Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed Addition: FIFA world cup mens host city selection

No consensus. While the supports are numerically superior, I don't see a consensus - especially as much of the discussion was actually irrelevant to the topic at hand. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar to the olympics host city selection, this is a proposal to add the host selection for the Mens FIFA world cup. The last two were posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Support once every 4 or 8 years. Looking at FIFA World Cup hosts, since 2006 host selection have received wide coverage. Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasoning given two sections above. Merely temporary news until the event itself. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not at all significant in the long term. Nobody know nor cares about the selection event for long past World Cups. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Funny you should say that - I was just reading about the historical selections, and it's fascinating. In the early days all but one bid withdrew prior to the vote. There was the continental rotation policy that lasted only two cups. There's Russia and Qatar. There's the perennial quixotic bidding from Morocco. ghost 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Recent history tells us the decision itself is substantially newsworthy. Consider too the impacts that occur prior to the event itself, such as the bribery and slavery situation with Qatar. Ask yourself this: what are the odds that this will not be posted next time, given its historical performance at ITNC? ghost 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it may not seem like a huge deal, but it usually is. Lepricavark (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Hasn't changed anything here in the U.S. knowing we're the next hosts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and since we post the Olympic selection, no reason at all not to post the World Cup selection. Audience figures are in the billions for both, so it makes sense to treat them similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Insignificant in the present moment, we're talking about a procedural announcement for games that are, what, 8 years away? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    Then you'll advocate the removal of the Olympic city when I nominate for removal it I trust. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: If you nominate it, I will concur with its removal. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Very well. It's good to have some level of consistency here when literally billions of individuals are interested in each of these topics. Sure, it's not college basketball or baseball, but it does seem to pique the interest of a few billion around the world. It's anomalous to have one without the other. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
!!!!!!COLLEGE BASKETBALL KLAXON!!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright Mr Pointy Bollocks, enough from you. As soon as dear Howard refrains from dragging canoes into every single post, we can refrain from retaliating with the dreaded and dreadful college sport affectation. Noted? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"...literally billions"? Got a source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I love how casually people vote on subjects they obviously know very little about. List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#Global Nergaal (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 Yup. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for almost all the reasons given above, and despite (or maybe partly because of) my surprize at TRM sinking to the level of quoting TV audiences in support of a proposal when he normally dismisses such things as unencyclopedic irrelevancies on a par with Kim Kardashian in the tabloids, Face-smile.svg all the more so as billions viewing the World Cup is not the same as billions being interested in the selection of the host country. (I'm not saying the billions aren't relevant (even if most of the detailed claims may be dubious commercial hype), as I agree that they are relevant - I'm just surprized that TRM thinks so too) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    No you got it all wrong. Kardashian, I was talking about pageviews, not television viewership. But do think harder before personalising issues, because next time this might go a lot further. Talking about people behind their backs is the first step on a disastrous road. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment this needs independent closure. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Heads of state vs government

