Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modest Genius (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 10 August 2017 (→World Baseball Classic: agree to drop footnote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Archives

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

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

Remove: G20 summits

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

This year's summit has received short shrift at ITNC so it's time we reviewed its place at ITNR given it was added by virtue of a discussion in 2011. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove if something notable comes from such dinner parties, we can add it via ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Remove - given the way this year's summit was handled, I see no reason to leave it on ITNR. As you correctly assert, anything really important can be suggested as a blurb at ITNC anyway. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Remove per nominator. If something notable happens it can be handled at ITN/C like with any other conference. I opposed the proposed blurb this year because it left we wondering "so what?" and nobody was able to come up with anything (until it ended a couple of days later, and even that was of disputed accuracy) other than "It's on ITN/R" which doesn't help readers in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Remove since this doesn't prevent listing through ITNC, it just removes a free pass that is no longer warranted as Thryduulf has shown. Bencherlite 09:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Remove for reasons given above, not every G20 is something of interest. But I do wonder if we need something within INTR that is "Usually is posted if some interesting element happens", in the case of g20, some type of new agreement between all g20's or the like. I'm not sure how many other elements would be similar to this, but this would at least keep mention of g20 on this page, not as an ITNR but that we do watch for any interesting results to happen. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Such an "Events to watch for news stories" list would fit nicely with the upcoming ITN/R events that Fuebaey posts to WT:ITN every 3 months. The recently removed from ITN/R E3 expo would fit nicely on that list, as would I suspect several other major industry events and inter-government conferences. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• We used to have WP:In_the_news/Future_events but that fell into disuse and got mothballed. In practice, simple notes at WT:In_the_news should be sufficient. --LukeSurl 20:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would support remove as it stands now, absent some sort of formal list as Masem suggests. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to removal: why should it be removed? It is very notable, of high significance, of global nature, affects many worldwide and typically gets much press coverage. No reason to remove. If you don't like the summit or what comes out of them that wouldn't be reason to remove this from ITN/R. This is not some dinner party of some random people on random issues. --Fixuture (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  The fact that the merits are in dispute by many people is enough reason to remove this, and allow the usual ITNC process to determine if it is posted- or see below regarding Masem's idea. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  Only at some G20 summits does something significant happen. When something significant does happen, it can be nominated at ITNC and (subject to article quality) I will very likely support, but I don't think "they're meeting"/"they met" is ITN worthy on its own, which is all we had this time, so an automatic pass for notability is not warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose removal this annual gathering of heads of state generates copious media coverage. I don't see anything in WP:ITN#Purpose about featuring stories we think are important, but I do see something about featuring content people would be looking for because it's "In the news". This years G20 article wasn't up to MP quality, but that's no reason to strike it from ITN/R. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not being ITNR does not prevent this from being nominated at ITNC. The ITNR list is indeed a list of events that have consensus that they merit posting every year through there mere occurrence; i.e. what "we think is important". ITN has never been intended to merely parrot the press and editorial judgement has always been a part of consensus. The fact that the merits of posting this every year are in dispute is enough reason for this to not be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, it wasn't just quality that was concerning here, it was content and results of the summit, or lack of. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Weak remove - I don't have a strong opinion on this one, but it's probably fine to leave to ITN/C. Not every iteration produces anything of significance - those summits that do can be nominated and posted on their merits. The question then becomes whether similar arguments apply to the G8 as well... Modest Genius 10:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• It has been over a week since the last comment in this thread so I believe it is ready for an uninvolved admin to assess the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Recurring events of interest

Following from the above entry on removing the G20 entry, with acknowledging that if something interesting happens a normal ITNC can happen, I'd like to propose a list of similar events that are on a short list of events that we do consider important (we don't beg their place in the big picture) but that we only post if something significant happens. An INTC involving these events should not question the recurring event's notability, but only if the result of that current event itself is ITN-worthy (plus article quality, etc.)

For example, no one seems to deny that the G20 meetings are fundamentally important, but they also more often than not are a lot of promises and commitments but no significant actions taken. Once in a while a G20 event will lead to a world-changing issue, and that's when we should post. Similarly, tradeshows like Electronic Entertainment Expo and Consumer Electronics Show normally don't have that much buzz but once in a while new lines of products are released that grab a great deal of press attention. There's probably various things like other G8 meetings, UN Security Council meetings, and other trade shows that would fall under this. Probably a number of awards and sporting events too that aren't listed at ITNR.

