Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:In the news. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Original comment

Moved here from my userspace. I hope to move this towards a guideline in the future. Random89 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Previous discussions on this proposal can be found in my userspace and on the ITN discussion page. —Preceding comment was added at 08:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rugby

I would like to take issue with the rugby tournaments selected. Currently, it is the Rugby World Cup and the Heineken Cup. I'm obviously not going to oppose the Rugby World Cup, but the selection of the Heineken Cup is absolutely baffling. It gets little coverage in the Southern Hemisphere, and it is no secret that Southern Hemisphere rugby is dominant (5 World Cups to 1, and New Zealand has topped the world rankings for the majority of the time since they were introduced). Certainly if it were to be included, the winner of the Super 14 - clubs from New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia - should also be included.

I would like to make my own suggestion for the rugby criteria. Since the Rugby World Cup is only every four years, that essentially excludes international rugby from ITN for the other three years. In non-World Cup years, the highest level of international competition is the Six Nations Championship in the Northern Hemisphere and the Tri Nations in the Southern Hemisphere. Neither could be said to be higher than the other, and since they occur at completely different times of the year, it wouldn't result in ITN being inundated by rugby news.

As for club rugby, as I said above, both the winners of the Heineken Cup and the Super 14 should be included for balance. However, if this were to constitute too many rugby items, I would not oppose it being discarded outright in favour of just the winner of the Tri-Nations/Six Nations or the World Cup, depending on the year. Club rugby may be important, but it has nothing on the international arena. - Axver (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have little knowledge of rugby, so if you wish to make the change go ahead, also please see previous rugby discussion on my userspace talk page. Random89 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - interesting. After reading that, I stand by my proposal above. I won't make any changes just yet, but if this remains unchallenged in a couple of days, I'll be bold. - Axver (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the northern hemisphere-dominated press gives more space to the H-Cup, and Wiki can't do anything, really. --Howard the Duck 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Axver. I would say the Super 14 is as important at the H-Cup; it's more or less the Southern Hemisphere's equivalent. WikiProject Rugby union treats them as being on the same level of importance as the other. As the discussion on Random89's page says, the Super 14 has players from countries that have won 5 of 6 World Cups, to give an example of the quality. I think both should be included. Also, is it worth including the Six Nations and/or Tri-Nations series? These involve the world's top teams (excluding Argentina) and may be worth inclusion also. - Shudde ^talk 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The 6 nations and tri nations should certainly be included; they are followed by the general public to a large extent. I would also not be adverse to the exclusion of the Heineken Cup and the Super 14, which have a more specialist following. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Like any global sport, the international competitions are going to be more notable then the domestic, but if any domestic competitions are included, it should be those two. - Shudde ^talk 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the "6" and the "3" are both fairly big, seem like good candidates for a mention! :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yachting

I propose that the America's Cup winner be included. I believe this has been done in the past. - Axver (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable: although that style of yachting is low on participation numbers, it gains a lot of air-time (usually because of all the legal debates). Kevin McE (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention its not possible for it to happen more than once every 2 years and often is more sporadic than that. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Netball

To counter the rather strong male bias in top-level sport, I propose that the winner of the Netball World Championships be included. Some may argue that netball is not that prominent a sport, but besides tennis, I'd say it is the most prominent female sport in the world, especially within the Commonwealth. I know from first hand experience that it gets very good coverage in the media of Australia and New Zealand - I would say New Zealand's Silver Ferns are much better known than the male soccer team, the All Whites. In any case, this would lead to just one news article every four years, which surely can't be that objectionable. - Axver (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How about volleyball? It has quite a following. --Howard the Duck 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's only once every four years, so hardly going to weight ITN down! - Shudde ^talk 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Athletics

(or Track and field, as North Americans may prefer to call it) The IAAF World Championships are the biggest event outside the Olympics of the biggest event in the Olympics, and are the official World Championships of one of the most widely spread sports in the world, with a wide spread of medalists. It gains considerable news attention in many countries. The proposal already has some events (FIBA and IIHF World Championships) that are secondary to the Olympics, so the argument of top event of the sport appears to have been abandoned. Kevin McE (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No arguments about the notability, but how would you phrase such an entry?Random89 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On 2009-08-15, the entry would read something like The 12th IAAF Championships get underway in Berlin, and continue for 9 days. The number of events mean that each championship is not announced as a result. I would argue strongly against having on 2009-08-23 The IAAF Championships in Berlin finish with Moldova topping the table with 17 Gold medals and 96 bronze, because such a table is not the purpose of the event. Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

IAAF in particular and T&F in general doesn't get enough press, unless someone was caught doping. --Howard the Duck 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Baseball

The World Baseball Classic has, despite its pretentious name, only been competed once, and it is not clear that the top players made themselves available for it, raising doubts as to whether it is genuinely top level competition. I know little of the sport, but I think there should at least be some debate about the merit of this proposed inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I put this on instead of the World Baseball Championship or whatever its called precisely because the top players made themselves available (in most cases), which is not the case with the former. Random89 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous World Baseball Classic had a ton more coverage than last year's Baseball World Cup. --Howard the Duck 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And players from the Major Leagues didn't compete in any tourney aside from the Classic. --Howard the Duck 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Viewing Figures

I've tried to find some data on viewing figures for different sporting events as a rough proxy to how 'important' they are. The numbers mainly come from 2 articles in The Independent and are for people watching events at home in the major TV markets. 'Average' seems to mean the number of people who watched the whole event and 'reach' is the number of people who watched at least 3 minutes of it. Obviously some countries have more people/TVs than others, some events are on subscription channels, some are one-offs and some are long tournaments making comparisons especially difficult but maybe this would help some decision making. Note these lists are by no means complete!

2006

Football, Italy v France World Cup final, average=260m reach=600m
American football, Super Bowl Steelers v Seahawks, average=98m reach=151m
Winter Olympics, Torino 2006 opening ceremony, average=87m reach=249m
Football, Champs League Arsenal v Barça, average=86m
Formula One, Brazilian Grand Prix, average=83m
NASCAR, Daytona 500, average=20m
Baseball, World Series game five, average=19m
Golf, US Masters (final day), average=17m
Tennis, Wimbledon men's singles final, average=17m
Basketball, NBA finals game six, average=17m
Cycling, Tour de France (final stage), average=15m
Golf, US Open (final day), average=10m
Golf, Ryder Cup (final day), average=6m
Commonwealth Games, Melbourne opening ceremony, average=5m
Cricket, ICC Champions Trophy final, average=3m

ref1 ref2

2007

American football, Chicago Bears v Indianapolis Colts, average=97m, reach=142m
Formula One, Brazilian Grand Prix, average=78m reach=152m
Football, Champions League final average=72m
Rugby, World Cup final, average=33m
Handball, World championship final Germany v Poland, average=23m reach=56m
Cricket, Twenty20 final India v Pakistan, average=20m reach=40m
Football, EPL Manchester United v Arsenal, average=8m reach=27m
Cricket, World Cup final Australia v Sri Lanka, average=7m reach=25m

ref3

from this the only thing I can really conclude is that handball has a decent case to be in the list. JMiall ₰ 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not a big sport in any English speaking country though. It's massive in Poland and obviously they would have a huge rivalry with Germany. Petepetepetepete (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been said that the two meetings of the Houston Rockets and the Milwaukee Bucks this season had high ratings. --Howard the Duck 04:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be intrested to see where the FA Cup Final ranks on those lists. I'd have thought it would be very high - and it's not on the list. Inarguably one of the world most famous sporting competitions. Petepetepetepete (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

