a decent table and map) but either way support your request too --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. Link to the latest page views, for any decision making, can be seen here Traffic_link_here. Ktin (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is very handy, allowing readers and editors to track the situation in their respective country. I think it's time to implement this. Brandmeister^talk 11:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Swapped. Stephen 23:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Banner border color change

Could someone please revert the change to the COVID banner border color made by The_Anome to "to signify emergency status". It's jarring, does not fit with the MP style, and is largely unnecessary. Pinging @QEDK: who made the last agreed upon template change for hopefully a quick fix. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Stephen fixed it. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I was playing with the mobile app (on iOS) earlier today, and I was able to see WP:ITN. However, clicking on the link just shows the top three news blurbs (each as a section). Does someone know why the mobile app does not carry the 'Ongoing events' nor the 'Recent Deaths' sections from the ITN panel? Is this question better asked in a different forum? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:VPT would be a good place to ask if you don't get a response here. It works on my mobile browser I don't use the dedicated app. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems pretty non-controversial to me. We don't need two talk pages for discussing this project so we should just fork lift the existing discussions at WT:ITNR here and redirect. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support There's a reason ITNR discussions are slower, but enough get started here instead of there already. While I can understand keeping them separate, for convenience - making discussions more accessible - one talkpage would be better. Kingsif (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support – This page has more watchers and is not very busy. We would be better served by a merger. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've mentioned this before but the idea has never gained traction. I don't know why they are at two seperate locations. -- Calidum 03:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, we'll need to deal with the ITN/R archive box somehow. Stephen 03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Can I just move the old archive template from WT:ITNR here or will two boxes break the bot? I can ask at VPT if you don't know. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Two boxes will break the box and won't show the ITNR archives because they draw from page title. We'd have to make a new one just to display the other archive links? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• started a thread. Else I'll just do it manually and y'all can see how feeble my CSS skills are. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Neither page is too active so I don't see any obvious downsides to doing this, while the clear upside is more attention on discussions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Question. Would it be easier to keep WTITNR in existence but depreciate it and just direct all discussions to this page? 331dot (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Probably, and it serves the same purpose. Just put a banner up there and close it down? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that seems like it would be the easiest way to accomplish this goal(which I do support), though I'm no expert and there may be some aspect I'm overlooking. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Leaving it there (unredirected) would just invite people to leave comments, which this proposal sought to end — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Link to archives posted in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Should the following clause be deleted from Wikipedia:ITNSPORTS?

winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event.

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#U.S. Open for context. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (!votes)

• Keep Line's pretty clear, and I would add given the question at the US Open that it is not appropriate to replace a poorly developed event article with a well-developed winning player/team article. The event is ITNR, that's what needs to be posted. The line above is for the case if the player/team is nearly there in quality as well, then yes, it makes sense to also do the bit of spit and polish to make it bold as well. But to ignore the piss-poor event article when thats what's ITNR is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or rephrase. If the below discussion is an indication of the intended meaning of this clause, then it is better not to state it at all. As currently written, it is ambiguous and unclear. We are missing phrases such as "in addition to the event article". Unlike the awards section, all of the sports listed in this section have individual year articles. Saying "winning individuals or teams may be targets" is just adding unnecessary ambiguity. I have misinterpreted this section as far back as 2018 and it appears I am not the only one. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We should also remove Generally from the previous sentence. IAR exists for a reason and can be invoked when necessary. We are giving people false hope and wasting their time, which is frustrating and maybe why we lose contributors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete why is this even a question? The tournament is the ITN/R item that's the article that needs to be updated to be bold linked. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter and would like to hear others opinion on this matter first. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• There seems to be an underlying question here of what do we do when foobar is a noteworthy current event that merits ITN coverage, but foobar is a low-quality article. Those are incompatible standards, and I'm not active enough at ITN to know how the tension typically resolves, but there should be some agreed-upon way to do it besides just pretending that foobar isn't actually important. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Bolding the players/winners rather than the event just sounds silly to me. Usually the event gets all the hype, not the players. IMO, bolding the players for the main blurb isn't the best choice. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• In a curious way, leaving it as it is might encourage improvements on two pages rather than just one. Given most of our sports tournament pages and sports bios are junk, there's almost no risk in leaving it the way it is, and if we did continue to feature the winners rather than the tournament, I guess that still fulfils the ITN paradigm of directing readers to articles they're likely to be interested in. The major downside is that a player winning a tournament could be summed up in a single sentence in the bio, as opposed to dragging the competition articles out of table hell and offering some prose. So yes, I'm undecided. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, per WP:READER, I think the goal should always be to present what's best for readers, not to encourage development of underdeveloped articles. The only quality-related considerations for ITN should be if an article is so low-quality that it doesn't serve readers well to direct them there. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think I ever suggested directing readers to sub-par articles. If you know anything about me here, you'd realise that would be the last thing on my mind. I didn't advocate for the statement I made, I simply made it as a factual comment. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Masem, the line is most certainly not clear. See for comparison the ITNR section on Awards. It is perfectly understandable why me and others have understood it to mean that either the event or the winner can be chosen as the target. Are we going to say that the award is the ITNR and not the winner of the award. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yup, same thing with the awards in ITNR. It is a lazy out to use the person or show/whatever as the target article when the award article can't be brought to a minimal bit of quality. As a related idea, if we had an ITNC for a person named for an award or who completed a sports achievement NOT listed at ITNR, that would be reasonable to name the person as the target article alone (we've done that before) But if we're putting up a ITNC that we're presuming is appropriate to post because we've assumed the award or sport event article is simply not there, we should not be posting that. --Masem (t) 21:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think you are catching what I am trying to say. For example we don't expect Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to be the bold link, or the listicle at Turing Award. When comparing this clause under discussion to the explanation for the Awards at WP:ITNAWARDS ("Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.") the one in the sports section is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to support exactly what you are opposing.