To handle these, these should be in a list that designates the recurring event as one that we recognize as important, but that the recurrence is not automatic to post as an ITNR entry would be. This would focus the discussion on whether the specific result from the event is considered important, as well as article quality and update, of course. The newsworthiness of the recurring event should not be the subject of discussion to avoid wasting time (as the most recent G20 ITNC has had). As to what to actually call this, I have no good simple name, outside of "events of interest". --MASEM (t) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you envision this as a separate page, or as an additional but separate section of the ITNR list? 331dot (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A short list at the end of ITNR (so its all maintained in one place). I don't expect this list to be as exhaustive as the current ITNR list. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought, I just wasn't sure. That makes sense to me. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a good idea. ITN/R could be described as "always notable, always significant" and the new list as "always notable, significance varies". Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think any notable outcome of a particular G-whatever summit or other major meeting already falls under the scope of normal ITN, so there's no need to prepare any list. For example, if a certain G summit agrees on carbon emission reduction, this most likely would be posted anyway. Brandmeister 20:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Firm support - good idea, good implementation. I'd be game. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• I very much like this idea, and would love to see it implemented, but am not entirely certain what its advantage would be. Notability as in WP:N is of course irrelevant to ITN, but I get the idea of "this is an event of interest." Is the idea that, as long as you can write a good blurb for it and the quality is up to par, it should go up? Because for most sporting events, that wouldn't be any different from ITN/R. Isn't a "lack of nesworthiness" not the issue of the recent G20? ~Mable (chat) 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Hmm, not sure how useful this will be and there's the potential for confusion if they're all on the same page - I can see nominations saying 'this is on ITNR' when it's actually in the 'not really ITNR' section. Maybe a trial might be worthwhile; call it 'items to watch'? Modest Genius 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Women's Cricket World Cup

Considering the near-unanimous support the recent nomination got at ITN/C, I assume we can add this once-every-four-year event to ITN/R > Sports > Cricket > One-day tournaments without controversy? --LukeSurl 11:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support no brainer. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Major international tournament. Lugnuts 12:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support This event's importance and media coverage have grown significantly over the years and it should definitely be added.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support While there are other sports where due to lack of worldwide attention on the women's side (ala WNBA finals) this one definitely has a larger amount of attention and importance. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support deservedly front page news in the UK and elsewhere, which is truly astonishing considering how women's cricket has been regarded in the past. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per the above and my comments on the recent nomination. I oppose automatic adding of every women's event not held simultaneously with the directly equivalent men's event (and vice versa), as not all are equally significant but the cricket world cups are. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Women's cricket has hugely gained in profile, coverage and popular interest over the last decade, to the point where I think this competition reaches the general standard we should apply to all sporting events. Happy to see this listed. Other women-only events should continue to be nominated and considered on their own merits, not inherited from the men's competition in their sport. Modest Genius 14:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per the above: I have nothing new to add. Vanamonde (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Added. Bencherlite 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove AFC Asian Cup

This was nominated in 2007, and to the best of my reading was not posted. The support votes seemed to be either partisan or of the opinion that all confederations should be posted (note that OFC and CONCACAF are not currently on ITNR). The opposition mostly indicated this was not on par with the Euros or Copa America. It was nominated in 2011 as an ITNR and posted. I cannot find the consensus discussion to add it to ITNR. In 2015, it was not nominated. I'm recommending this for removal on the following grounds:

• It is not clear this item has ever reached consensus.
• The omission of the 2015 Cup is an indictment of it's importance.
• Even if an ITNR discussion did occur, this should not have been added to ITNR as it most recent (only?) nom at ITNC had been rejected. GCG (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Point-by-piont:

1. It is not clear this item has ever reached consensus. -- There are a lot of items on ITN/R for which their inclusion appears to have come out of nowhere, having been on the draft list when ITN/R became policy. I remember in about mid-2013 there was a lot of talk (but not much action) regarding overhauling ITN/R, which included "confirmation hearings" for such items. This never happened, and I don't think many editors had the stomach for two dozen ITN/R discussions. By now I think we can consider such items "grandfathered in" to the list by merit of not being removed for the best part of a decade, and their obscure origin is not a strong argument.
2. The omission of the 2015 Cup is an indictment of it's importance. - Possibly, but that's a bit "circumstantial". Items get omitted from ITNC fairly often. If you think this event is not ITNR material—which is possible, it's basically the number 4 continental championship—we should discuss that on the merits of the event, rather than the behaviour of Misplaced Pages editors. Note that Wimbledon failed to be posted due to poor article quality this year.
3. Even if an ITNR discussion did occur, this should not have been added to ITNR as it most recent (only?) nom at ITNC had been rejected. - The 2011 nomination was posted, I don't follow.