World records, boxing title bouts

Most of the suggestions here are regularly scheduled tournaments, games, multi-sport events etc. I think that we should also allow certain "out of cycle" events to pass ITN criteria. Specifically, I'm thinking that new world records in swimming and athletics would always qualify, regardless of the competition the record was set at. There are a handful of other sports that records are maintained for, such as shooting and weightlifting, but I'm not sure that they are popular enough. Similarly, I think any professional boxing bout that results in a change to the list of current world boxing champions would also be notable enough for ITN. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely all in favor of boxing matches that garner international attention (ie hatton-mayweather or de la hoya-mayweather). As far as world records go I don't think most of that matters very much or gets enough coverage to be noteworthy. When there are major track and field or swimming tournaments I'm sure a record or two is broken every time, but that doesn't mean it should be included. For example I don't think most people care much about the fact that the world long jump record was increased by 1/8 of an inch or the 100 meter dash record is .003 shorter or whatever. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the 100m dash record is the biggest deal of them all, so even if it is broken by .01 of a second it made it. --Howard the Duck 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, but I think we can agree not many people care about the world record in pole vaulting or hammerthrow. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute that you could limit notability/importance to the 100 metres only. Several other records are fairly "big" — the mile (and/or 1500 metres) and long jump are two obvious ones. Take a look at World records in athletics and you'll see that the "rate of change" is a handful per year, if that. I think there is really no need to limit this to a single event. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we'll know pretty quickly what the consensus is from the general population. When one of the more obscure ones goes up then we're either going to have no discussion or everyone and their mother is going to tell us to take it down. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think any changes to the Chess world champion should be included -Halo (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Chess does not strictly fall into 'sport'. I see it similar to a world billiards championship; it would probably be better to nominate those when they happen. I know we put the chess world champion on itn last year, but it isn't stictly a sport. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlemania

I'm just wondering here, but would Wrestlemania be qualified to make the list here? I'm not sure if it qualifies under sports or not, but this seems like the best place. I'm pretty sure that the event is significant enough to be mentioned, but I would think there is a certain stigma against it since it's pro wrestling. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a large global audience, but ultimately, it's no more notable than what has happened on Eastenders. Petepetepetepete (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the sport is scripted, unfortunately they perform rather then participate. - Shudde ^talk 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it hasn't been added before so I don't see a reason why it should be added now. --Howard the Duck 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

College Basketball

I would suggest that if the NBA finals are included, so too should the winner of the NCAA basketball tournament. When viewership declined to 17.5 million for a Final Four (semi-final) match, it was surprising enough to merit this [1] story in the New York times. In contrast, according to the above list of viewing figures, only 17 million people watch the final game of the NBA finals. The fact that NCAA tournament viwership for semi-finals exceeds NBA viewership for finals suggest to me a strong case for the inclusion of the NCAA tournament on ITN. NoIdeaNick (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say makes some sense, but we do not base ITN inclusions on viewership numbers. Outside of the US (and Canada to a certain extent) NCAA is barely followed. Also, we have a rough consensus to include only the highest level of each sport. But after the final game you can nominate it at wp:ITN/C. Random 89 05:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the NCAA Championship Game is not that widely followed elsewhere. --Howard the Duck 04:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I support adding the NCAA championship game. While it does have limited international importance, so does Gaelic Football's All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, Netball, and the Rugby League World Cup. Also, while international interest in the NCAAs is limited, many foreign players play on NCAA teams and this generates significant selective interest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NCAA football and men's basketball championships

I think that these two events need to be added to the list of regular ITN sporting events. College sports have a unique spot in US sporting culture, and their championships are followed as much as (if not more in some places) than their professional counterparts. The slowdown to the US economy provided by the first round of the tournament on Thurs/Fri every year is massive (billions of dollars) because people are distracted by the tournament.

While there are lots more people watching the Super Bowl, there are a lot of people throwing parties and women watching for commercials/half time show, whereas college football has larger stadium crowds all year (several are over 100,000) and places that don't have professional teams are heavily involved in their local college team. Also, because most of the best teams are attatched to huge schools (Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona St., USC, UCLA, Oklahoma, Florida, etc.) there are alums from all over the country that follow their school in both sports. If it makes people feel better I would have no problem supporting the Boat Race being added or similar events from the rest of the world. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think listing the NCAA men's, and the woman's basketball champion, regularly would only be adding 2.5 events per year. Rugby Union has 5 total events annually. I think it's reasonable for American football to have 3 events (Super Bowl, NCAA champion, and the Canadian champion--sorry for lumping US and Canadian football together but I think most outside viewers would agree). Rugby League, a much lesser sport than Rugby Union, has three. Australian Rules and Gaelic Football each have one event. I think given that North American football warrants three regular events despite the fact that the sports popularity is limited to Canada and the US.

Basketball is a much more popular sport globally and clearly needs more events added. I would suggest the NCAA men's, possibly the woman's, and the European men's championship. --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AFL

The AFL grand final should go up as well. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Golf

I think if the Ryder Cup is added, maybe the Presidents Cup should, too. I mean the both occur only once every other year, so it's not like we'd have a huge increase in events. I dunno, just a thought. -- Grant .Alpaugh 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions

It's not a bad list (and these formalisations are to be strongly encouraged), but there are maybe a few howlers- e.g. the Champions League is up, but no Copa Libertadores? No Copa America? The Ashes is an important series, but it only ever takes place between the same two teams- I realise it may cause some yelps, but I don't see why it should go up in preference to say an India-Pakistan series, or indeed any other test series. Not sure why the women's US golf open is up and the other three aren't. I might consider adding the American Indycar CART championship to motor racing, and possibly the world rally championship as well. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support Copa Libertadores and Copa America, but no others until a country from outside those two continents wins the World Cup. I know a little about cricket, but not enough to know if Indo-Pak hold a regular series (I know they're major rivals and all). If they do I would support that going up. I think the Indy 500 (just the race not the whole series) and the Daytona 500 (and/or the whole NASCAR Top Series Championship I dunno the current sponsor), as they have significant foreign drivers now and due to this I think they get a decent ammount of coverage in South America/Europe (I could be wrong, but I know there's a Latino former F-1 driver who's a NASCAR driver now and Dario Franchiti (sp?) won the Indy 500 and is starting in NASCAR this year). Rally championship I dunno. I'm curious to hear what you think about my college sports proposal, Badger. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)In terms of the Champions league, I had originally added that and not the others as that was what I believed precedence had been, and it is also far and away the most highly followed by the media. Ditto for The Ashes. In terms of Women's golf, it is different from tennis as the men's and women's events are not held concurrently. I think it was discussed somewhere that women's golf was only popular enough for one major championship, and barely that. I made a judgement call that the US Open was the most prestigious of the 4. I'm not sure about CART or the rally cha,mpionship, but maybe NASCAR? As pointless as I find it, it's pretty popular in the states. Random 89 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Copa Lib and Copa America are gimmes. I see what you mean about the African Nations Cup, but I probably would put that one up as well, it generates a lot of attention in Europe (where most of the major African players are based).

I wouldn't support putting the winners of individual races up (e.g. the Indianapolis 500) only the final champions. I was recommending taking the Ashes out, not putting others in. India is cricket bonkers- I suspect the level of coverage for an India-Pakistan series (they aren't held that regularly because they are usually not getting along) eclipses that of an Ashes series, but since it's not a regular event it would be somewhat partial to list it and no others. To be honest, no women's golf championship is imho notable except the Solheim Cup.

Grant, I know nothing about basketball, so I can't really comment with authority. I know that it's big in eastern Europe, in the Caribbean and becoming bigger elsewhere in the world. If this NCAA game is one that those fans will be interested in, then I see no reason not to put it up. Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of the women's majors should go up. At least in the US the only open wheel race that gets any (and I can't stress that enough) is the Indy 500. Daytona was the same way until NASCAR took off in the last decade or so, but it is still one of the two races that nonracing fans (like me for instance) even want to hear who won, and that makes them unique on the US sporting landscape. I don't have a problem with the African Cup of Nations going up, especially since it takes place during a time of the year when there is little footy news on ITN (ie N. Hem.'s winter). I can't speak with authority on the rally championships. I say keep the Ashes (it only happens once either every 18 or 30 months so not a big commitment, and there has been significant Aussie support in the past for its inclusion) and put up a Indo-Pak cricket test series when they happen, but that seems like it should be about all for cricket.