    I am not a fan of the circumventing the hard work of improving an article, but the current wording at ITNR gives an opening to do so. It say "Generally". Why say generally unless their are exceptions? Then after a semicolo, it appears to list an exception. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

    • The Nobel prize and most of the other academic awards do not have a ceremony of sorts where the award is given out, instead it is simply announced at a press conference. So there is no article to "prepare" in such cases - the base prize articles are all in good shape so there is the case where the person(s) articles need to be brought to speed. But on entertainment awards or sports events with months of planning and the like for a big "final" event, there is no excuse for not having an article to document all the proceedings up to that point. If we need to make a distinction of academic-style awards (where usually only one or two awards are given out at a time) compared to award shows (where multiple awards are given out and we focus on the one-to-three biggest), then that's reasonable, but I think the distinction between academic and entertainment award is clear. --Masem (t) 22:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

      To add to this discussion but to reflect on C&C's !vote, literally all that needs to add if the confusion is there (remember, this line has context around it), is to say... ...may be additional' targets ..., and that should resolve the matter. But the context of this , that "additional" to me was always implicitly there. --Masem (t) 23:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

      Without stating in addition to so and so, additional is still ambiguous and would not clarify this. Perhaps, what is needed is clarify that it is a secondary target, in which case the primary would be self-evident. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• The way I read this text is that the winner of the event can be linked (if quality standards are met), with or without the event being linked. The former scenario is not an issue of course. The latter scenario i.e. where the event page is not well built out, but, the winner of the event meets the quality standards, will mean that the readers will still benefit from the news event and reading about the winner. If I put on my reader hat - I am always interest about the who? i.e. who won the event, the what? i.e. the event itself, and the how? i.e. the details of the event. Now, aiming for all three together is the best case scenario. But, having atleast a subset of the questions be answered is still a win. Hence, my thinking is that the language can remain as-is.

Ktin (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Update - there seems to be an assertion, that "In addition to" is a missing text. The way, I read the rules, is that any one amongst the rows in the above table is acceptable. But if there is an assertion that the winner page is purely in addition to the event page, then, I would support rewording to include the phrase "In addition". Of course, in the spirit of my previous argument, I would still think that we are saying that the winner can be linked either in addition or in lieu of the other pages Ktin (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, The people above are saying the "in lieu" of case is not acceptable and not the intended meaning. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Coffeeandcrumbs, Hmmm.

  Generally, the specific event article for that year/time period is the target article in the blurb (for example, 2016 Tour de France rather than the broader Tour de France); winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event.

  The way I read this text is that -- Generally, you should go in with 2020 US Open (tennis) instead of US Open (tennis), but, Naomi Osaka / Dominic Thiem may be the targets instead, if they meet the quality expectations. If this is not the case, I would suggest adding a "In addition" post the semicolon. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Coffeeandcrumbs: technically this belongs at WT:ITNR but I don't care. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  This page has 5 times as many followers and this is more of a policy discussion than whether to add or remove an event. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The use of "generally" in the dependent clause clearly implies the event is the target most but not all of the time, so that word should be striken. I'd suggest adding "also" to the second clause ("may also be targets"). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this solution. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems rather odd to have one nation's television awards in the shape of the Emmys, and not to include others. Can I suggest British Academy Television Awards are added to the regular list. It would help avoid Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#British Academy TV awards where nationalistic nonsense over "our television is better than anyone else's" is the reaction of some. There is much ignorance in that section on what the British Academy Television Awards actually is: it is not just British productions, but co-productions, etc too (which is why some programmes are up for awards at both the Emmys and BATAs too). I fail to see any significant difference between the two, outside the silly nationalistic one at any rate. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Kingsif. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose In support of my rationale at the ITN/C nomination that the Emmys are more important than their British counterparts, I offer as evidence the nominees for Best Drama at last year's awards:

If you can't already tell, clicking through to the Wikipedia articles or researching statistics on these shows should give you a sense of the gaps in popularity and significance. Do the same for any category in any year and I think you will find a similar pattern. The reality is, for better or worse, the epicenter of English-language TV is very skewed towards Hollywood. Additionally, as I argued in the ITN/C nom, television simply has less long-term cachet than film, so I find it reasonable to only have one TV awards ceremony at ITN/R. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the list of the nominations is supposed to prove, but it's fairly clear that all those programmes are broadcast internationally. The rather blinkered "US is best on this" is just too tiresome to take seriously, particularly as BAFTA TV include co-productions, and many of the programmes in both sets of nominations are crewed and acted by professionals from both Britain and the US, as well as further afield (The Crown, for example, listed as an Emmy nom if a UK-US production, GoT was partly produced and filmed in N Ireland, etc). That such a narrow view is being used to block what would only be one ITN entry a year is a bit silly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s to demonstrate that the most popular and well-known television shows in the Anglosphere (and perhaps the world) are typically found at the Emmys and not the BAFTA TV Awards. I don’t care which country is “best” as that’s too subjective to seriously discuss. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