Short version, if this item is to be removed, make an argument on the actual importance of the event, rather than on how Misplaced Pages editors have reacted to it years ago. --LukeSurl 13:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The presence of any item at ITNR indicates "that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN." The evidence I presented serves to indicate that this patently untrue as the only discussion of the importance of this item decided it was not. In any case, the validity of the ITNR will be affirmed here if it is not removed (which is meaningful). I present the 2007 discussion as my argument against importance. I would also point to the current DOA nom for the CONCACAF cup as proof that lesser confederations needn't be posted. If we weigh teams like Saudi Arabia (finalists in 6 of the last 9 AFC cups) against Mexico and the U.S., we can see that this is clearly not a premier event of the game. In my opinion, regardless of how you rank them, there are two premier confederation cups, and then a massive drop-off before...whatever. So the right thing to do is include all or just the two. I prefer just the two. GCG (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The 2011 nomination was posted, I don't follow. Sorry, it was nominated in 2011 for ITNC with an ITNR tag, meaning it was not subject to debate on importance at that time. GCG (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW I'm kinda neutral on this, could be persuaded either way. One thing that counts in its favour for me is that it occurs in January/February, when there isn't that many high-level sport blurbs being posted. On the other hand, it is IMO significantly below the UEFA European Championship, Copa América, and Africa_Cup_of_Nations in importance. --LukeSurl 16:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral. I've read and reread this several times and I'm firmly on the fence here. Normally I wouldn't bother to post this, but the nomination has been sitting here apparently ignored for several days without there being a clear consensus, so making it appear on watchlists may get it some more attention. Thryduulf (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Tough one. It's clear that the AFC competition is well below the standard of the Euros and Cope America, and lower in profile than AFCON too. However, at the same time it is far more competitive than the OFC and CONCACAF versions. I think this is pretty much borderline in terms of the profile of the event. The number of football stories per year is not excessive, if anything it's a little low for the most popular sport in the world (by a large margin). AFC has the added benefits of not being at the same time of year as the others and helping with WP:BIAS. We could leave it to ITN/C, but the arguments really come down to comparing with other events we do/don't post so would be better sorted out in advance here. The articles for 2015 look reasonable (especially 2015 AFC Asian Cup Final) which suggests it could easily have been posted if nominated. Failure to nominate is not necessarily an indictment of the importance of the event - it's not as bad as being nominated and failing on either update quality or importance. 2007 is of little relevance as ITN has developed over the last decade. The 2019 article is shaping up well, two years ahead of time. After some thought, I'm coming down as keep as I don't think we need to trim the number of association football entries and the arguments for removal are not very convincing. Modest Genius 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Just one more appeal, especially to the fence sitters. Clearly there is a bigger crowd at ITNC than here. We just eviscerated the CONCACAF nom. Even if AFC is more important, surely there will some opposition to it on the same grounds. The larger group should be allowed to speak to consensus. ITNR was meant to bypass debate when an argument was already settled; this debate was never allowed to occur. Even if you think this event should be posted, it should be removed from ITNR and be required to stand on its own feet one time. GCG (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not entirely: ITNR is also intended to allow predictable events to be discussed in advance. See e.g. "editors can foresee them and prepare for their inclusion" at the top of the page. Additional commentators are welcome to join this discussion. Modest Genius 10:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct; that's an important distinction. Mea culpa. GCG (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan Super League

Pakistan Super League (PSL) is very popular and noteable not only in Pakistan but also in some other countries. Amirk94391 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amirk94391: Okay. Are you proposing that this be added to the ITNR list? I don't recall this ever being nominated at ITNC before; it should probably be tested there first. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Amirk94391: Searching the archives at WP:ITNC, it seems that is has never been nominated. It has been mentioned in two previous discussions I can find, and not positively:

• At Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/March 2009#March 22 an IP commented "It is a well known fact in cricketing world that IPL is the first and currently the only domestic league of its kind. Other cricket leagues, namely Stanford 20/20, KFC Twenty20 Big Bash, Twenty20 Cup and Pakistan Super League, barely attract any players from other countries." This was in a nomination of the announcement the second season of the IPL being played outside India.
• At Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/May 2017# Indian Premier League Mfarazbaig said "I'm not sure it is notable enough. Sorry, we can't go posting the domestic T20 leagues in every major cricket-playing nation. If we post India's equivalent then we would also have to post those in Australia, Pakistan and maybe the West Indies too, all of which are just as high-level and prestigious."
• In the same May 2017 discussion Dmmaus said " I disagree that other domestic T20 competitions are on the same standing as the IPL. The IPL receives more media attention globally than the domestic T20 competitions in Australia, Pakistan, or the West Indies, and attracts the biggest international players and the highest contracts."