You mean for bi-nation series. The Cricket World Cup and (admittedly more weakly) the 20/20 World Cup are also gimmes. Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My biggest thing is for the BCS National Championship game and the NCAA men's basketball championship game to go up, for the reasons I've listed above. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm in favour of most of those going up. For something like NASCAR, we should decide whether we want to list the end-of-season champion (I believe its the Nextel Cup) or the most important race (Daytona 500). I'm gonna stay out of the cricket debate, as I have really no knowledge about that. But coming back to NCAA sports, I have some reservations about those. While I admit that in the US the BCS or the Final Four are at least, and usually more, popular than their professional counterparts, only someone in North America could tell you that. In, for example, Europe or South America, people would think of the NBA for basketball and the NFL for football. While I'm not saying that it would be a bad thing for people to read about college sports, especially if the articles are decent, I just think that including non-professional events (i.e. not at the highest level) opens up a myriad of other issues. Random 89 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't know much about women's golf, but if the Solheim Cup is the most notable event than maybe it should go up. I feel that since we don't have to base our selections solely on the most popular (media-wise) events, we can afford to throw in a women's golf event for balance. Random 89 19:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that only the National Football League, National Basketball League and World Series have any profile here in the UK- but none of these sports are at all popular here so I am not qualified to say. It may well be that these university leagues actually are big events where basketball is a popular sport, as it definitely is in much of the world (American football isn't really popular anywhere outside NA as far as I'm aware, and there doesn't appear to be a major baseball American university league). Badgerpatrol (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

College baseball certainly exists and the College World Series recieves decent ratings on ESPN, but it's by no means the College Football Bowl season or March Madness.

Explaining to people outside the US why Americans care about college sports is like explaining to Americans why people outside the US are bonkers for soccer or cricket. It's just part of the fabric of the American sports landscape. For a long time, College football was the highest level of the game in the United States, as the game was well established by 1900 or so while the NFL took some time longer to develop. College football in particular is the best equivalent to English and Scottish football. It's parochial and traditional, with massive regional rivalries and even more massive stadiums. Ohio Stadium (Ohio St.), Michigan Stadium (Michigan), Neyland Stadium (Tennessee), and Beaver Stadium (Penn St.), all have capacities over 100,000 and several dozen more have 70,000+ stadiums, which are all larger than NFL stadiums. These stadiums aren't in major cities, either. There are a bunch of stadiums that when full on gamedays exceed the population of the small college towns they are in. Many of the top teams have traditions going back about 100 years, and the regional rivalries grip not just the region, but also alums all over the country. The BCS National Championship game is also a highly controversial process for picking the national champion (unlike the March Madness tournament, more on that in a second), that takes place at the end of a long series of bowl games (almost 30 of them now) that run from mid December to early January, and New Years' Day bowl games are as traditional as Boxing Day football in England. If you took away the scores of people who watch the Super Bowl at a party (something of a cultural institution in the US) who otherwise wouldn't (casual fans, women, people only interested in the commercials which themselves are an institution), I have no doubt that the BCS would be the most viewed event (or at least within a few million viewers) in American sports.

Similarly, college basketball is a very popular sport, and the March Madness tournament is followed by gigantic numbers of fans, who all fill out brackets of their predictions as part of small office gambling pools or other similar friendly wagers. There have been numerous stories about the slowdown to the US economy caused by the 16 games played on the opening Thursday and Friday of the tournament, where upsets are common (think 3rd Round of the FA Cup). There are hundreds of thousands of people who stay home from work to watch these games and millions more who are distracted at work by them. It is undoubtedly the biggest sports story in the US while its happening.

Another thing people don't seem to realize is that you can't join the NFL until you're 21 or the NBA (now) until you're 19, so all of the top players who can and would be able to play at the NFL or NBA level at that age are playing college football or basketball because they can't play pro ball. This would be like if Theo Walcott, Wayne Rooney, Cesc Fabregas, Leo Messi, and others who broke into the top level of football as teenagers, had been forced to play at a lower level simply because of their age. So while the talent level is certainly lower overall, there are many, many players who play college football or basketball and go on to immediately have an impact at the professional one when they are drafted, like Carmello Anthony or Adrian Peterson.

Major League Baseball only requires you to be 17-18, however, so the top players often bypass college baseball entirely and elect to immediately begin playing professionally in their teams minor league outfits. Also, because of the compressed season due to the academic calendar (March-June for college as opposed to March-October for MLB) college baseball never took firm hold in the north like Major League Baseball (Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, Boston, etc.) because of longer, colder winters, and is instead dominated by the Gulf Coast region, California, Texas, Florida, Arizona.

All in all, I think there is a compelling case for adding two of the biggest sports stories in the United States every year. Many of the top athletics departments in the country have budgets that are as large or larger than some of the smaller professional franchises. They have huge fanbases that number in the hundreds of thousands (or millions in many cases). They really should be treated as seperate entities, and I hope that my long, rambling post has helped clarify that. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent]. It sounds to me as if this is something that is massive in one country and has zero profile elsewhere. That would make it a unique exception amongst the sporting events currently listed (apart from the AFL grand final, which I would remove anyway). Nobody watches the Superbowl in Britain, but at least it actually is on. I'm not sure if this even was (it may have been tucked away somewhere on a cable channel I suppose).

I think you will already be able to guess my feelings on this one. If it is big in the other basketballing nations (Greece, Lithuania, the Caribbean, Spain etc.) then it should go up. Otherwise, no. American football has close to zero global profile (as far as I'm aware, I may be wrong) and so I'm afraid I think the university football final should be excluded for that reason, unless someone can show that it actually does have a profile outside America.

The FA Cup is not on the list, and nor should it be. I don't see a distinction. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I was just trying to provide context with the FA Cup thing, since you didn't seem to have a frame of reference. I guess all I'm trying to say is that these two events are consistently two of the top four or five stories a year in American sports. If that's still not enough to make the cut, I understand, I was just trying to give you as much context since you admit you're unfamiliar with these sports. Also, the Super Bowl is broadcast live or tape delayed in like every country with a satellite tv system, mostly for expats, I'll admit, but there is interest in Japan (which has its own professional league), Canada (which has a professional league that plays under a slightly different code), and Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and some other nations, at least as far as I understand. -- Grant .Alpaugh 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I am a huge fan of NCAA basketball, I agree with Badger. I don't really see that it is necessary to put up two American sports championships when these sports are not widely followed outside the US. However I am not dead set on this and I could be convinced if someone had an amazing argument. On a related not, I actually support including the AFL. Random 89 01:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, in a nearly completely unrelated not that doesn't really affect this, it's a bit ironic that the only "US" sport that is gaining (or has gained) global popularity is Baseball, and of the "Big 3", that is the one that has the least college-level support. Random 89 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant Grant- the FA Cup is an excellent analogue. A massive tradition in one country, but all but irrelevant elsewhere. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

People all over the soccer-loving world care who wins the FA Cup, but whatever, I get your point. I think its less similar, though because every country has their own FA Cup, while few countries have meaningful college sports leagues. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

People all over the football-loving world (a sizeable but still minor segment of the population) may care who wins the FA Cup- but people all over the football-liking world (i.e. the entire planet) may not even know who's in the final this year. I don't even know who the Brazilian or Argentine league champions are off the top of my head- and those are arguably the two greatest footballing nations in the world. I would argue that we cater for the likers on ITN, not the lovers. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Right but the FA Cup is the oldest, yada, yada, English language wikipedia, yada, yada. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You've brought this line of argument up a few times over our recent discussions Grant- I have never seen any rule, any convention, any guideline, or any built consensus that directs us to preferentially select stories of interest solely or mainly to an Anglophone or Western audience, but you seem to think such a directive exists. Can you post a link to the relevant page? Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't refer to a policy page, because I think it is common sense. The ITN section is seperate from the encyclopedia itself. It serves to highlight articles that have recieved significant updates due to current events. As a result it is inherently biased toward "recentism," which, in my interpretation proves that it is inherently outside of the NPOV realm of the encyclopedia proper. This means that we are fully within our rights to angle ITN towards our "audience" both because that's who is reading it, and because that's who is providing us with the vast majority of our candidates for ITN. While I don't in any way think we should exclude items because they are not relevant to our readership (say the beginning/end of an armed conflict between two small, Central African nations), I don't think there is anything wrong with including items that are of particularly large interest to one portion of our audience, regardless of whether they cross any arbitrary geographical threshold. I realize this is my own interpretatioin of the WP doctrine, but I don't think I'm straying much from it. I appreciate you asking the question, because I've come close to writing something like this response a number of times in our discussions, but felt it was too wordy and not relevent enough to post it. I hope this explains where I'm coming from and I think you will have a better idea of my logic for supporting some of the items I've supported on ITN recently. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent]. What you're saying is that because 80% of our readers come from one country, it is OK to preferentially select 80% of our stories from that country (which shall go unnamed so that Lemmey and Madcoverboy don't send the heavies round to "have a word" with me ;-). No, I don't agree, although I recognise that this (in a diluted form) is already the de facto state of affairs. There are two issues here, 1) ITN is a highly visible part of the encyclopaedia. If international editors and readers (of which there are many, albeit a minority) see that it is even more dominated by US stories than it is now, the idea that this is an American encyclopaedia is going to take root. And then, quite possibly, no more international editors, and no more international perspective. That would be a considerable shame, and significantly to the detriment of the encyclopaedic value of this project. 2) From a more nebulous angle; this is supposed to be an educational project. I already know what's happening in America, because I speak English, and I read the UK printed and broadcast news, which is often dominated by American stories. I don't know as much about what's happening in India, or Spain, or Japan, or Egypt, etc. etc. I'd like to however, and I believe that disseminating information across national boundaries is very much a key purpose of this project. I presume that most of the sport fans in America are going to know who wins the NCAA championship games, but they're not going to automatically know who won the TwentyTwenty World Cup, or the Tri-Nations, or the Prix d'arc de Triomphe, etc. etc.