SO that fact that UK-US co-productions are nominated at both the Emmys and BAFTA TV means we should list only the US? Neither BAFTA TV nor Emmy (nor, for that matter Oscars and BAFTA film) take any account of "most popular and well-known" as part of their criteria: they look for the best. Popular or well-known ≠ best. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand how your first sentence relates to my argument. And it is not the job of ITN to decide what TV shows are best. We can only assess significance and extent of global news coverage, as per WP:ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment should be fairly clear, given the context of what you say. But, there again, your postings are self-contradictory, so I'm not entirely sure what your !vote is based on. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m still not clear on what you meant. I apologize for any contradictions or ambiguities in my replies. I’d be happy to try and clarify anything I wrote that was confusing, as I did not intend to mislead. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well worth reading what Kingsif writes below. Basically every single objection of yours is neatly dismissed, leaving a simple "US TV is better than UK TV" opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support British television is recognized around the world as much as US television; just because it may not be watched as highly on first broadcast does not make it less significant. As we recognize the BAFTA film awards there's no reason not to already recognize the TV ones as well, as long as the article has the same quality update as we expect for award ceremonies (more than just of awards, some details on the ceremonies). --Masem (t) 20:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Masem. As for "the epicenter of English-language TV is very skewed towards Hollywood", I think the BBC might have something to say about that.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support "popular" programmes don't equate to "quality" programmes. BAFTA selects the latter, and there's no shame in that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. And I'm going to add something below, but can we at the very least acknowledge that the BAFTA Film awards are in ITN/R, thus WP considers BAFTA as an awarding body to be notable - some of the "arguments" at the ITN/C were just slating BAFTA. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would just be careful that we don't say all BAFTA awards are notable for ITNR just yet. For example, while I know I would speak for the video games project that the British Academy Games Awards are one of the industry's top awards, we here at ITNC have generally not recognized VGs yet because broadly we don't have an award that has the same long-term implications as the BAFTAs in film/TV, Emmys, or Oscars. --Masem (t) 22:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Agreed - for clarity, I've added a wikilink to British Academy of Film and Television Arts, as the body and not individual awards. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• These are very convincing arguments. I have changed my !vote accordingly. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Conditional ITNR adds should follow approval at ITNC when possible, as the visibility is greater and thus represents a more accurate read of consensus. Given there is a current nom open for this event (leaning support), we should follow the result there. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the American and British entertainment production environments are both quite significant. There is no possible way to objectively declare which, if either, produces higher quality programming. Both distribute globally and find healthy audiences on foreign shores. The distinction between the Emmy and BAFTA to me is that the Emmy awards those programs aired in the US, where the BAFTA is concerned with programs produced in the UK. Given the prominence of streaming services and their thirst for content, quality British programming will find its way to the American airwaves (so to speak) and be eligible for Emmys. Quality American programming will never be eligible for the BAFTAs (yes, yes, joint productions aside). This definitively means the BAFTAs are drawing from a smaller pool of potential contenders and would thus potentially exclude more quality programming. Consider recent top BAFTA winners like Peaky Blinders, The End of the F***ing World and Patrick Melrose, which were eligible for but not even nominated for Emmys. Top winner Killing Eve was nominated, but lost to a program ineligible for BAFTA. - - - If we are to argue in favor of promoting British voters, I would beg that the same could be applied around the world. No country has the best TV viewers. If we are to argue in defence of those British programs that don't make it across the pond, what then of the many other domestic award shows? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You make some good points, but haven't addressed one key thing: if I can write another paragraph to lay it out fully? Besides the intricacies of the eligibility - which I feel ultimately comes down to personal opinions on if some national shows are as good as other national shows, and here our opinions evidently differ, I won't debate further on that matter - we (Wikipedia) are here to determine if the (recurrence of) the ceremony/awards merely happening is notable. Nominees and winners will change every year, but the event to be posted won't. So, whatever your views (well thought out as they are, shown above) on the quality of nominees, we can objectively judge how the various ceremonies are treated both in their own country and abroad. The BAFTA TV awards and the Emmys are in their own league. The best comparative for other award shows I've personally seen, like in Spain and France (I could only comment on search results for others, which I'm sure you can find yourself), is the UK's National Television Awards (mentioned above). That is, they're hyped enough for a week that you remember it exists, most people don't care enough to watch but might be interested in the winners, it focuses on popularity, and is not covered abroad. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Valid points. What was underlying my thoughts and unsaid is that all of these awards are somewhat trite and hopelessly subjective affairs, such that we should post as few of them as possible. Given the two, I prefer the Emmys. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Match the Emmys. I don't have strong opinions on whether either of them should be on ITNR, but if one is, so should the other be. They're equally big deals in English-language television. The problem with these awards has been getting good enough prose article updates, not just tables of winners. Modest Genius ^talk 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose is this for real? The item failed to gain consensus at ITN/C and now here in the shadows it's being deemed noteworthy enough for automatic inclusion in perpetuity? I don't think so. We've a "tradition" (right or wrong) of expecting a topic to pass ITN/C at least once before turning up here. Try again next year please. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson:, @Amakuru:, @Ktin: who opposed the nom at ITN/C on notability grounds to have a voice here too --LaserLegs (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Er, you can't do that - it's textbook WP:CANVASSING. P-K3 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Easily passes Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification targeted at users who had opposed the exact same topic at ITN/C just a few weeks before. I didn't notify the supporters because they were here already. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Strange. There are 5 supports here, and there were 9 at the ITN/C nom. And one of the supports here opposed the ITN/C: that's 5 more users you could have pinged. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Albertaont, John M Wolfson, SchroCat, 331dot, and 130.233.3.21: those who left comments at the ITN/C who weren't invited and haven't already commented here. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Kingsif. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the ping Kingsif! Albertaont (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for countering the blatant canvassing, Kingsif. As to comments like "is this for real": yes, of course it is. Countering knee-jerk bias is a positive step, particularly when it's based on fallacies like "the item failed to gain consensus at ITN/C" - deeply untrue: there was a consensus to post, but it was stale before it developed fully. If the open unthinking bias of "US only" is the norm, (and it obviously is) then such fallacies are to be expected in its defence, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing? Oh come on, maybe WP:AGF a little? Seriously there was a wall of support here with no rep from the people who had opposed the unsuccessful nom at ITN/C so I pinged them. --LaserLegs (talk)