Given this, this has no chance of being added to ITNR at this time. I suggest you nominate the final of the 2018 competition (as the 2017 one has been and gone) at WP:ITN/C. If that nomination is (almost) unanimously supported based on the significance then you could nominate it again here afterwards (this was the case for the Women's Cricket World Cup recently). If however the nomination receives significant opposition on the significance, then it'll be best to wait until it's been posted two or three times at ITN/C before a nomination here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well good for the PSL. What is your point? It's certainly nowhere near suitable for adding to ITNR; by my reckoning this is the fourth-highest-profile domestic T20 competition in the world. Even posting one of those (the IPL) is debatable, though has reached consensus. There's no chance of posting more of them. Modest Genius 10:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I nominated this at ITNC this year. (see here)

@331dot: You may not recall but you supported its nomination at ITNC in February.

@Thryduulf: To counter the first point of your argument, you first need to know that Pakistan Super League did not even exist back in 2009. The IP surely was an overzealous Indian praising the IPL.

Secondly, it's unfortunate that you don't know the difference between Indian Premier League (IPL) and Pakistan Super League (PSL). You have misrepresented my comment that was made regarding the IPL and not about PSL. I request you make amends.

Thirdly, as to what @Dmmaus: said. Unlike IPL where the players are auctioned, the PSL uses a draft system. That is why players in the IPL get highest contracts and comparing the two would be like comparing apples and oranges. Also, both IPL and PSL attract very much the same big international players. For example, Eoin Morgan, Tymal Mills, Jason Roy, Chris Gayle, Brendon McCullum, Kieron Pollard, Samuel Badree, Mohammad Nabi, Chris Jordan, Darren Sammy, Marlon Samuels, Sunil Narine, Dwayne Smith and Sam Billings played the 2017 editions of both IPL and PSL. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose no compelling argument to not see this go through ITNC. There are vast numbers of Pakistani editors here, cricket editors here, etc, so if this really is a big enough deal then we'll see a consensus in its favour next time round, and then we can debate ITNR. Right now, if we don't even post after ITNC, we definitely don't add to ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for jogging my memory. I still am unsure as to putting it on the list. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure why my search didn't find this year's nomination, but given that it received very significant opposition on grounds of importance and significance (Modest Genius' comments are particularly relevant) adding it to ITN/R would first necessitate a fundamental change in the requirements - "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment In my opinion, this can preferably wait as the PSL only just finished its 2nd season this year. Once the brand grows, and more international players and broadcasters join in addition to the existing ones, this could possibly be arguable. The PSL's expansion and scope is no doubt impressive, knowing the league is in its infancy. Modest Genius above mentioned that it is the fourth highest-profile league, although the season 1 viewership figures in 2016 showed that it had 65 million television viewers in peak periods. So it is more likely second-placed in terms of viewership. The values of the franchises and base salaries of players are equivalent if not greater than those of Australia's Big Bash. Three out of the five current PSL franchise owners have also purchased franchises in Hong Kong (Islamabad United Owners Buy Hong Kong T20 Blitz Team) and South Africa's T20 league (IPL and PSL owners snap up South Africa franchises) so you could say that it has some global footprint. We've had some big opening ceremonies featuring artists like Sean Paul and Shaggy (who knows who season 3 will invite?) And it has some regional following (Meet PSL’s Indian and Bangladeshi fans; India watched PSL final online more than any other country: report)

The main drawback would be the fact that till now, all PSL games have been held in the UAE excluding the 2017 Pakistan Super League Final. So revenue-wise, the other leagues may earn more due to home crowds. The third season is expected to finally bring most of the PSL to Pakistan, assuming security issues are managed, and a sixth franchise was announced under Multan Sultans. These developments would be a good step in terms of raising the PSL's future profile. Just my two cents. Mar4d (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support for now Let's see what happens afterwards. I'm sure we can make a few changes to suit it better.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to Elections and heads of state