As you rightly point out, there is already an inherent bias in ITN towards American stories (and perhaps also those originating in the rest of the Anglophone diaspora). That is in my view a negative, not a positive. We shouldn't be exacerbating it through a consciously and deliberately biased selection. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not arguing in favor of the US specifically, though I would be a fool to argue that that wouldn't be part of what I'm talking about. I'm speaking about things that happen in Britain (I'm a huge Anglophile, and I care about stories that happen there), or other places around the Commonwealth, in addition to other places around the world. Also, I wasn't arguing in favor of excluding other stories in favor of Western ones, quite the contrary. I'm an inclusionist when it comes to ITN. I've been on ITN/C regularly enough for the past few months to know that by far the most common complaint is not pro-/anti- American bias, it's turnover. I think there are a lot of qualified stories that don't go on ITN, which is a shame. I'm aware that I want American stories to go up (like the cancellations) so I argue equally hard for other stories to go up (like the Aussie GG, Haiti, Ireland, etc.). I guess my main point is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and we can and should be trying to do both. Personally I was unaware that "80%" of the viewership of WP was from the US (I didn't even know it was a US-based project until a few months ago) and would never argue like some people do that because it's based in the US everyone else should piss off. I really think we agree on this much more than our discussions this week would indicate. -- Grant .Alpaugh 10:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that that 80% figure was little more than an educated guess- I would be interested to see the actual stats, but I suspect that the readership (and editorship) are indeed heavily dominated by Americans- but as you rightly point out (and as I did try to state above) this is about systemic bias generally, not just a bias towards any one country. My point is- relaxing or abolishing the rules on international notability is going to lead to a preponderance of US stories, and to a lesser extent those from the rest of the Anglophone world, because most stories that are suggested fall into these categories. We can either a) embrace this, get rid of the rules completely, and make it a news ticker (which would be the least hassle (no need for selection, no worries about turnover), the most fair (sidestepping the bias debate completely), and is my preferred option); b) strengthen the rules and stick to them. If we go for the latter option, it would also be an idea to have a designated cadre of ITN admins who understand and are willing to abide by the criteria; no offence to the admins concerned, but the SAS story, the Northern Wreck story, and the Pullitzer story are all good examples of stories that had weak or no consensus to add and shouldn't have gone up. And yes I agree that there is much common ground and our discussions have been both interesting and productive. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more about our discussions and I'm glad to have had them. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd only approve on the English FA Cup Final to be posted iff the top two teams from the Premiership are the ones participating, and there's something special about the Final. Last year, ManUtd and Chelsea finished at the top of the Premier League at the top and the Final was one of the first events at the new Wembley. --Howard the Duck 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing about not including the NCAA Championships is that we are including many sporting events of a much smaller global profile simply because they represent the highest level of that sport. Examples: Aussie Rules Grand Final, All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, a Netball championship, the Rugby League World Cup, etc. I would reckon that even if NCAA football and basketball's popularity is limited to the US and Canada, they are still much more watched globally than many events we regularly list due to the US population's sheer size. I'm for including both these events, or dropping some of the events like the ones I mentioned. Regarding NCAA basketball, many teams have foreign players and this does generate selective foreign interest. Finally, we have the Ashes and the India-Pakistan cricket series as regularly listed events. These are two nation events that are listed because of the unique tradition and the tremendous interest in those countries. I think that rationale justifies the inclusion of the NCAA championships for basketball and American football. --Johnsemlak (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NASCAR

Could we decide which NASCAR race is notable? All that's on there is NASCAR, which techincally means every race goes up. --Plasma Twa 2 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no it means that the Sprint Cup Series (the current top flight championship) champion goes up. -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Snooker

I'd like to nominate the World Snooker Championship as one of the featured sports on ITN. Although largely ignored in the US it is very popular elsewhere especially in Europe and Asia where viewing figures exceed 100 million. Massive TV audience forecast for Asian Challenge in World snooker championship Yorkshiresky (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It being largely ignored in the US is a major understatement. I don't have any problem adding it to the list. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be safer to say it is ignored in everywhere but certain European countries and China. Nowhere in North America does anyone care about this, and a look at the Snooker world rankings 2007/2008 suggests that there are only four countries where the game is really big. Of course, everyone from other countries could just suck ass real bad, but somehow I don't think that's how it goes. --Plasma Twa 2 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Plasma here. It's apparent popularity in China certainly boosts its audience numbers, but it doesn't seem to be very widespread beyond there and the UK. I just don't think it is on par with most of the other sporting events we have listed here. Random 89 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is big in China and elsewhere in mainland Asia, although it would be good to have the "100/150 million viewers" oft quoted by commentators actually substantiated (like the obviously erroneous "1 billion viewers" we often hear about watching the Superbowl). The only events currently on the list that it comes close to are the Aussie Rules final (which I would remove anyway, but does in fairness get 90-100 thousand spectators + seemingly practically the entire country watching at home), the horseracing (which doesn't go up habitually and probably attracts significant international interest because of betting) and the Americas Cup, which is practically ignored here but I think we all admit is a big international event. The bottom line is, I love the snooker, but it is an event being played in a small theatre in Sheffield high street. In 78 years, the championship has only been won three times by foreigners. So, sadly, it's a "no" from me on this one. I do not see any events on the list as it stands that this is definitively in the same league as. Badgerpatrol (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about your AFL claims? See for example Australian rules football in New South Wales and Barassi Line. It's popularity is growing, sure, but I'm not convinced the entire country watches at home, particularly when the Sydney Swans aren't in the grand final... And even if that is true, I suspect the same could be said about a number of other things that aren't ITN worthy, given how nuts Australians are about their sports... Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How about pool? The World Pool Championships is a big event in Asia and Europe, with many Americans tagging along. --Howard the Duck 14:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Snooker added to the list today after recently featuring on ITN. What a difference a year makes. --can dle •wicke 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Badminton

I haven't brought this up until now but if we're going to start considering things like pool and snooker and heck we do have the AFL (which isn't even popular throughout all of Australia by a long shot), how about badminton? Very popular in Malaysia and Indonesia (in Malaysia at least, probably the second most popular spectator sport after football). Apparently quite popular in China too (according to this as of 2004 it's the 3rd most popular sport after football and ping pong, and the most watched sport; in Guangdong, Shanghai and Beijing) [2]. Possibly popular in Denmark, South Korea and Japan as well (not sure about these three, just going by the quality of their players more then anything). China has dominated in recent years, but from what I can tell, the popularity in Indonesia and Malaysia still remains fairly strong. Top level individual competition is undoutedly the olympics, top level team championships are undoutedly the Thomas Cup and Uber Cup (every 2 years) for men's and women's competition respectively and these two have just been completed... Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cycling

I want to propose adding three competitions to Wikipedia:Sports on ITN#Cycling: Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España and the UCI Road World Championships. Any thoughts? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about cycling, but I think the Tour de France is the biggest and the most well known. I think that should be the only one up, but then again that is the only one I know about. --Plasma Twa 2 03:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Plasma here. While for cycling enthusiasts, I'm sure those 3 are huge events, but the general public is only really aware of the Tour. Random 89 06:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rugby 2