Seriously @SchroCat: please describe the methodology you used to determine that my Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification was canvassing for vote stacking. It would be the second time in as many days taht someone who knows nothing about me has claimed the ability to determine my motives and intentions. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

When someone pings everyone from one side of a discussion, it is de facto canvassing. Your explanation here that you actually wanted to ping everyone from one side of the discussion is doubling down on it. Please don’t ping me to this again; given the knee-jerk opinions of “US only”, and the use of open fallacies to reinforce the cultural bias, it’s not an area I wish to participate in any further. - SchroCat (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool so you agree you have no idea what my intentions or motivations were, and then doubled down on whining about "us-bias". Thanks for the blatant WP:ABF --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per LaserLegs. This awards ceremony simply isn't of the same prestige or importance as the others mentioned - it focuses quite a lot on British TV, and it's fairly obvious that we shouldn't include awards ceremonies from every single country around the world, that would be bloat. The argument was presented that given that we are presenting the BAFTAs (british film awards) and the Emmys (US TV awards), we logically have to also present the British version of TV awards. That logic doesn't follow, since the BATAs are of less importance than both the BAFTAs and the Emmys. The item failed to garner consensus for running this year, and it would be very wrong to therefore slip it in for next year by the back door, by declaring it ITN/R.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Just to add to the above point, I can see where the idea of "Matching the Emmys" comes from, and as a Brit myself I am usually completely onboard with attempts to combat US-centricism on the Wiki. However, it should be based on facts and evidence, not just an WP:ILIKEIT approach. Does anyone have any evidence that these awards are even remotely comparable to the Emmys in global notability? Just to look at one example, the page views of our articles for the 2019 Emmys vs the 2019 BAFTA TV awards: [10]. Discounting spikes, on most average days the Emmys page gets between 1000 and 1200 views, while the BAFTA TV awards page usually gets somewhere between 80 and 110 views. That's an entire order of magnitude difference, and far more than can be explained just by considering the relative populations of the two countries. I don't have any figures for global TV audiences, but I would predict something similar. The Emmys are viewed worldwide, while the BAFTA TVs are mainly a British thing. Would be interested to see any counter-evidence to this, in terms of concrete facts and figures. And to counter Kingsif's reply to Bzweebl, "shows not aired in the US will have a much lower viewership" - but that's the point. It doesn't have a global reach.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think you missed the point to that comment, Amakuru, which was that the US has a much larger population than the UK, and so the most-viewed shows in each country will have very disparate stats. 1 million is a good TV audience figure in the UK, in the US it is poor. (The equivalent 'good' in the US is about 10 million.) In June 2020 the peak TV viewership for a single broadcast in the UK was for football, at 4.1 million ([11]), while for the week of June 8 (the only one I could find) the US peak was 9.4 million ([12]): in a week the LA Times said had "steep viewership decline" because of no sports. The disparity is real and big. The same applies to the Wikipedia pages that you're using as a metric for popularity: more Americans = more people who can watch the Emmys = more WP Emmy pageviews. That's why I pulled on international media - the exact evidence that these awards are even remotely comparable to the Emmys in global notability that your comment suggests doesn't exist is something discussed above, so it looks like you selectively ignored it. But, yes, in the US it gets rather comparable coverage with the Emmys. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've now read the middle part of the comment, about global viewership of the awards ceremonies. Neither are usually available to watch outside of their respective broadcast nation. This year, because the Emmys are completely virtual, it's reported they will be broadcast online. But the BAFTAs didn't do that, so there's no available comparison. We'll have to take the media coverage of the awards at face value. Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that this proposal is absurd when the most recent nomination failed to get posted. This demonstrates that scrutiny is needed and it shouldn't go through on the nod. In any case, I don't see why this award should get special treatment when it is so clearly promotional in nature. It represents the vested interests of old media which is losing ground to the new. I myself am watching YouTube increasingly because the content on the old broadcasting networks is stale and samey. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• It failed as stale, with a greater than 2:1 support:oppose ratio. It was just not being attended to. The rest of your reason is literally just "I don't like TV". Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Close as not added as not posted this year. Supporters can try again next year. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not significant to consider adding as a recurring news item (recurring) on the homepage. That said, an unrelated exploratory effort should be undertaken to see if there are any new media awards that we have not represented, and consider inclusion if notable. This is building on one of the users' comment from upstream. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and in particular GreatCaesarsGhost. I don't think that the fact that BATA has co-British-productions makes up for the very British and non-international nature of these awards. Dan the Animator (Commons Room) 22:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Which of GCG's comments? Because he ended up conceding something along the lines of "TV isn't that notable so I think we should pick BAFTAs or Emmys, and I prefer the Emmys"... Kingsif (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this appears to be dead in the water. Somehow, without any logic at all, the banal "Emmys" is a shoo-in for ITNR, while the BAFTAs don't cut it. If we needed an example of systemic bias, this is it. Close this down someone, it's really not a good look for Wikipedia to continually promote this bias. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  As much as I wish things were otherwise, the reality is that the US is a bigger country than we are, and its culture and influence has a global reach which far exceeds the difference in population. Despite the loss of political influence since the Suez Crisis, Britain still punches above its weight in many respects, but I don't see the BAFTA TV awards as one of them. It isn't obvious to me that they are of similar importance to the Emmys.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Given the Americentric bias of Western Pop Culture (especially with television), it's natural that American ceremonies in that field take priority over those of other countries (barring, of course, international stuff like Eurovision). If we really must post other countries' awards, it should be those of India if they have them, with Bollywood and all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Funny that many international major roles and movies are actually fulfilled by UK individuals, even pretending to be yanks. Like good ol' Hugh Laurie who most yanks didn't even realise was English. And most of the cast of 24. It's all about the yanks but yet it's not. Funny. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't realize Dominic West is English until I read he fooled the producers of The Wire during his audition. You Brits really excel at acting like us...--LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Point of information: Bollywood isn't just TV, and it does have two awards in ITN/R. As a personal response, I find American ceremonies in that field take priority over those of other countries to be objectionable, I'm sure you've read why above already ;) Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Different point, which is that TV seems to be dying, take a look at ratings for these things year-on-year. Instead of adding another one to counteract the Emmy's, I would say in a few years, just drop that as well. Its natural that as media evolves, things get dropped from wiki as much as gets added in. I know this doesn't count as a reliable source, but I'm assuming very few friends even here watch Emmy's anymore, or just less and less. Albertaont (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you. And, I think that is roughly what Andrew is saying as well, and I briefly picked up on, in my comment. We should really be investing our efforts in identifying what that next generation events are. E.g. Are these the virtual gaming championships? Are these the short form video awards etc etc. The problem is some of our attributions of importance still flows from the Cinema / TV age - which is alright, but, the world is for sure evolving. Cheers and Good luck. Ktin (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Stats for Al's point: [13] With the exception of a massive spike in 2013 (ironically an unpopular ceremony), viewership of the Emmys has declined over the last 10 years. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yup. Seems like the Oscars are having the same issue as well. [14]. I would venture a guess to say that the chart for broadcast / network TV viewership would be similar as well. More reasons for us to accelerate our search for new-media events. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• While viewership may be declining, it's still not actually low. It's going to be a long time before any new media event gets anything like those viewing figures - and decades until it would reach the same level of notability. So to @Albertaont and Ktin: because entertainment is such a big part of most people's lives it would be remiss to not include appropriate events at ITN/R, and while some may prefer listing e.g. the most-viewed show and film every year or audience awards, there are no entertainment events bigger than the Academy and British Academy's ceremonies for TV and film - and certainly none that try to be as quality-focused to establish true acclaim and excellence in the arts. I.e. it's not right to exclude the arts, and the majors are the ones to 'start with' - this is the only major not ITN/R. Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Decades until it would reach the same level of notability" ... That's precisely the notion that I want us to challenge. When we have not identified the disruptors, it is hard to say decades. What if that disruption has already occurred, and its just that we are oblivious to it. E.g. Take eGames - What if some of the gaming events are more "notable" than let's say the Ashes (using this as an example, only because this page has that name quoted), and we are oblivious to it because our sense for notability flows down from the TV / Newspaper world and we have taken that as-is to the online world. But, anyways, I think I am digressing from this specific add / removal discussion. Cheers and Good luck. Ktin (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Want to beat TV-centric English-language news coverage bias? This won't fly, but post some Korean drama awards shows. Those shows routinely get bigger audiences than British or Indian TV(!) worldwide. Korean wave is a real thing in the 2010s (and 2020) but ITN is stuck in bullshit US vs UK drama to even recognize that. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Korea Drama Awards - this uncited article for a ceremony that regularly doesn't present half of its awards? Or another one of the 15 TV awards ceremonies in South Korea? Oversaturation isn't a good look in awards. Anyone with Netflix knows there's a lot of Korean TV, but it's mostly soapy (even The Good Doctor) and overhyped (random example: The Producers) and producing infinite sequel series. There's a reason the Premios Platinos have a better rep than the TVyNovela awards. Korea has (at least) 8 national award ceremonies for TV, and another 7 made up of networks ranking their own shows: that is self-aggrandizing. No apparent notability in these award ceremonies, which is an ITN requirement (and one of the main ITN/R focuses). After US and UK, you're looking at Spanish TV and Nordic Noir in terms of impact, quality, etc. Kingsif (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Meh. Korean TV has a bigger audience in 2020 than Spanish, Belgian, Slovakian or Belizean TV combined. But yes, their awards culture is different from the West. Who knew? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The TV audience is kind of irrelevant. It's about the award ceremony being notable, and while TV audience is one metric, a bigger one is the impact and prestige, right? That's what gets it in the news, that's what makes the ceremony as its own event notable. There's nothing wrong with award ceremonies being different: the BAFTAs don't have commercials and have only one advertising partner, while advertising is really an integral part of the Emmys. It's that the set-up of the Korean award shows just makes them by default have no impact or prestige even on their own TV network. They're so evidently unimportant. If anything, that's more argument to add the BAFTAs: they demonstrate renown like the Emmys where other TV cultures just haven't mastered it. Kingsif (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Given that this is EN.wikipedia.org, I do not see the need to necessarily focus on awards or ceremonies that do not have routine coverage in the non-English media from an ITN standpoint; in terms of having a standalone article, absolutely, let's have them as long as we can source them and we should not shy away from them, but readers here coming to the front page are come from places where English is a principle language and thus where we can presume that the news is coming to them in English in the primary or a major secondary format. Having main page ITN items on events that are just simply not covered by any English source at all is tricky to include, much less as a recurring event (exceptions made for RDs but because those are "easy" to pass). So I think trying to argue "but we don't cover these Korean awards so why should we cover the British ones" is not a great argument here. To stress, we do cover non-English events that get routine coverage in English press like the Indian Premier League, La Liga, the Berlin Int'l Film Festival, and so on, and this is not to limit what can be done in mainspace because we can make articles that only use foreign language sources. But ITN we can be a bit more selective to what is going to be of interest to English-comprehending readers. --Masem (t) 17:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, most audiences of Korean dramas (who aren't Korean) consume the shows with English subtitles... or English dubbing on cellphones. You'd need to understand English to watch K-dramas. K-dramas are campy and are mostly for women, but could argue its audience is far bigger from outside its homeland than from within (sorry North Koreans you can't watch). And its audiences are required to understand (and read very fast in some cases) English, just like American and British ones.