ITNR reads "Elections and heads of state" and twice just this week (Khan and Turnbull) there is back and forth about it being/not being the "head of state". There is an easy fix for this. Instead of being locked in to the phrase "head of state", we replace it with "chef executive as listed at List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government". This way we're posting a change in the person who administers the country day to day and represents it abroad. It's that, or we post the next appointment of a Governor General of Canada who is, legally, the "Head of state" and is in one of "those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not an elected position". We don't want that do we? Of course we don't. Lets fix this silliness. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The governor-general (of any country with one) is not head of state, they are the representative of the head of state. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion on this question has happened many times in the past, and never gained consensus. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
One, Two, Three past discussions- and I think there's more. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd argue for parliamentary monarchies the monarch is rather important, for parliamentary republics this is somewhat less so. Still someone might argue that it's not fair, that say the United Kingdom and most of Europe gets politics-related ITNRs, while the U.S. just gets one (unless you consider midterm elections as ITNR, which was pretty contentious the last time that happened). Howard the Duck (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have never heard the Prime Minister of Australia described as a chief executive. Sounds ridiculously American to me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok so fix the wording, no need to add extra snark. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as I have in the past. The selection of a new Chancellor of Germany outside of a general election is not seen as "presumed significant" where the election of the German president is. What happens in practice is the Chancellor gets posted anyway, while the presidential election is not even nom'ed. The consensus has held that this is not a big problem, because in the end we posted the relevant nom and the not the irrelevant one. I would hold this only works in the bigger countries. Are we posting the right events for Mozambique and East Timor? I have no idea. No, it's not a big problem, but it's also not a big change. ITNR has this wrong; that ITNC covers for it should not prevent us from cleaning up. ghost 11:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. 331dot's claim that a consensus was not obtained in the past does not mean a consensus cannot be obtained now, and I agree that this is a necessary change.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
To avoid any national bias, we want the ITNR to reflect that the election to the position that holds the greatest amount of individual power in representing the country to the rest of the world should be automatic (short of quality control) while any other elected executive official should be considered case-by-case. The problem is while for most countries "head of state" does capture the former, it is not always true (eg : as I understand the situation in Pakistan, the president is the "head of state" on paper, but any serious decision is going to come from the PM) This does not make for crystal clear language of how to approach this. --Masem (t) 13:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I have in the past. Heads of state represent their nations to the world and their own citizens. It's not about power. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We post elections to rubber-stamp legislatures/bodies that just ratify the actions of the person with the actual power and/or have essentially a figurehead head of government(like, arguably, Russia/Putin), and elections where the outcome is predetermined/rigged. Unless we want to take the List of sovereign states and decide for each country on it who has the actual power, and only post changes to that, I think it will be exceedingly hard to deviate from what we do now. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to decide anything, List of current heads of state and government already handles it quite well, and if there is any question, the article about the office itself can help. For example President of Pakistan makes it explicitly clear The office-holder is a ceremonial de jure figurehead who represents the "unity of the Republic." --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
In Russia right now, the power follows Putin regardless of what office he technically holds, PM or President, as he just jumps from one to another. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so next time he's PM, just go ahead and update the requisite articles, and List of current heads of state and government, being sure to cite reliable sources, and we'll be all set! See, it's amazing! --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
So is it "Whatever Office Vladimir Putin Holds" that is ITNR, instead of head of state elections and general elections? 331dot (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You brought up Russia. We have List of current heads of state and government which clearly delineates which office has power, and which is a meaningless figurehead. I just want to go by that. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean this as a serious question- then why not just get rid of the listing entirely and rely on ITNC to decide what changes in leadership are posted? 331dot (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I could get behind that, actually. Keep the elections (most choose who will run the country and the national assembly at the same time), drop the "head of state" bit and consider things like impeachment or resignations on a case by case basis at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of clarity- I was only referring to the "head of state" changes part, not elections. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that ITNR was always meant to imply "a person was elevated or reconfirmed as the most powerful in their country." As Masem noted, that's clear as mud, and the position of power does change over time - Russia is an example where we do not care and should not post the new President when Putin flips over to PM. It's a debate best handled at ITNC rather than ITNR. The benefit of having it be ITNR is that each country qualifies at least once, and we don't have a debate about the irrelevancy of Lesotho. ghost 17:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support especially per Masem, who states the rationale better than I could. Lepricavark (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I just want to comment that I'm perfectly comfortable with 331dot's rhetorical suggestion above, which is that we scrap head-of-state being ITN/R and just judge each promotion on a case-by-case basis, preferably without any bias for or against major or minor countries (e.g. we would post the head-of-state of Djibouti just as we would for Ireland, with all else being equal).--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We could add "head of state" to the existing explanatory sentence in some manner("changes to head of state and head of government are discussed on their own merits"). 331dot (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the principle, oppose the wording. What we want to have as ITN/R is (a) changes or re-elections of holder of the post in every country that wields day-to-day political power, whether that is President, Prime Minister or some other post; and (b) changes of (all? non-nominal?) monarch. I think the best way to do this is to split them into two listings with a note (if needed) that in the event a monarch is the person who holds the political power that they only get one listing. All we need to have is a list of which office (or offices?) we consider to be the most important for ITN purposes; and (if not all monarchies are covered) a list of which ones are. I oppose leaving to ITN/C as it will just get bogged down in arguments about whether countries like Kuwait or Georgia are important enough (let alone Swaziland and Nauru). Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This seems to be removing changes in heads of state of dozens of countries, including important ones like India, Pakistan, Germany, etc (as well as my own country's presidential election next month), based on the kind of false consensus one gets by not asking the Wikiprojects for the affected countries as this might violate WP:CANVAS, with various possible unfortunate consequences that I explained earlier at greater length when opposing Thryduulf's version of this proposal which can be found below. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Heads of state and government (Thryduulf's proposal)

Following on from the above discussion, I think there is consensus on what we want to see but now how to express that. Accordingly I propose this to see if it is better than what has gone before. It would replace all existing ITN/R entries about heads of state and government. Exact wording will need tweaking, this is to get agreement on the broad concepts.

ITN/R:

  • Monarchs and popes:
    • The death or abdication of a reigning monarch or pope
    • Succession of a new monarch or regent following the death of the previous incumbent. This should normally be combined with the death blurb above if it happens before that is stale.
    • Election of a new pope. If the death blurb is not stale, combining the blurbs should be determined by consensus.
  • Countries with elected heads of state or government:
    • Results of general elections to a parliament, if the governing party does or could change as a result of the election.
    • Change of head of state in countries where the head of state exercises day-to-day political power.
    • Change of head of government in countries where the head of government exercises day-to-day political power.
  • In all cases:
    • All criteria apply equally to all UN member states plus Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Vatican City.
    • If voting takes place over multiple rounds only the final round is ITN/R.
    • In the case of indirect elections (e.g. US presidential elections), only the results of (the final round of) the popular vote are ITN/R.
    • Where any change of elected head or state or government that is ITN/R happens at the same time as another election that is also ITN/R then the blurbs should normally be combined.
    • If an election is inconclusive, this should be posted when the article is ready and then updated when the outcome is clear. If the outcome is not clarified until after the results of voting are stale, consensus at ITN/C should determine whether a second post is made.

ITN/C only:

  • States that are not members of the UN (except Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Vatican City)
  • Sub-national entities
  • Deaths of monarchs who abdicated, were deposed, or were only pretenders to the throne.
  • Deaths of popes emeritus
  • A substantive monarch taking over from regents
  • Changes to a monarch's representative to a country (e.g. Governor General and similar)
  • Changes of head of state in countries where the head of government exercises day-to-day political power (excluding changes of monarch that are listed as ITN/R above).
  • Changes of head of government in countries where the head of state exercises day-to-day political power.

Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The Vatican is a city-state, but is it worth noting that other changes in spiritual leadership of religions (perhaps Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, President of the Church (LDS Church), Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, etc.) are ITN/C only? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think they can be reasonably construed as any of (a) monarch, (b) head of state or (c) head of government, let alone of a UN member state. So I think mentioning them will likely lead to more confusion, especially if there are (now or in future) any other ITN/R entries for religious leaders. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support almost anything that puts the status-quo to death. You've got a lot of new verbiage about monarchs, the vast majority today are figureheads, and I think they should be considered individually at ITN/C (except in cases where they are the head of state exercising day-to-day political power then that's covered). There aren't so many left, they don't die or resign too often, so I'm not opposed, but I'd be happier of monarchs weren't ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC) not
    • Oppose when I read this, I hadn't considered that it leads to every nom bickering over "who is really in charge". I'm tired of the Putin argument. Puppet Medvedev exercises day-to-day authority, even if it's under Putins direction, and that's good enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Your never going to get consensus on anything if everyone is contributing their own tweaks. ghost 17:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some questions: Why do Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, and the Vatican get added in addition to UN members? For that matter, why UN members and not the List of sovereign states that we use now? What about Russia, where Putin is in charge regardless of his title/position? I'm not sure we need the portion that is essentially a "not ITNR" list.
That said, it seems that we have two disparate pathways to take here; either remove the listing totally(one earlier proposal), or be more specific(this proposal). If we're going to keep the listing, which might be the case since there wasn't a huge consensus there, then I would support changing it to this. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
"Why do Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, and the Vatican get added in addition to UN members? For that matter, why UN members and not the List of sovereign states that we use now?" UN Members plus those 4 is basically the simplest way of saying every country that functions as a sovereign state and has widespread international recognition as an independent sovereign state, but if you want to include the whole list of sovereign states then I won't object.
"What about Russia, where Putin is in charge regardless of his title/position?" This proposal aims to cope with that - when Putin is head of state then head of state qualifies, when he is head of government then head of government gets the ITN/R. It's about de facto not de jure power. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Leaving aside whether Putin is President or PM, how would this apply in important countries like China and France, where both President and PM have some power (tho president is usually seen as more powerful, but PM seemingly has very real power in France during so-called 'cohabitation' periods)? In the case of China (and perhaps countries like South Africa) the real news may be when somebody becomes party leader, which may be quite some time before they officially become President. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar enough with the political systems in each country, but if only one of PM and President wields day-to-day political power then only that one is ITN/R. If both wield power day-to-day power equally then both are ITN/R, but that seems unlikely. Someone becoming party leader is not relevant to this proposal at all, if you think it should be INTR (generally or in specific cases) then you need to make a separate proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: a) Am I correct in my understanding that this proposal will take next month's Irish Presidential election out of ITN/R? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes (assuming the proposal gains consensus before then), as political power in Ireland is in the hands of the taoiseach. You (or anyone else) would be free to nominate it at WP:ITN/C as a normal nomination though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Which I suspect would make its chances of getting posted change from over 90% to under 10%,but I guess that's life and similar problems will apply to other posts such as the President of India.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you really think the President of Ireland SHOULD be posted to ITN? ghost 12:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: b) Assuming the answer to (a) above is YES, am I correct in thinking that it would be a violation of WP:CANVAS to mention this at the Talk page of the relevant article, or at any other Irish Talk Page? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    Incidentally, tho I'm Irish, I'm actually rather neutral about what happens to that article, basically on what I would dubiously describe as 'quality' grounds (meaning that, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I've quit working on the article, perhaps mainly because I disagree with the removal of 'last election' figures from that article, resulting in alphabetic ordering of the candidates in the infobox, which now seems to me to be almost a disinfo box, and I'm not too happy with how that came about). It does however mean that I'm currently a bit reluctant to support or oppose the present proposal, as I'm not sure I'd be supporting or opposing for sensible reasons. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) That depends entirely on how it was mentioned and why, where it was mentioned and in how many places might also make a difference. A neutral message at talk:Irish presidential election, 2018 that noted that the proposal is to change which changes of head of state and head of government are automatically considered significant to post at ITN every time they happen, and this would (i.e. it's not about Ireland specifically) would be OK, similarly on the talk page of any other articles about elections that would be affected by this proposal (either way). Leaving a message on every Irish talk page would definitely be inappropriate, as would a non-neutral message - framing it as something specifically about Ireland might be inappropriate. Possibly a neutral note at the elections wikiproject talk page would be better though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your three helpful replies, Thryduulf. I'll have a think about whether and where I want to leave such a neutral note, tho a neutral note from you or anybody else at Wikiproject Elections seems best (otherwise I might have to explain why I only left such a note at just one country's Talk page, or at 20 countries' Talk Pages instead of 200). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I've now added this to the Elections and referendums Project Talk Page.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Among other problems, we will seemingly in effect be saying that the Grand Duke of Luxemburg (population 300,000) is still ITNR, but the President of India (population 1.2 billion) no longer is, and there will be many other similar examples. This is potentially rather damaging to Wikipedia's reputation in places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many other countries (including my own, Ireland) and may tend to somewhat demoralize editors and thus somewhat damage editor productivity and editor retention from such countries, as well as possibly attracting disruptive POV-pushing editors from such countries intent on teaching us 'wicked imperialists' a lesson. Any 'consensus' in favour of this proposal seems likely to be a false consensus achieved by failing to warn such countries of what is in store for them, as any such warning is liable to be seen (possibly technically correctly) as violating WP:CANVAS. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you've completely misunderstood the aim of the proposals (not just mine) which is to reflect the meaningful changes in each country equally. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't know how you can conclude that, as I don't think I have said anything about the aim of this or any other proposal. My opposition is based on my perception of this proposal's actual and possible consequences, not on its aim. (As for the other proposals, I haven't looked at them, as I have tended to assume, perhaps mistakenly, that this proposal will replace them). That said, if the proposal's aim is to reflect meaningful changes in countries equally, then this proposal would seem to fail in its aim, as for instance exemplified by its above-mentioned treatment of Luxemburg and India. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Your example shows what we are trying to avoid. The president of India (like Ireland) is a lesser role. By making the primary role the ITNR qualified, we leave the lesser role to prove itself at ITNC. Luxembourg is a wholly different case. Note that the seat has changed hands just twice since the 19th century, so it seems rare enough to take note. ghost 12:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually my main objection is that 'we' (seemingly almost entirely consisting of editors from unaffected countries) are removing the heads of states of dozens of countries from ITNR without letting them know or asking them how they feel about it (for fear that doing so would violate WP:CANVAS), and that any apparent consensus on the issue will thus be a false and potentially harmful pseudo-consensus. (The fact that in this particular proposal we are doing this to republics but not monarchies just adds insult to injury, but isn't the most important problem).Tlhslobus (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
You are missing the point that we're not simply removing heads of state, what we are doing is saying that changes of figurehead heads of state are not automatically notable enough for ITN but changes of powerful heads of government are automatically notable enough (which they currently are not). Under this proposal no country will get fewer entries on ITN/R than they do now, we're just changing which ones they are to match the real-world significance. The president of Ireland is not a politically powerful position, the taishoch is. Currently the president is INT/R but the taishoch isn't - this proposal will reverse that.
The difference with monarchies (where the monarch does not exercise day-to-day political power) is that they change very infrequently relative to elected heads of state - there have been 18 changes of president in 2018, the 18th shortest reigning monarch has ruled since 1999 (longer than Wikipedia has existed). This means that changes of monarch are much more significant to the country than changes of president. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I am NOT missing the point. I am well aware of what you are trying to achieve. But you (and not only you) seem to be somehow repeatedly missing the point that this is liable to cause collateral damage because of the lack of consultation with those affected, thus also violating at least the spirit (if perhaps not the letter) of WP:CONSENSUS, despite the fact that I have now said something like this perhaps half a dozen times in my comments on the 3 different proposals currently here. The fact that republics will retain the same number of ITNRs (but monarchies will gain them under this proposal) is not really the point. The point is that those liable to be affected have not been consulted (thanks largely to fears of been accused of violating WP:CANVAS). For instance if I were Indian I would expect this change would in practice make a lot more unnecessary hassle for Indian editors because, for instance, I would know that changes of the Indian PM are a great deal less likely to be opposed at ITNR than changes of the Indian President, and I would likely be outraged that a bunch of Westerners had imposed this extra hassle on Indian editors without consulting them, based on yet another pseudo-consensus achieved by not consulting all those likely to be affected (note: this is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened, as I know it happened when an ENGVAR proposal got passed in that way a few years back, before getting reversed after the unsurprizing resulting furious row, tho this didn't prevent a recent time-wasting attempt to repeat the highly disruptive farce almost succeeding; quite likely there are many other such examples of which I am unaware). And of course this doesn't just apply to India, it applies to dozens of other countries (including my own, tho I have no way of knowing whether Irish editors would on balance mostly support or oppose the change if consulted, and I can't know this precisely because they have not been consulted, as I am getting very tired of having to repeatedly point out).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Meanwhile, as I have mentioned the potential collateral damage and wasted effort liable to be caused if this already time-consuming proposal is passed, may I remind you of 331dot's excellent point above in the first of these discussions: "Discussion on this question has happened many times in the past, and never gained consensus. ... One, Two, Three past discussions- and I think there's more." Tlhslobus (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This proposal does not bar the President of India or India itself from ITN; it only says that office is not presumed notable, but the Indian PM is presumed notable. President can still go through ITNC. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
True, but as already pointed out, in practice this will probably create more work for Indian and similar editors, thanks to a potentially disruptive pseudo-consensus achieved by not consulting those likely to be affected. That said, I've wasted enough time on this already, and apart from the brief comment below, I will now be withdrawing from this discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Besides the other objections I've mentioned above, this proposal should in practice reduce the number of postings about important countries like India, Germany, Italy, etc, and increase the number of ITN arguments on the matter (because their PMs get posted anyway, while we will now get rows over their Presidents, and sometimes over where day-to-day power resides), while also increasing some irrelevant ITN postings (such as ministates whose rarely-changing head of state is the Queen of England or the Archduke of Ruritania but whose often-changing PMs now become ITNR). Personally I think this also disimproves Wikipedia (and may well have been part of the very sensible reason for the existing system). But I've wasted enough time on this already, so I will now be withdrawing from this discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The only person objecting "What about Putin" is 331dot and I don't think that's valid. I don't care if the Russian president is a puppet when Putin is the PM, the president runs the country day to day even if it's as a puppet. For the 100th time, we have List of current heads of state and government which has a clear delineation. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The goal of this proposal in part is to post whichever office actually has power. If Medvedev is just doing Putin's bidding(for example), Medvedev is not the person who actually has power. Thryduulf addressed my concern. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: The principal goal of this proposal is to post whichever office actu§ally has power. It does not attempt to define which office that is for any country. List of current heads of state and government is therefore complementary to this proposal, being a place where the powerful office for each country is defined. The other part of this proposal relates to defining for which countries changes in head of state or government are ITN/R, the list of current heads of state and government is not organised in a way that matches ITN's goals in this regards (nor should it be). The only person (possibly other than you?) actually objecting to this proposal currently is Tlhslobus, who is doing so for reasons that are partly irrelevant and partly contrary to what there is a clear consensus for (posting the position of power; it is only the proposed methods that haven't gained consensus) Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal: Emmy