I don't think five rugby articles are neccessary. The majority of them are regional tournaments only. I suggest limiting the number of rugby items to three or less: The Rugby World Cup, the Heineken Cup, and the Super 14. --Plasma Twa 2 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I still stand by my suggestion from the original post in the first rugby suggestion as the best way to provide balance, both between seasons and between hemispheres. I'll summarise it here again, to save anybody scrolling back up to it. For international rugby, every four years the Rugby World Cup is covered and I don't think anybody will contest that. For the other three years, international rugby should be featured with both the Northern Hemisphere's Six Nations and the Southern Hemisphere's Tri-Nations, since they constitute the highest level of rugby in non-RWC years and neither could be said to be superior to the other. I would honestly not object to this being the sole coverage, but since club rugby is really starting to be where the money is, then feature the Heineken Cup and Super 14, the equal top club tournaments. This would mean four rugby stories in non-World Cup years and three in World Cup years. Hardly a lot! Though it could be legitimately noted that the Super 14 and Heineken Cup do finish rather close to each other. - Axver (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the list to take your suggestion into account Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Mans

I propose adding the 24 Hours of Le Mans to Wikipedia:Sports on ITN#Auto racing. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indy car?

As I've stated elsewhere, I have no objections per se to listing the Indy car however when I was checking out the articles at the time, I found out that all our articles including the Indy 500 aritlce, suggest that the Indy 500, Monaco Grand Prix and Le Mans are of equal importance. Therefore it makes little sense to put on one but not put on the other two. So far, the only reason I can see not to put on the Monaco Grand Prix but put on the Indy 500 is because it's been claimed that winning the Indy 500 is generally considered more important then winning the Indy series, which is not the case for the Monaco Grand Prix (I think nearly everyone will agree winning the F1 world championship is more important). If it's true, then this is a significant point and I'm willing to withdraw my objections to listing the Indy 500 without listing the Monaco Grand Prix. However there is no point debating this here, if this claim is true, it needs to be supported by our articles, which last time I checked it wasn't. As someone who doesn't give a flying flip about either, I can't evaluate these claims and since I find it rather odd, I would like to see the claims supported. N.B. I agree with PFHLai here that whatever the case, the articles need to be of sufficient quality for ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am far from an expert about this, and really am not even a fan of auto racing, I definitely know more about IndyCar than F-1, just from living in North America. What I've seen in the general media and sports media suggests that the Indy 500 is the race of the circuit, its glory left over from when Indy Racing was bigger than NASCAR. While in the case of F-1, I may be misinformed, but from what I've seen, I believe the F-1 championship is far and away more important than even the most prestigious race. But I agree with PFHLai and Nil here, the quality of the articles should be the determining factor. Random 89 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Events per year

I've added a summary for the number of events/stories we can expect per year since it will help those unfamiliar with events get an idea of how frequent we're going to have the varies items. Cricket is a little too complicated to summarise IMHO so I just estimated 1 per year which is about right. I was trying to work out how many football events there will be but confused myself and gave up Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I redid the football Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Horse racing

Should the Melbourne Cup be added? Spencer^T♦^C 15:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say no. I don't really see anything which makes this bigger then other horse racing events. Sure it's a big thing in Australia and to a lesser extent NZ but in the end it's just another race and it's not the premier events of horse races AFAIK. If we did want to add more horse races, we should consider others first. We already have the AFL after all Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a horse racing fan and have no preference whether the Melbourne Cup is included or not.

However having been in Australia on Melbourne Cup day (albeit in Sydney) I would have to say that it is a bigger event in Australia than any horse race in the UK. Melbourne Cup day is a public holiday in parts of Australia. I am not aware of any other sporting event for which that is true.

Also if the Melbourne Cup is excluded on the grounds of lack of impact outside Australia then the AFL grand final should also go. The Melbourne Cup is covered in the sports news in the UK every year but to the best of my memory the AFL grand final is never covered.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Cup should be included if the winner has some sort of significance, such as a record number of wins for example. On the matter of prestige, there is no doubt that the Melbourne Cup is one of the worlds premier horse races, and it is an international race - half the entrants this year were from overseas. Suicup (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this proposal but as per Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Significance can you explain how significant it is in Australia region? Are other small pacific ocean nations other than NZ participate? What is the frequency of this race? --GPPande talk! 11:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Olympics and other multiple-sport events

How are descriptions of the Olympics envisioned? A single report of top medal counts at the end? I vaguely recall that there was a proposal during the last winter olympics to actually reserve the bottom of ITN for a separate rotation of Olympic winners over the course of the event, but don't know what came of it. - Banyan Tree 08:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative: We could just say "no more than one or two Olympic items at a time".--Pharos (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the idea was to do nothing about medal counts and just say "The 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing is opened/closed" because we were just going to post the opening/closing ceremonies. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the medal count and events on the bottom is the best, I think. Each event is notable, particularily if a record is broken and whatnot. That would keep the main template clean of anything about, say, the finals of basketball which would normally make it on the main template. --Plasma Twa 2 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like something we should get agreement on before an unholy edit war breaks out when the Beijing Olympics starts. Since we're all throwing out different ideas: how about making an "Sports/Olympics" link at the bottom (next to Wikinews) to Portal:Current events/Sports, or a specialized Olympics page if some group decides to maintain one. We can then reserve the actual ITN for opening/closing/anything major and unusual that occurs during the course of the games. Perhaps we should drop a note with Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics and Portal:Current events/Sports to see what, if anything, they have planned and which we can integrate into? - Banyan Tree 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A prominent link to an olympics portal sounds like a good idea, because for better or for worse, olympic news will dominate media coverage during the period of the games, barring the outbreak of World War 3. As for the main feed, I think that can be reserved for opening/closing ceremonies, any important world records, and the basketball finals (which was previously agreed on, since it is seen as replacing the FIBA championships for this year) Random 89 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Save the main template for the most popular events at each Olympics: Basketball at the Summers, and Hockey at the Winters. --Plasma Twa 2 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we could work with a separate Olympics page. Spencer^T♦^C 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped notes at WikiProject Olympics and the sports portal directing interested users to this conversation. - Banyan Tree 02:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In the news

Pakistan condemns a United States-led air strike near the border with Afghanistan that allegedly killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops, in clashes that also killed eight Taliban militants.
Amid an outbreak of tornadoes and derechos in central and eastern North America, a tornado hits a Boy Scout camp in Iowa, killing four.
Japan's House of Councillors passes a censure motion against Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda (pictured), the first such motion to be passed since World War II.

Olympics scores – Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

Olympics highlights – Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

Olympics news – Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

Olympics results – Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

– Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

Here's a mockup. What do people think? Alternatively, I'm sure someone can figure out how to just use the olympic rings image as a click-through. - Banyan Tree 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it, simple and fits nicely with the normal template. Also, it would not make the olympics seem too prominent if we did have 1-2 olympics items in the main feed. However, maybe Olympics News or Olympics Highlights (as suggested below) would be better than olympics scores. Random 89 21:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added mockups for "Olympics highlights" and "Olympics news", as well as attempt to use the Olympics rings image as a click-thru, which isn't really working. On my screen, "Olympics highlights" makes the line too long and forces a second line. I can't quite figure out how to make the image, using Template:Click, not cause a line break. Can anyone figure it out? Also, anyone have any preferences now that they have examples to look at? - Banyan Tree 08:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on my screen all of the options display over two lines. I would suggest formatting a linebreak so that Olympic Scores (my preference) or any other displays on its own line, perhaps with an olympic rings logo. (Is that a free image? if not we probably can't use it on the mainpage) Random 89 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's Image:Olympic rings.svg, which has about the most confusing licensing I've ever seen - with both a public domain tag and commons:Template:Copyrighted IOC - that both appear to be true. IANAL, but I'm not sure how the IOC can claim copyright of an image whose author died over 70 years ago, at least under US law. In any case, consensus for the change would have to be reached at WT:ITN, and notification posted to Talk:Main Page, at the least, so I expect that the copyright issue will shake out one way or another before it goes live.

See the newly created mockup right and below with your suggestion. There also appears to be some support for "results", but either is fine with me.