I guess the point here is if one is making the argument that U.S. TV is big then UK TV is second-biggest but with quite a far distance so if we're posting the Emmys that nobody cares about, we'd post about the TV BAFTAs as well... that's not readily apparent at least in 2020. One could argue British cinema, literature and music are big globally, that's why you can argue for posting the movie BAFTAs, whatever book awards UK does and the Brit Awards, but for the TV BAFTAs, it's a stretch. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

While audience size can play a role, for ITN its still about the coverage, and again, as en.wiki, what it gets in English sources for featuring on the main page ITN. Maybe the Korean TV shows draw a billion people when you factor in those that watch with subs but if narely a drop is mentioned in English RSes, its not really news for the en.wiki ITN main page. (This is basically why we don't simply use popularity, viewership, or similar counts as a sign of notability, because that doesn't always mean good sourcing follows). --Masem (t) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, but no one's making this argument after seeing boatloads upon boatloads of wall-to-wall coverage on The Boat Race watched by billions of people.... which I incidentally didn't see on English language sources for the TV BAFTAs. Kingsif is actually right on Korean awards shows. They probably didn't copy the post-WWII awards shows in the West because maybe they were too busy killing each other. Again, different culture from what Caucasians are used to. Even pan-Asian cultural events are not that widely followed, probably because Asian countries hate each other for millennia. Well, we can still content ourselves with late breaking European election coverage in ITN. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need fewer recurring items, not more, so this would be a move in the wrong direction; I also don't believe this event is of such compelling significance that it needs to be on this list. Neutrality^talk 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Anything to keep ITN from turning into a doom and gloom ticker. -- Calidum 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add, from Kingsif (talk · contribs) in the section below, "the arts are really important in everyday life, TV especially...it will always be of interest and in the news, this prevents the whole 'but TV isn't a disaster I don't care' discussion every year and lets ITN/C discuss quality if it gets nommed." -- Calidum 16:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – ITN has slowed to a crawl. Per Kingsif and Calidum, let's give more non-sport nominations a chance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I earlier said that my vote was conditional on the outcome at INTC. While that was not posted, I feel this was a an "administrative stale" and had sufficient support. In light of other arguments made here, and the failed removal of the Emmys, I now believe ITN is (marginally) better off including this than omitting it. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This section contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