Current ITNR provides for a change to heads of state, where changes to heads of government are discussed on their own merits. Propose to change the ITNR provision to those offices "whose constitutionally interpreted positions (e.g. de jure) individually administer the governmental executive, legislature" as noted in yellow on this list. Heads of state and government not provided for by this provision would be discussed on their own merits. GCG (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That would exclude posting when Prince Charles ascends to the throne. Changes to this have been discussed off and on over the years and none has gained consensus. Heads of state represent their nations to the world and even if they lack tangible power are still significant. It's also at least a chance for underrepresented nations to get a posting to ITN. Heads of government vary in importance; some are powerful, some are figureheads, some are chosen by the head of state, and so on. Most changes in head of government are posted as part of a general election(which is ITNR). 331dot (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Heads of government elections would probably fall under my "Recurring events of interest" list a few sections proposed above. We recognize they are important but depends on the country. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Especially when a party in government changes its PM in between elections, or figurehead heads of government. As I told GCG, most changes to head of government are posted as part of a general election(X party, led by John Doe, won the election). 331dot (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current state of affairs works fine. This is a solution looking for a problem. Please stop proposing a new rule or ITN/R change almost every day, it's not helpful. --LukeSurl 14:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe (perhaps wrongly) that this ITNR was meant to relate to the leaders of their countries. People like Theresa May, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel & Shinzō Abe are not covered. If I was AfDing Winston Churchill, I could see your point. But I should be able to propose a rule change if I see a good faith opportunity for improvement; you can oppose it or ignore it. Telling people to "sit down and shut up" is not an attitude in line with a community website. GCG (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I might not have said what LukeSurl said but I would encourage you to maybe do a little research into why things are the way they are before proposing rule changes- or at least to let the discussion on one proposed change run its course before proposing a new one. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose by default, there's nothing grossly wrong with our current status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the others—contrary to popular belief, when something is an established practice on Misplaced Pages it's almost always because there was a lengthy discussion that led to that practice becoming established. If you want a change, you need to demonstrate why the existing system is causing problems, which you're singularly failing to do—as has been pointed out above, in those countries like Britain and Germany where the head of government is more significant than the head of state, then there will almost invariably be either an automatically notable general election story to accompany any change of government, or a government falling in such exceptional circumstances that the story will be notable in its own right. GreatCaesarsGhost, Assume Good Faith is not infinite; at the time of writing you have more edits to ITN/C than to the rest of Misplaced Pages combined and your first edit shows you're clearly not a genuine newcomer. If you're so keen on Misplaced Pages policies, I strongly recommend brushing up on Misplaced Pages's policies on abusing multiple accounts. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'll confess to lurking for a few months prior to editing, but this is my first and only profile. I would think that all my failures in this arena would demonstrate that I'm not a tenured user. At any rate, I can read a consensus when I see it; I'll stay away from the rule changes. Sincere apologies to all; I did mean well. GCG (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support "head of state" req is silly. Canada's head of state is Queen Elizabeth. Yellow box on the list makes sense. Whoever is the day-to-day executive for the country goes in to ITN. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In most cases we already do that, as noted above. Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of several countries, all the more reason to post a change in her position.331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

We're succeeding despite a nonsense policy. This proposal simply aligns the policy with practice, which makes sense to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Or it duplicates what existing policy calls for. There are some changes in head of government that aren't significant(a party changing its PM on its own which usually does not result in policy changes). Heads of state always have some degree of significance. As stated above, this is a solution looking for a problem. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL when QE is replaced as head of state it'll be because she's dead and will be on ITN anyway. I don't understand the hostility here. The yellow box on the list indicates who is actually in charge vs who is a pointless figurehead. Aligning the policy to the list seems obvious to me. *shrugs* I guess I'm just not that smart, better to keep it ambiguous and have silliness like what just happened around Pakistan right? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

World Baseball Classic

The entry for the World Baseball Classic is suffixed by the odd note "or whatever form the tournament takes in years to come." I know almost nothing about the sport, but from reading the article it seems like this was very new when added to ITN/R but has since settled down and established its format. If that is correct I suggest removing the note. Significant changes seem not to be planned at this point, and if they do happen we should assess whether it still belongs on ITN/R at that time, not automatically assume it should regardless of the changes. In case the preceding is unclear, I am not proposing to remove the event from ITN/R (I think it should remain), just the note. I would just boldly do this, but I'm looking for a check from someone who follows the sport just to make sure I haven't misunderstood something. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Baseball editor here. You appear to be right in your assumption. That comment references Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_1#Baseball, which talks about the tournament being a one-time thing, because that short thread is from 2008, and the first WBC was held in 2006. It was indeed held again three years later, in 2009, and then they changed it to be every four years, so it was held again in 2013, and again in 2017. It's expected to be held again in 2021 though there is no definitive announcement of that, or decision to change it. I expect it will remain in existence, though I can't verify the next one will be in 2021 as opposed to a different year. Baseball is no longer an Olympic sport and it's a top priority of the Commissioner of Baseball to expand the game internationally. I think the comment can be dropped, and we can address what to do about the ITN/R item if it doesn't happen again in 2021, for whatever reason (changing schedule, cancellation, etc.). – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the footnote can be dropped. If the tournament changes then we can reassess. Modest Genius 11:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)