Following from this last nom, there were both opposes on the outright lack of update (a severe issue in the first place), and that the Emmys are not that relevant anymore. For that reason, I'm just throwing it out there if this should be a removal.

As a bit of history, here's the fate of past Emmy noms:

  • 2013: [1] Not posted: Article never appeared to got updates in terms of prose, in addition to questions of how Emmys got on ITNR
  • 2014: [Posted_66th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards] Posted (but note how few !votes): Here's the apparent state of the article at the time [2] which does have prose.
  • 2015: [Closed_67th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards] Not posted: again lack of update (in terms of prose)
  • 2016: [3] Not posted, again due to lack of prose
  • 2017: [Posted_Emmys] Posted, here's the state [4], which doesn't seem like a lot of prose.

I will argue that there is an issue with what is expected of an update here, that the two that were posted really aren't sufficient (compared to what we ask for sports events and usual get). If we aren't getting the updates from those interested, then this shouldn't be an ITNR.

I do argue strongly against pulling the ITNR simply due to the relevance of the Emmys, they have at least expanded to acknowledge alternate distribution methods like streaming (it took a while for them to get cable too). They remain the principle award in the television format area (even if broadcast television is sorta dead). But I will acknowledge the fact we do the Emmys and not the BAFTAs is systematic bias. If we do one, we should do both. So consider this partially a recommend to add the BAFTA TV awards if we keep the Emmys.