• I hereby propose that only User:Jimbo Wales be allowed to post any item related to the United States. If the nomination has been open for 25 hours without action from Jimbo, the nominator can take the request to WP:ARBCOM. If two-thirds of members there agree to post it, it gets posted. This new rule only applies to items concerning the United States. God Save The Queen! -- Calidum 00:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support but only if Jimbo renounces his US citizenship, moves the WMF and all compute assets out of the United States first in order to prevent even the vapor of "bias" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  I thought Jimbo was a UK citizen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Born and raised in Alabama. Now a dual citizen. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Why doesn't it say that on his Wikipedia page? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bias. When I view his article (or any article) all I see is "blah blah blah America blah guns blah blah Jesus blah blah blah more America". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support However I think we need the front page ITN box to be split into two columns, for US- and UK-English spellings. Oh and MOSFLAG to be ignored so we have to have a massive row about using the UK flag for "UK English" and what should be done with Aussies. doktorb _words^deeds 19:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• We need more events contested by only two schools in obscure sports. Surely Exeter and Cardiff have a fierce hacky sack rivalry? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, there's no point in featuring a canoe race up the London River which pre-dates anything of interest in those Western colonies. Yippee-Kay-Ay-Ak. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  I was going to respond with some kind of pointed snark, but "Yippee-Kay-Ay-Ak" just made my day. Cheers TRM and nicely done. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Who was that masked man? – Sca (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the number of comments (in the thread about including BAFTA TV) that TV awards are only of lightweight relevance, overtaken by other forms of awards (for gaming, etc), there seems no justifiable basis for only including the awards of one country, despite other countries having larger audiences, or other ceremonies nominating/awarding to the same programmes. An overt US bias is the only reason I have seen to include Emmys at all. I propose these should be deleted from the ‘recurring’ list. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal as nominator. - SchroCat (talk)
• Oppose Given that Emmys also recognize streaming outlets (Netflix/Hulu), they have found a way to make themselves relevant to modern programming. Given this is en.wiki, American and British television have the largest impact on our readers of any other national television media, and Emmys are globally recognized, so it makes no sense to eliminate them. --Masem (t) 13:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ditto the BAFTAs, but the bias still determines we should only post the US awards, regardless of any other arguments. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Which is why I think the logic in the BAFTA discussion is crazy. It would be one thing if we had 5-6 different English-based TV award shows to pick from, but with only really two, there's no reason to discriminate between the Emmys and BAFTA (and there's zero reason to not cover television awards , the logic against that makes no sense). --Masem (t) 14:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • It makes sense when viewed from the perspective of cultural (US) bias. We either acknowledge there is more than one country producing television programmes by having more than one awards ITN, or we show none. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The other way to see it, and this is what I was trying to get at later in the BAFTA discussion, is that as the ITN at en.wiki, we focus on English-speaking specific news, we are not require to be as "global" as our main space pages should be. When it comes to television, that pretty much means that yes US television will be heavily favored but for good reason, because that's pretty much the dominant television in the English-speaking world. I'm also 100% for the BAFTAs as I fully agree British TV has just as much importance to the English-speaking world. --Masem (t) 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support no real relevance, and highly biased. Let it take its chances at ITNC. Where I believe it has failed at least once recently because no-one is interested in updating it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need more content, not less. The tit-for-tat mindset is ruining ITN. (I'm guilty of it too, but seriously, it is.) -- Calidum 15:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• If there's a dictionary definition of a bad faith nomination. This is it. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not at all, and not the first time either. It's been adequately demonstrated that for the most part no-one is particularly interested in updating the article, and its singular existence at ITNR is the dictionary definition of systemic bias. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • LOL of course it is. Main BAFTA proponent in ITN/C and ITNR, both having the nominations rejected, the latter pretty soundly, then nominates for removal a similar item from another country. Textbook case of a bad faith nomination, yes, but probably nomination is probably justifiable as we have to do this annual discussion of removing the widely-covered Emmys (but nobody cares enough to update) here. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

    • LOL of course probably what it is probably what??? Seriously though, this proposal stands no chance because of the systemic bias in play, this hasn't been posted five times in the last decade, no-one gives a damn about it yet it'll remain forever ITNR because the yanks grossly outnumber the rest of us, and for some odd reason they all believe "their TV shows are better" or some other misguided nonsense. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