I suggest that the first notification of the games also include a link to the scores page, and that the new link go up at this time. For example, "The 2008 Summer Olympics begin in Beijing, China. (Complete results)" Hopefully that won't be too confusing for people expecting only the "(pictured)" to be in italics. Of course, we could only include a link to the highlights page if users actually start it, which will be 2008 Summer Olympics highlights if the template of 2006 Winter Olympics highlights is followed. In any case, are we far enough along to submit this as a proposal at WT:ITN? - Banyan Tree 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very partial to the one below. It is short, sweet, and to the point. Again, we can always include Olympics stuff in the actual text of ITN. Now, I don't see why we couldn't or shouldn't use Portal:Olympics here. I know it isn't in wonderful shape, but I feel like the framework is available to a good Olympics navigation page. I would move to use this as the results pages, not the current events one. Comments? Jared (t) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mention above, the link would ideally be to 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, or some other page dedicated to Beijing Olympics results that has not yet been started. Portal:Olympics looks far too general, though it may change as the event starts. I've been using a pipelink to Portal:Current events/Sports as a placeholder blue link in the lack of other relevant options. - Banyan Tree 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Athletics and swimming are historically important events, too. --Howard the Duck 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In the news

Pakistan condemns a United States-led air strike near the border with Afghanistan that allegedly killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops, in clashes that also killed eight Taliban militants.
Amid an outbreak of tornadoes and derechos in central and eastern North America, a tornado hits a Boy Scout camp in Iowa, killing four.
Japan's House of Councillors passes a censure motion against Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda (pictured), the first such motion to be passed since World War II.

Olympics scores

Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

As a member of the Olympics WikiProject, I am glad to see that people have already started discussing what should be done about the Olympics. I know in the past it has caused some trouble, so here's what I think, which doesn't certainly reflect what other members of the project think.

First, it's probably a good idea to make a separate page for the Olympics news. For the 2006 Winter Olympics, there was a separate highlights page, which I envision being repeated for these games. This could probably be the link-to page from the Main Page, so long as it is maintained (I see no problems in that department though).

Also, I think it is important that if any Olympic- or World Records are broken, or anything of notability occurs at the games, there should be no hesitation to include it as a normal ITN blurb. Granted, I agree with what was said above, about having no more than 1-2 at a time, but if it is important, by all means it should be displayed. Even at the beginning, I would suggest that something like "The Games of the XXIX Olympiad open in Beijing, China." I'll be sure to keep an eye on this page for future comments. Jared (t) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that instead of "scores" "results" is used? I think it better encompasses the spectrum of events at the games. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I said something similar above. Maybe highlights or news would also be a suitable substitute. Random 89 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment we appear to have an agreement to highlight basketball at the summer olympics based on the presumption that it is more important then the FIBA World Championship (similar story for ice hockey in the winter olympics). I have no problem with this idea. However I would object if we are including basketball and ice hockey based on the extremely flawed presumption that basketball and ice hockey are the most popular event at their respective olympics. Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? I mean in those sports the Olympic tournaments really are sort of the premier event, aren't they? I mean the only thing I could think of that even comes close would be football, but that Olympic tournament is completely eclipsed in importance by the World Cup. I dunno. I don't think it's that flawed an assumption, is it? -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the traditional premier event in the Olympics is the marathon? That's even the last event before they do the closing ceremonies, right? Also, it depends on whom you ask what is the premier event. If it were Aussies it'll be swimming.

And how about a historical event? Like a country winning its first gold medal ever? --Howard the Duck 06:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard, you are talking about the marathon as the premier event in the Olympics whereas Grant is talking about the Olympics as being the premier competition in that sport.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying. I have no problem accepting that the Olympics is the premier competition in basketball and ice hockey and have no problem with mentioning basketball and ice hockey hockey in the olympics on ITN for this reason. I do have a problem with the idea that basketball and ice hockey are the premier competitions/most popular/most important/whatever in the summer/winter olympics as I highly doubt this can be established and it IMHO almost definitely isn't true. In reality, the most important competitions for most people tend to be whatever competition their country has participants in (with a chance of winning medals). The closest thing to a premier competition in the olympics is probably the marathon as HtD said. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Okay. So far, we've established a consensus to have an Olympics section on ITN, right? Now we're discussing particulars. Spencer^T♦^C 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I read situation here as a consensus on the preliminary idea, and pushed it on to Template talk:In the news for a broader discussion and linked it into Talk:Main Page in particularly so the Main Page regulars who don't pay attention to ITN in particular don't freak out when the format changes. As far as I can tell, the main part of this discussion has been superceded by the one at Template talk:In the news. The discussion there about switching Olympics items back to a "consensus to post" requirement is, in my mind, the key bit right now as there appears to be some confusion about if the link is meant to restrict items on ITN or expand Olympic coverage on ITN. (In my mind, it's absolutely the former as a means to push the drama of item selection to the linked page.) - Banyan Tree 14:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Football

How about Olympic football? In the men's tourney there several high-profile overaged players while the women's tourney have complete national sides. –Howard the Duck 19:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Youth Olympics

Has there been any discussion about putting these up? Personally I don't think we should, maybe the first ever, but it is a minor world event at the best. --Plasma Twa 2 18:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree; This probably shouldn't go up, unless a major record is broken, etc. Spencer^T♦^C 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy/guideline?

I think this should be elevated to policy and/or guideline seeing that everyone on ITN refers to this page? --Howard the Duck 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be alright with listing this as a guideline. I've also been casually thinking that we might want to make this a more general page to include all recurring items - such as Eurovision, Nobel Prizes, etc, rather than making a separate page for those items. - Banyan Tree 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BanyanTree. Also note we have a list of deaths that should go on ITN at WP:LILP. Spencer^T♦^C 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. We messed up and missed the death of Michael E. DeBakey. Spencer^T♦^C 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Two separate topics:

(1) Does anyone object to moving this page to Wikipedia:Recurring items on ITN, moving section headers down one level and beginning to add non-sports items under a separate top-level non-sports header? If anyone is really against Eurovision you can remove it and force it to get approval through ITN, but I spent two years objecting to its inclusion and got overruled by massive numbers of Europeans each time. At some point it's more productive to give in.

(2) I had completely forgotten about the death list. Was it ever advertised beyond the boundaries of ITN? I think I see two people in favor at WP:ITN/DC, and would imagine that this is something that people would get quite excited about. - Banyan Tree 02:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1: I personally don't object.

2: No, I don't think it was really advertised beyond ITN. I think it could work; we just need to remember. Spencer^T♦^C

(1) OK, moved.

(2) I'm not disagreeing, though my general reflex is to look at the least bureaucratic possible solution on the assumption that once you write something down, wikilawyers will try to game the system while ignoring the spirit in which the guideline was written. Heck, I drafted the initial restriction on deaths for ITN and just assumed that people would IAR occasionally. Now I know better. I'll give it some thought, but I will probably not go to the mat to implement this without broader input. (I can't speak for any other admins of course.) I'm going to need all the social capital I can save if I'm going to be pulling off Olympics items that haven't reached a consensus in discussion. - Banyan Tree 03:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hate to bust in like this after it was already just moved, but for myself (and possibly other people in the UK and surrounding regions) there is a momentary bout of confusion upon first encountering this page, confusing it with ITN; not helped by the fact that the latter also deals in news! So for a while I was wondering why they were so important as to deserve their own Wikipedia guideline. :-D If you guys keep the current title, I'd at least recommend expanding the acronym in the lead section. Is that OK? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Spencer^T♦^C 21:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize for Fiction

I would think that the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction is about the same level as the Booker Prize and deserves inclusion. Those two would cover fiction for pretty much all of the English-speaking world. Comments? - Banyan Tree 03:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so...didn't we do something last time with the Pulitzer mentioning which paper won the most awards, or something like that? Also, how about the Millennium Prize Problems? I would consider solving them an important mathematical step. Spencer^T♦^C 12:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly what coverage we gave the Pulitzers. Millennium Prize Problems would appear to be ITN worthy, but they are not recurring so are outside the ambit of this page. - Banyan Tree 01:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Elections

I'll attempt to start this. The following is assuming that the articles is updated, etc.