But again, if we're not getting quality updates over the last several years, then I agree with its removal from ITNR. --Masem (t) 02:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - My stance on this has been known for a while now, but for the record, I agree with Masem's reasoning regarding prose updates. I do believe it's questionable to include the Emmys on ITNR when we do not include the BAFTAs.--WaltCip (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question is there anywhere where the standards required for prose updates are written down? This year's article has prose, and I can easily see why some might think it sufficient although I can also see why others would think otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This year's, 70th Primetime Emmy Awards, has no prose. As an example 89th Academy Awards (pre and post-ceremony) has what I would argue should be essential prose for any of these awards. There are parts of the 89th that I know we'd not be able to fill in before ITN posting like Ratings, but everything else was doable within 24hr of the show's conclusion. There might not be as many events during a usual Emmy broadcast but it is certainly appropriate to discuss the balloting timelines, etc. and major events during the show (eg there was a marriage proposal in this year's Emmys that was talked about). --Masem (t) 12:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree with removing items from ITN/R solely because of lack of updates - we don't add things to it just because they get good updates (almost) every time they happen (e.g. college basketball). I don't have an opinion about the signficance of the Emmys though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Do we need to ping and/or notify all those who took part in previous such discussions in recent years? WaltCip's comments at the nom implies that he (incidentally is it now unCIVIL and/or unacceptable systemic BIAS to assume that a "Walt" is a "he"?) has unsuccessfully nominated the Emmys, and/or the Grammys, and/or "their ilk", for removal from ITNR for each of the past 3 years. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Supplementary Question Do we also need to ping and/or notify all those who took part in the discussion about this year's (now closed/withdrawn) nom? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Masem's statement at the start of this item that it's systemic BIAS to have the Emmys but not the BAFTAs, but I strongly disagree that this means we should have both or neither. This is yet another example of what's wrong with much of WP:BIAS, and why we should be vigilant to try to ensure that that essay never becomes a guideline or policy (or at least not in its current formulation). For instance it's also 'systemic bias' that the entertainment awards of perhaps 50 to 200 other countries aren't also included. To accept that "Emmys requires Baftas" is also BIAS, anti-American bias in the sense that it says one Briton is the equal of about 5 Americans (there are about 65 million Britons, and about 325 million Americans/USAans), and anti-rest-of-the-world bias in the sense that it says only Britons should be allowed this strange and unusual privilege.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I would argue that in general that BAFTAs (Television or other areas) are generally more prestigious and less about wooing the voter pool, even though they consider a smaller set of TV works; its not about disproportion between population. The reason that we do things like Oscars and Tonys and BAFTAs is that programming and other art forms produced by US and UK have wide international reach, compared to what other countries produce (eg: Japan produces a lot of works, but very little gets to the West, and while Bollywood may produce a lot more compared to Hollywood, that also doesn't get much Western release); it's not so much favoring the awards of these countries, but putting emphasis on the awards of the countries whose art has a large international emphasis. --Masem (t) 12:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Anybody can argue anything. It could be argued that your argument is itself suffused with systemic bias, for instance when you say things like "that also doesn't get much Western release" - even supposing the claim to be true and objective (for instance, what does 'much' mean?), what's so important about Western release? Indeed it could be argued that all arguments related to things like culture and history are inevitably suffused with systemic bias. Also I find British terrestrial TV (especially Film4, but also channels like BBC2, BBC4, and perhaps a few others) show lots of Bollywood and Japanese stuff. And I suspect that it is almost impossible to objectively check claims about the the relative importance of things like the Baftas and Bollywood due to the systemic bias and commercial hype inherent in all such claims, tho both personal experience and common sense tell me that around here British claims are usually given far more weight than they at least seem to deserve (for instance in rowing The Boat Races are ITNR, but the World Rowing Championships are not), while Indian and other such claims often tend to be given far less weight than they seem to deserve.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
      • However, measured by what interests our readers, based on comparing the two top level articles, in the last 365 days, from 22 September 2017 to 21 September 2018, Emmys got 647,782 pageviews, and BAFTA got 165,014 pageviews, suggesting the Emmys are about 4 times more interesting to our readers than the Baftas. Maybe a more detailed comparison of all the related articles might alter this ratio a bit (tho I suspect not all that much either way). But, at least in the current absence of evidence to the contrary, it does NOT seem obvious, at least to me, that having the Emmys in ITNR but not the Baftas is some sort of great sin against human equality (or whatever other alleged wickedness WP:BIAS is supposed to be guarding us against).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
And incidentally, the above relatively disappointing BAFTA pageview figures unduly flatter the BAFTAS, as the Emmys are just TV, while the Baftas are TV plus film plus videogames, and should thus actually be compared to Emmys+Oscars+Whatever-US-Video-Games-Awards-are-called.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There are separate ceremonies for the BAFTAS, eg British Academy Television Awards, British Academy Film Awards, British Academy Games Awards which are not held at the same time or chosen by the same people. --Masem (t) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Masem. So it seems the relevant comparison of Emmys is thus to British Academy Television Awards, which got 72,756 pageviews during the same period, seemingly now making the Emmys about 9 times (instead of just 4 times) more interesting to our readers than the corresponding Bafta, thus further strengthening my case.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
And, incidentally, despite Britain and France being next-door neighbours, the French Wikipedia ratio for the same 365 days is almost twice as bad for the TV Bafta (1,807 pageviews) at over 17 to 1 in favour of the Emmys (33,748 pageviews).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Quite likely what this really shows is that we really need different national and/or regional front pages for English Wikipedia, but that's presumably an argument for another forum.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that WP does not consider popularity or page count in whether something is ITN or not. I would suspect some of the more academic awards on ITN hav pages views in pale comparison to world cup or sports events, but we still feature them. --Masem (t) 21:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, let's not forget the good old Kim Kardashian paradigm. We have WP:TOP25 for that kind of junk. Pageviews are almost entirely irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Here I'm trying to compare like with like, which seems relevant to me after a claim has been made that Emmys should be removed as their inclusion is 'systematic bias' because the allegedly 'prestigious' Baftas are not included (especially given that anybody can claim that any prize is 'prestigious', etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