      Shove the accusation of bad faith where the sun doesn’t shine. The comments in above thread show many people think TV awards of declining value. That’s the basis for this thread, so don’t accuse me of bad faith. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see "combating" "systemic bias" at the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN. If you want to post more non-sports entertainment (I do) then get more non-sports entertainment articles up to a standard to post on the main page. We've twice agreed to keep the Bundesliga in ITN/R despite it never once actually going through ITN/C or getting posted. Not really sure how this nom helps our readers. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Interesting you bring quality up, as half the last ten Emmys have failed to be posted because of their lack of quality. There's a lot of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS going on here (Boat Race, as usual, Bundesliga etc) and no real tangible reasoning behind why the Emmys gets an indefinite free pass here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  And college basketball. You still haven't told me how this nom helps our readers. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  It is of no value to provide a biased view of the world of television with some warped impression we give our readers that somehow the Emmys are more "important" than any other TV awards. It is also of no value to continually claim this should be ITNR when it has failed to be posted as often as it has been because no-one is interested in updating it. So, back to the main event, let's reduce the dependency on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and explain to us all why the Emmys has an indefinite free pass at ITNR. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  For Ref: 2019 posted, 2018 not posted due to lack of update (and I did start an ITNR discussion after that one), 2017 posted, 2016 not posted due to lack of update, 2015 not posted due to lack of update, 2014 posted, 2013 not posted due to questions about the legitimacys of ITNR (which led to the 2014 note on ITNR about it to affirm it should be there) --Masem (t) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  The Emmys should stay because this is of interest to our readers, and we're not here to right great wrongs. -LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's a non-argument I'm afraid, plenty of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is interest to our readers, they don't get an indefinite free pass at ITNR. This simply elevates Emmys above all other TV awards and that's simply incorrect and nothing to do with righting great wrongs, just keeping the encyclopedia encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the people calling for the Emmys to be removed above also generally seemed to think there should be less ITNR items altogether. As I stated above, the arts are really important in everyday life, TV especially, so there's no reason to take it out of ITNR: it will always be of interest and in the news, this prevents the whole 'but TV isn't a disaster I don't care' discussion every year and lets ITN/C discuss quality if it gets nommed. I also agree with Masem (and the BAFTA conversation) that both Emmys and TV BAFTAs should be included since there's no practical difference besides a few shows each way. Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a lot of sport and politics at ITN/R, I think we need to keep the arts represented. I support the BAFTAs being added as well, but if that doesn't happen it's not a reason to remove the Emmys.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this doesn't really seem to be about the Emmys. No need to remove them regardless of what happens with the BAFTAs. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I think I might have a way to compare these events. Humor me for a bit. What is News? As the name suggests it is NEW. So, there has to be a spike in topical interest right immediately after the day of the event. If we can measure the spikes post an event as compared to the averages, that should tell you the topical interest a news event. There are some flaws in this arguement e.g. think viral videos 'Charlie bit my finger'. But, if we rule out that these events are not one of those viral videos. i.e. Oscars, Emmys, or BAFTAs are not really viral events, they are recurring calendar events. We should be able to study this comparison. This News Index Multiplier(definition below) tells that the Emmys are just as newsworthy (or not) as the Oscars.

_{News Index Multiplier = Ratio of Immediate views bump to average over the 120 day window} Ktin (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:TOP25 for "popular pages". Also remember this is an encyclopedia. Emmys are nailed on to remain ITNR forever yet no-one has given any reason why. Marvellous. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I gave a reason? Kingsif (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

While there might be other qualitative reasons, seems like the above table makes that case quantitatively, doesn't it The Rambling Man? i.e. with a news index score (N120) of 40 being the same as that the Oscars, the above data tells me that it is as newsworthy (or not) as the Oscars. So, if Oscars is a good example of an event that needs to be on the ITNR listing, seems like the Emmys will fall in the same bucket. We can definitely refine the above scale, but, it seems a reasonable measure to compare events. Ktin (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per SchroCat. It's a shame that he's abandoned Wikipedia; I'm sure he'd be eager to defend the rationale for this. We don't need to give any undue coverage to this Hollywood circlejerk.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the only TV-related entry at ITN/R. I don't think it's undue to allow a single TV-related ITN posting each year. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per "We need more content, not less." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Can anyone name the most recent winner of the top Emmy awards? Spoiler - it was the (universally panned) final season of Game of Thrones for drama and Fleabag for comedy. People who follow movies know the Oscar winners. Football fans know who won the Champions League or Super Bowl. No one cares who wins the Emmys, even if you love the shows that win. This was not always the case, but it is now. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There are clearly people that care. I could care less who wins 90% of the sports events we post, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize their value to other parts of the world. Same with other events like Eurovision or the Grammys. I don't think "this doesn't matter to me, so let's remove it" is a strong rationale. --Masem (t) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I wasn't talking about me specifically - I meant more generally this is of lesser interest than many may perceive. I accept that Eurovision has value to others because of the clear evidence; I'm not sure that any such evidence exists for the Emmys or Grammys. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but that should be by proof and not the fiat of ITNR. This is a once very relevant event that has significantly faded...like Miss America or boxing. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Given that the first night of the Creative Emmys had significant coverage just based on my news feed, I think its a misnomer to consider it a bygone award in this manner. I would agree that using the Miss America competition as a standard of a competition that has gone by the wayside in terms of public perception, the Emmys are NOT that. --Masem (t) 14:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Just not automatically that important to enough people across the globe. If one year's awards are important, we can discuss, but they aren't automatically worth including no matter how ho-hum this year's were. And I agree with OP, how do we justify US television awards being important enough for the main page? The chart is interesting, but I don't think it matters how many people visit the awards page. Interested people would visit it anyway. —valereee (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • A Canadian series swept the awards this year ... you know that right? Also careful pinging people I got accused of WP:CANVASSING when I did it even though I'm sure you did so in good faith. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, your point being that makes it more interesting this year, or that makes it not a US award? Personally I don't think it does either, but maybe? Gosh, you gave me a start there! I was like...did I accidentally ping someone before I had enough coffee? —valereee (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bzweebl, WaltCip, GreatCaesarsGhost, Masem, and Coffeeandcrumbs: your discussion has been moved here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)