National elections, including presidential and legislative elections, should always be put up. Unless a subnational or local election is marked by extreme circumstances (such as violence), those should not be put up.

Okay, this is a start. Now what about the swearing-ins? I think (not really sure) we might have done this, but I forget. Spencer^T♦^C 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We would have to substantially expand the ITN section if we covered all national elections. I'd propose that for an election to be covered it would have to have received substantial coverage in major news sources outside of the region where the election is held. Zimbabwe's recent elections obviously meet this criterion, for example. Generally if there is violence or substantial allegations of election rigging it gets covered internationally. I'm using "outside of region" simply because neighbors will generally cover the elections of their neighbors and that France is interested in German politics or that El Norte is interested in Mexican elections does not make them particularly notable (though I'm guessing the 2006 election was covered outside of the Americas because it had other issues). SDY (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we generally do not add items to ITN without a substantial article update (or a new article in good shape), I don't think that including all national-level elections that have well-written wiki article on them would over-burden the ITN template. Of course, these updates are largely based on the attention the elections receive, which mainly comes from the news media, so in a way you are right. Random 89 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elections are sacred on ITN. There's no reason we can't cover them all, provided they have a well written, well sourced article. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if there is no article there is no ITN entry and that's barrier enough to overloading the system. SDY (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Only somewhat. If there is a single sentence stub on a good current event, that also wouldn't go up. Spencer^T♦^C 01:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as swearings-in go, I would have to say that I really don't think we should put them up. They can be suggested if we don't have anything else of note going on, but as a general rule that would be a bit overkill. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...it seems that I have the opinion of most of us here, just wanted to make sure. Spencer^T♦^C 14:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Prizes and Awards

I noticed that the Fields Medal is on the list. There are a lot of prizes out there, and my perception is that the Nobels are the only academic prizes that are notable enough to always be included. Looking at the list, though, and considering that it's not a huge burden, I don't have a major problem with it, but we should be careful about including other recurring awards.

I'm hesitant to mention them after having doubts about the Fields Medal, but the the Palme d'Or from Cannes is another recurring award that is newsworthy. I'm guessing the Bollywood folks have an awards system as well, but I will humbly admit I have no clues what they are.

I'm a little concerned about systemic bias with the choice of awards, and we should definitely try to give good coverage of explicitly non-Western prizes and be hesitant to include things like the Booker prize that have nationality requirements. SDY (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For academic prizes, the Field Prizes were very well covered by news organizations the last time they occurred and were entirely uncontroversial on ITN. In any case, I've added the Palme d'Or and we'll see if anyone protests. There are a large number of Indian editors and I imagine that they will wander by and tell us if they think that the Bollywood Movie Awards should be added, though they seem not as well organized as the others listed.

This entire page is based around what English-speakers see as significant recurring events, so systemic bias is a given. If an item is controversial, then it shouldn't be on this list - it should be sent to ITN/C to be vetted like any other candidate for a few years until it becomes apparent that it really does have consensus for inclusion. There's even bias within English: the Caine Prize may be the most prestigious literary prize specific to Africa but the most recent winner didn't get a single-sentence page until after she had won. As for prizes in other languages, like the Yomiuri Prize, the problem is compounded both by lack of coverage in English Wikipedia and by lack of interest from readers scanning ITN, especially since the book probably isn't even translated yet. - Banyan Tree 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

NRL

From Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#ITN candidates for October 5 permanent link it appears NRL shouldn't be added to the list. For that matter if we did want to add rugby league, it's not clear to me whether the NRL is the best thing to add. As with rugby (union), I don't think league supporters in England & France particularly care what happens in the NRL, their main concern is the Super League (Europe), even if the NRL potentially has the better players. Then of course there's the Rugby League State of Origin (which few outside Australia really care about), the Rugby League Tri-Nations and the Rugby League World Cup. Incidentally from [3] it appears there is greater merit to have the AFL then the NRL. The AFL basically beats the NRL in every area except pay TV audience where the NRL is supreme. Also [4] suggests the AFL final still beat the NRL final this year. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The NRL grand final is still most watched event on TV in Australia and I assume with NZ and Pacific islands it can only be assumed to be the most watched event in Oceania. It has the higest attendance figures of any domestic rugby competition. --Thatsgold (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to oppose it when I saw it but I figure there was no way it'll end in the Main Page... guess I was wrong. –Howard the Duck 03:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Added Chess and ...

Folks, I have added Chess championships as recurring items on ITN. I am sure there would no problems considering that Anand's news item has been on main page now for almost 4 days with no concerns.

I have one more suggestion but would like to gain consensus here before going ahead. Just like Academy Awards and Grammy awards are given the privilege to be on ITN as recurring once a year, Filmfare Awards should also be allowed featuring on ITN. Filmfare Awards are the oldest and most prominent of Bollywood movie awards and occurs once every year. One of the ITN updating admin User:BanyanTree has already suggested this in one of the above threads. Your opinions are welcome to generate consensus. --GPPande talk! 10:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
*This thread has been notified to WT:FILM to gather consensus. --GPPande talk! 10:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
*This thread has been notified to WT:IN to gather consensus. --GPPande talk! 10:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GAA: All Ireland Finals?

Has anyone considered the Gaelic Athletic Association's All-Ireland Finals for inclusion? They are generally regarded as prestigious events, run by the largest amateur sports organisation in the world. I would advise further reading before dismissing this as trivial; for example, they have built a stadium with a capacity of over 80,000 (one of the largest in Europe) which should give some indication of the funds and popularity that this organisation possesses, to defy any amateur status (a status which is chosen by themselves). They are also essentially providing a playing field for the equally popular sports of rugby and soccer for a number of years. A lot of work is needed on these articles but I would hope that this would not be used as a reason for a negative response to my suggestion. The events I was referring to are the ultimate matches of the two most popular of the Gaelic games, hurling and gaelic football, which would amount to two events per year each on differing Sundays of September.

--➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 13:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao-Oscar de la Hoya bout

This has been generating a ton of buzz lately, and although it's a given Pacquiao will lose, this will still generate enough interest from at least 2 countries, although neither is USA or any Commonwealth country so... Also, Pacquiao previously made it to the ITN but only for a brief moment (grand total of about 2 hours). Or we can wait if Pacquiao-Hatton happens to appease everyone. –Howard the Duck 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Cricket: IPL

I think we should add IPL to the list as since last year it has has become one of the biggest events in cricket and most likely will take place every year. Played by cricketers from all over the world and this year it seems like it will be taking place outside india too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishg55 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd support, bearing in mind that India has a far bigger population than the US which has the Superbowl. --can dle •wicke 22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the above, having observed in more detail how sports are working in the past two months I would probably oppose this now. Unless maybe there is some official list ranking the league as the top in the world by a governing cricket body (not necessarily TV viewing figures or Google hits) - as it is a domestic league this might be flexible and would only guarantee the top ranking league ever featuring at ITN; it would allow for the removal of this league if it was ever overtaken by another. Come to think about it, this proposal might work well for association football and proposals to add the Premier League as well... --can dle •wicke 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these "rankings" should be the sole determiner of what goes up, nor does Google News "hits" [sic], nor the number of countries participating (that means that the Summer Olympics will be the largest sporting event but a ton will probably disagree) but a balance of these. –Howard the Duck 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The IPL is undoubtedly the most popular and most talent-filled Twenty20 domestic cricket league in the world. For all those unaware, most international star players in cricket have been signed up by IPL teams, with the top paid stars the likes of Kevin Pietersen (England, 1.55 million US), Andrew Flintoff (England, 1.55 million US) and Andrew Symonds (Austraila, 1.35 million US) for 59 days of cricket. So if one were to rank domestic cricket leagues, the IPL will definitely be at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.180.94 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the ICC publishes a ranking but there's enough consensus for it to be said that it is the top level Twenty20 league out there. –Howard the Duck 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Restarting the old discussion 1 year after

I would like to gain concensus on this matter once again. IPL is scheduled in March 2010. IPL has fast taken up the "most watched event" spot in cricketing world and players from across the world participate in it. Not to mention, Indian government had denied security last year to IPL considering parliamentary elections. This year too, Hyderabad matches have been shifted out due to Telangana crisis and India-Pakistan government level verbal duos on dropping Pakistani players. Shahrukh Khan Vs Shiv Sena battle added to it all. This year's IPL has political touch to the tournament. Considering below points I would request the addition of IPL results to ITNR -

Huge fan following & players spanning across multiple nations, from many continents.
One of the most watched event on TV across cricketing world.
Huge amount of money involved in game and political interests.