But it's funny how billions of TV viewers suddenly (and, incidentally, rightly, at least in my view) stop being unencyclopedic Kim Kardashian tabloid irrelevancies when TRM is supporting making the selection of the FIFA World Cup host ITNR. As he so rightly pointed out at the time "It's good to have some level of consistency here". Face-smile.svgTlhslobus (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
However I think I'd maybe better try to quit this part of the discussion before somebody says something here that might irritate me into irrationally switching from my current neutral position to an outright oppose. Face-smile.svgTlhslobus (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the appropriate response is !!!!!ROWING FLAXON!!!! (or something like that) The Emmys, the most famous TV awards on Earth won't have an easier time of being added to ITN, as compared to say the most famous sport in the world... rowing. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Nearly Howard, nearly!! Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, do you think anyone is worried that you'll get "irritated" and switch to "oppose"? The Emmys rarely get posted because no-one gives a damn about them enough to fix the articles up, so whether they're ITNR or not is pretty much irrelevant, much like most of this section. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think at least one person is worried, namely me - I guess I'm just one of those weird people who doesn't enjoy being irritated, and probably enjoys it even less when he sees himself as having behaved irrationally as a result - the fact that I also often behave irrationally for other reasons is a bit beside the point Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, so you're voicing a kind of internal dialogue to us? I get it. I think too much effort has already been expended here, whether Emmys stay on the INTR list or not is irrelevant until people can be bothered to update the articles correctly. And when trying to compare this to a competition which takes place every four years, watched globally, by billions, one simply must try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No internal dialogue, I was just answering the question you asked me. But at least it's good to know that we seem to agree that too much effort has already been expended here, so I needn't waste any more time disputing the rest of what you've just said Face-smile.svg Tlhslobus (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question Would it be unwise and/or premature to move most/all existing and/or future comments/questions to a new Discussion subsection, along with an initial subsection neatly reserved for Supports and Opposes? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removal the Emmys have been running for 70 years now, the US produces by far the most English-language television (this is the en-wiki after all) so the awards are relevant. As you see from above, they're posted when the update is sound. As for "bias", the word doesn't appear once in WP:ITN so until you amend the guidelines to make "bias" a criteria for ITN, that consideration means precisely nothing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The horse and carriage have been around for a long time too, but technologically speaking, that does not make it relevant, even if it's still being used. Similarly, longevity does not equate to notability.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, not only is Laserlegs right that 'bias' is not in the ITN criteria, it (or at least WP:BIAS) is just an essay, and is NOT a Wikipedia policy or guideline (and thankfully so, at least as it's currently formulated).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently neutral I'm just mentioning this because my above comments might get me counted as an oppose, whereas I've only been criticizing the "we don't have Baftas so we shouldn't have Emmys" BIAS argument, and I'd actually like to hear more views on other issues before making up my mind.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR is not meant not meant to supplant reasonable discussion on a subject's significance, but to declare it a fait accompli. It reasonably follows that any nom for removal that garners...lets say 40% support, should be seen as proof that such significance is NOT to be assumed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: requiring consensus to add AND remove items from ITNR creates a donut-hole where anything with 30-70% support can be neither added nor removed. An item that could not survive a significance debate at ITNC should not be on ITNR.ghost 11:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Enough already.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • You're supporting a policy around the "amount of consensus" needed to keep/remove an item on ITN/R or removal of the Emmys? If the latter, I see no rationale for your position, if the former, this is perhaps the wrong thread. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm supporting the removal of Emmys from ITNR - irrelevant as nom'ed. I've literally never heard a human IRL mention the Emmy's since they started letting HBO play in the sandbox. The BAFTAs get more play, and I'm in Ohio....I'm separately pointing out that it doesn't appear this nomination is going anywhere, and isn't that sad because it seems because it clearly would never make MP without ITNR. ghost 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm in Georgia (U.S. State), the only reason I know BAFTA is a thing is because POV warriors fighting "bias" cram it down our throats at ITN every year. If you want to start a separate discussion around the criteria for consensus at WT:ITNR (or better yet, is ITNR still valuable) then I'm all for it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think "I'm in Georgia" followed by a version of "I've never heard of that thing" is pretty much de facto standard I'm afraid for most globally notable things in that neck of the woods. A little context. There's a world outside the United States, and includes things like BAFTA which have a great deal more respect than this Emmy bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Hey, you're right, I am a Canadian citizen, married to an Indonesian, who currently lives in Atlanta after a 7 year stint in Miami, thanks for pointing that out! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
              • No, I'm not the one pointing things out here, you've been warned countless times, perhaps this is the end? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                • You inserted yourself into the discussion TRM, with derogatory remarks about my current place of residence, knowing precisely nothing about me. If my reply is some kind of violation, take it on over to WP:ANI, we're both acquainted. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                  • Heh, funny one. There was a referenced note about the fact that most Americans haven't travelled outside America, that your claim to not have really heard of BAFTA in Georgia was purely a symptom of that, correct. I wonder how many Georgians hang out for BAFTAs?! You're hilarious, and thanks again for the LOLs, but do remember that you're on a short leash, and continuing to make POINTY bollock edits will result in you failing to be able to edit here ever again. Not my words! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                    • Right, but I'm not American. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                      • Could you show me the diff where I said that you were an American? Jeez, this never ends. Move on, improve some articles, I don't know, go spend some time with your Indonesian wife in Atlanta, whatever. I'm not interested in your personal life at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                        • All you have to do is not comment on me as in individual TRM, should be easy. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
                          • I didn't. I commented on people living in Georgia and used a reliable source to back up the fact that those living in America are poorly travelled. I'm afraid you're wrong, once again. I did comment on your usual pointy bollocks which has seen you at ANI, but otherwise, it was all about you telling me about how diverse you and your life is. Once again, I couldn't give a shit. Why should I? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment While I am still on board for removal for routine lack of updates, I will stand on the notion that part of ITNR function is to help smooth out some media/coverage biases in certain areas. eg: we treat that boating/racing is just as significant a sport as assc. football or gridiron football, so we feature its top event. In terms of entertainment art forms, television still remains a very significant form as compared to film, music, and theaters. And in terms of awards, the top award is clearly the Emmys, with the BAFTA TVs in nearness. (I would extend this argument that video games are now a significant entertainment form, but we lack a clear top award in the area to include at ITNR at this point; there's no single authorative source as Emmys are to TV, or Oscars are to film). So we should cover a top recognition in television, but only if we have articles that are routinely placed in good shape for that coverage. --Masem (t) 19:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    All very interesting, but the principle here is that Emmys do not equate to "top recognition", they equate to showbiz backscratching and backslapping. Hence the lack of interest, the lack of coverage, the lack of update, the lack of meaning. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    Which could apply to all awards in the entertainment industry, which of course is not what is proposed; this would similarly be attributable to things like the Man Booker Prize or the Abel Prize, which are even more "navel-gazing" within that field but with little attention outside it - but again, that is in no way what I'm suggesting. We also have to recognize that maybe outside the television industry the Emmys have lost attention, but within the industry they are still critically important. (The fact more and more shows on streaming networks have won top awards shows the direction that traditional television is changing, for example, but it doesn't change the importance of the Emmys). Now, I will agree the lack of interest outside the industry leads to the lack of routine updates on WP, but this removal suggestion is based on that result, not the symptom. --Masem (t) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    Again, more (lots of) interesting words, but the Emmys aren't important, and the abject failure for them to be updated properly year in, year out, is manifestly emblematic of that. It's game over for Emmy, they're unimpressive, not worth the trophy they sit on, and should be fallen back to ITNC where we can properly assess it every year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal, really not impressed by any keep argument, as ITNC will enable us to debate this showbiz parade every time, and may (who knows?) help with the appalling article quality we've seen in recent years. Junk articles don't deserve to get a free pass, and topics which have run out of steam need to be debated more frequently, hence ITNC is the best place for this mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • You're right, the wall of tables that makes up a Premiere League season is junk, and purely "showbiz". Thanks for pointing that out! --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Not sure where I mentioned the Premier League, could you provide a diff? I think you're pointed edits have reached the limit. I suspect it's not long before you can't do that any more ever again here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually came to retract that statement, a bit too late. My point is that we post so much sports entertainment, and so little performing arts entertainment, I don't see what it helps booting the Emmys from ITNR, given the dominance of the USA in English language television. Add the BAFTA if you want, add the Canadian and Australian equivalents, I don't care, its just silly to me the ratio of sports entertainment to all other entertainment. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I think that's got literally nothing to do with this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral I would have been happy to support, but not now that this has unnecessarily become a BIAS issue. Would it be possible to conduct these conversations without the grandstanding and soapboxing? Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal If the articles are not being updated, then we won't post them. That's not a reason to remove it from ITN/R. Also, support including BAFTA, seems obvious from the above that BAFTA is as significant (having not followed either events myself). Davey2116 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you personally believe the Emmys are notable enough to warrant automatic posting, assuming they were even updated by people who gave a crap?--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Support removal They should be discussed and decided on their own merit. We shouldn't be posting poor collection of tables in the name of ITNR. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ammarpad: We don't. Articles that are just a poor collection of tables are not posted to ITN, regardless of whether the subject is ITN/R or not. The question is, are the Emmy's significant enough to post every year there is a good enough article written, without needing to discuss the merits of the event? If the answer is "yes" then it should be on ITN/R, if the answer is no then it shouldn't be. Whether a good enough article is written is not relevant to the event's significance. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Although not officially recognized as such, I'd suggest that one of the factors of an article that goes a great deal into determining its significance is how frequently and how well it is updated upon its occurrence. For comparison, other ITN/R events that usually get updated in a timely manner include the Super Bowl, the Boat Race, the various Nobel prizes, and the FIFA World Cup. The fact that the Emmy's and the Grammy's repeatedly seem to not get posted to the main page because no one can be bothered to update the article with a decent bit of prose leads one to question whether it is even significant enough to warrant ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Exactly. And we know we have a similar topic area, the Oscars, that are routinely updated in a quality manner to be more than just a list of tables, so we have some type of standard for what these televised awards should be. If editors cannot be moved to improve on the article in a timely manner repeated, it is a waste of time to have it in ITNR. They can be considered as ITNC still if removed. --Masem (t) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Nah, if the article isn't updated, it isn't posted, simple as that. No "waste of time" there. This is about as WP:IDONTLIKEIT as they come, either because it's "US-centric" or because it's entertainment I don't know. If you want to complain about topics no one cares about, the 2018 Mann Booker International Prize was posted after 5 days and a BARELY passable update, and the International Dublin Literary award wasn't even nominated. What? Books are "more significant" than television? Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
            • That's neither here nor there.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Scroll up a few lines, and you compare the Emmys to the super bowl or the boat race. When I point out a few other articles which get piss poor updates, or aren't even nominated, and suggest this whole line of comparison is invalid, all you've got left is WP:OTHERSTUFF. LOL. Stick with that, Walt, maybe it'll pan out. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose if someone does update the article, it shouldn't be kept off ITN because of notability. The various tennis majors (which have recently not been posted due to quality issues) are similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal In my view this is still a significant event and shouldn't be removed just because of lack of updates in some previous years.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Do midterm elections count as ITNR as defined?