....many more can be added. But I think it should suffice to add IPL to ITNR. --GP Pande 09:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified WP:Cricket community here --GP Pande 09:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with IPL having a scheduled slot. Test cricket is still the ultimate, say the players, presuming they aren't lying, and the World Cups of ODIs and T20s have been around longer and have a higher priority. As for the standard of play/level of competition, all the Indian players are there, because they have no international commitments at the time, but the other players from the other international teams are often busy, so often only half the players are there. Whereas at the World Cups and Champions Trophy, all the best players are available. Also with the T20 Champions League, they manage to slot it into a gap in the schedule as it is usually only 2 weeks not 4-6 weeks, and a higher proportion of internationally capped players get in the teams. I don't agree that having more TV spectators should be a guarantee of inclusion, as any random T20 international often gets more TV attention than a Test between the same two teams, and on Wikipedia, people like yo harp on about what the scholars think etc, and they still think Tests/World Cup is king. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Our discussion is not about T20 form being superior/inferior to Test/ODI. On WP:ITN, we have many successful nominations because the popularity, coverage, presence of players from various countries, etc. Basically, it is the importance of the tournament that counts for it to be on ITN. I think IPL passes all these criteria successfully just like many other tournaments of other games. --GP Pande 09:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the ruling on ITN is to post the highest level, rather than the most popular of each sport. In one day cricket that is the world cup and in Twenty20 that is the Twenty20 world cup. In test cricket there is no 'top tournament' so instead we go for the biggest games in terms of history and importance to the sport, which are the Ashes and India/Pakistan. If you want nominate the IPL when it occurs, that is fine, but I agree with Yellow monkey that there is no need to add it to ITNR. --Daviessimo (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that World Cups have more legal face than IPL primarily because it is played between cricket playing countries and not leagues. But we should also focus on fact that IPL has more international glamour/money/viewership than World Cups. Also, ITN has been featuring "prominent" tournaments for other games alongside world cups. Example: Rugby, football. Infact IPL was featured last time on ITN here. All I am proposing is to add it to ITNR instead of going through same discussion everytime. --GP Pande 12:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should bring raw money into the criteria for sport, I think that the standard of the competition should determine it, as international representative competitions generally have less money than club sport, eg soccer, and it might create an awful situation where people will say that the Arab soccer leagues are notable, because the only thing there is that wealthy Arab businessmen are paying a lot of 35+ yo knackered stars big millions to play there once they are no use for the UEFA Champions League etc. Also Olympics don't have any money either. Also with money being the criteria, Wikipedia could be unwittingly turned into an advertising vehicle that way. And as far as T20 club competitions go, the Champions League allows the top teams from all countries to play and the standard is higher (same as the UEFA CL, I don't have the data but did Serie A, EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga all go up??) as it is a short tournament and everyone can fit a gap to play in it. I know last year the Champions League TV ratings went down badly because the Indian teams got knocked out early, and the Indian public stopped watching, but if TV ratings is the only thing, then that would lead to a discriminatory system where if India wins, it is notable, if India loses and the ad revenue goes down, then it is non-notable. Which would be a kind of POV because only Indian victories are shown on ITN. By that definition the IPL would be more notable than the quadrennial World Cup in 2007, as India bombed out in the first round and the ratings plummeted. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League also draws about 32 teams from many countries in Europe, and they have hired players from all across, Africa, S America, and the odd few from N America and Asia Pacific, whereas, the IPL has teams from 1 country, and players from only 7 + the various WI Islands (no Zimbabweans, and maybe only 1-2 Bangladeshis, so that's two). I don't think glamour is a good measure for sport, as it's so subjective, people don't go to sport for cheerleaders or fireworks, and Wikipedia is supposed to be based on scholarly sources etc, and when people write a history book about cricket in 50 years time, they'll talk about the players' achievements but not the dancing girls and fireworks. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually Yellowmonkey makes a good point. If you compare the English Premier League and the UEFA Champions League, by your measures GPPande, the Premier League would be considered more notable because it has a far larger audience (broadcast in 152 countries with biggest games often pulling in 250m+ viewers globally) and far more money (over half of all the financial assets in all of Europe are owned by English clubs). However, despite this, the simple fact is that the Champions League is the definitive top level of football in Europe. I agree that if you want to add a cricket item to ITNR the Twenty20 Champions League is the best bet, because it incorporates only the best teams form across the globe (and as such can be considered the highest level of Twenty20) --Daviessimo (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with featuring the IPL. When it comes down to it, this is a domestic league which has only been running for a couple of years. It is generally not followed outside of India (and SA when it was held there); every cricket fan in the world knows who is topping the Test rankings but most have no idea who won the IPL. I won't contest that it is the biggest domestic league, but given the relative prestige of international events I think we should just stick with those. Modest Genius ^talk 18:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree with your statement about IPL not being followed outside India. There are quite a bit of players that play at international level and being the only league of this sort in cricket it is watched by many people outside india. I could argue that all the leagues we post such as NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB are also domestic and not watched by many outside US or Canada but clearly that argument will never stand. So to me its pretty much a double standard if a league at this standard is not posted simply because its in india instead of north america. -- Ashish -g55 19:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no double standard based upon location. The difference is that all of the leagues you listed are also the highest level of competition in their sports, which the IPL is manifestly not. I can only speak for the UK when it comes to international attention, but there was very little interest here (and what there was was mostly confined to the Asian communities). Modest Genius ^talk 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In those north American sports, the club competition takes precedence over international duties or they don't clash, as international comps only take up a small part of the season, whereas in IPL, 100% of the best Indian players are there, and only about 50% of the best overseas players are there. Secondly 63% of the positions are reserved for Indians, and some of these are obligatory players from the local region and youth players, so even of those players available, it isn't the best who are on the field, because of the restictions on foreigners. Last year, Daniel Vettori, the captain of NZ didn't play many matches despite having the best record of spinners in international T20s; this was because Delhi lacked good local pacemen, so they used their overseas quota on pacemen. Simlarly some guys who don't play even regularly in Indian first-class cricket got games ahead of capped internationals. The standard of competition in the IPL is manifestly far lower than in the T20 World Cup. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of your previous arguments such as money and political drama are subjective. But even if we go by "usual ITN criteria" - the news is on top page of CNN, BBC, reuters, blah-blah website... (which is usual way a news if forced on ITN), IPL will qualify for ITN. IPL features the best amongst the cricket playing world and is at par with league tournaments followed in other games. Lets accept this fact. --GP Pande 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For sport, the criteria has been and always will be that inclusion on the main page is limited to the top level of a sport or a major international tournament. For example, with football we post the top level of the sport (the World Cup), plus major international tournaments (e.g. the UEFA Champions League, the Copa America). The IPL meets neither of these criteria and as such should not be 'guaranteed' inclusion on the main page. As Modest Genius states, the IPL is essentially a domestic league and subsequently the breadth and depth of coverage is irrelevant. The only reason a 'domestic league' will be posted is if that tournament is the highest level of that sport (as is the case for Hurling or American Football or Aussie rules football) --Daviessimo (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I listen to the BBC World Service and on their 10-minute sport segment they always go through every Test and most ODIs excluding Bangladesh/Zimbabwe-involved matches, but not IPL, check the BBC Sport website for daily stuff in 2 weeks time and it will show the Tests before the IPL, and definitely not the IPL near any of the picture slots. Secondly "the best players" is simply incorrect, only about 50% of the international players are there because of national commitments, and many of them don't get to play because of quota of only 4/11 foreign players. Of the 8*11=88 positions in the playing XIs, 56 are reserved for Indians including some for youth players who don't even even play regular first-class cricket. The teams are far from full-strength in terms of the talent pool, whereas with European football, clubs take precedence over internationals so all the best players are there, and they aren't forced to field far inferior local players instead of decorated and well-established internationals. Vettori and Muralitharan were on the bench last year. How badly would the standard drop in Chelsea and Arsenal weren't allowed to use 80+% foreign players? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)