The United States (2018) and the Philippines (2019) have upcoming midterm elections where the presidency is not at stake, while all seats in the lower house and some in the upper house are, with local elections in both countries on the same day as the national election, as well. Do these elections count as "The results of general elections in All states on the List of sovereign states"? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not, given the row that we had back in 2014 about this very issue.--WaltCip (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Would we see similar arguments opposing the U.S. election in November? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
A general election is one in which all seats in the legislative body are being contested. It does not require the position of president or head of state to be involved, and local elections on the same day are irrelevant. If the entire lower house is involved in those elections, I think that would qualify. It's not entirely straightforward when the upper house is also an elected body and only partially contested, but an entire lower house is good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The one caveat is that we generally don't post legislative elections when combined with the first step of a two-step presidential election, like the recent election in Brazil. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's odd. Why shouldn't we post the legislative election when it happens, then a new blurb for the separate election of a president a few weeks later? Modest Genius talk 09:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Do we post legislative elections if it doesn't affect who'd be the head of government? Brazil uses a presidential system, and this was one of the points raised in the 2014 US elections nomination. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, for legislative elections that occur on the same day as the presidential election, someone in WP:WPE&R is on personal crusade to keep all elections under one "general election" article with no splits no matter what. This means the legislative elections are usually ignored in favor of the presidential one, which is a pity. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As our own article notes, the term general election has different meaning depending on where you are, so this is another case of ITNR shooting ITNC in the foot. Common sense would hold that the term "general"[5] serves as to distinguish from "special," that being an election where a single office or issue is being decided. This election will choose 87% of the US Congress, 72% of state governors, and over half of state legislators. 159.53.174.142 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should define it like that: for ITNR, an election that determines the country's head of state and/or where more than 50% of the legislative body at the national level is being voted on. I can imagine there are cases of "general elections" where only a small fraction of legislative seats are at stake which wouldn't really be ITNC. --Masem (t) 14:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)