This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
New elements
I posted this to ITN/C without realizing that it is already on ITN/R. I don't mean to challenge the technical complexity of these experiments, or the importance of updates to the periodic table, but it almost seems like fabrication of new elements has become routine. Bombard element A with element B in a laboratory, get a few atoms with a very short half life, and determine the properties mathematically. None of these new elements are natural, and I'm wondering if the results of these experiments are truly newsworthy outside the physics community. I think a naturally occurring element discovered in nature is an obvious post, I'm just not sure if this is. Of course I could be utterly wrong, but if I am, how so? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hardly routine with only 4 unconfirmed discoveries in the last 10 years. Unless someone comes up with a better way of synthesising these elements there's not much danger of the rate increasing either as the list of new elements that can be easily made with the available building blocks will gradually decrease. JMiall₰ 13:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
These are the only 2 in recent months I can find in the archives:
- Nov 2011 - The elements Darmstadtium, Roentgenium and Copernicium are named by the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
- June 2011 - An IUPAC committee acknowledges the discovery of the transuranium elements ununquadium and ununhexium
with these 2 posted the year before:
- April 2010 - The creation of ununseptium, element with atomic number 117, is announced
- Feb 2010 - IUPAC officially names the element with atomic number of 112 as copernicium in honour of Nicolaus Copernicus (pictured)
There are several stages in discoving and naming a new element, if I understand the process correctly they should go something like this:
- Someone discovers the element (at which point it is called something like Ununquadium)
- Someone else confirms the discovery
- The discovery is confirmed by a body like IUPAC or IUPAP
- The original discoverer proposes several names (like Flerovium)
- IUPAC/IUPAP decide if the names are acceptable and recommends one
- The element is officially named
There are often many years between the stages and it seems some stages can happen more than once. ITN/R currently has the publication of the discovery and first official naming. This seems sensible to me and I'd also be happy with the 1st confirmation by an official body & 1st official naming. JMiall₰ 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've been mulling this a few days and am a bit torn. Part of me thinks "it's once or twice a year, so who cares". On the other hand, there are lots of other scientific experiments going on all the time, and the results from those (such as a metallic microlattice) have to go through the usual nomination process at ITN/C. Finally, and this may be offensive to some, I don't think it qualifies as discovery when you deliberately try to manufacture it in a laboratory environment. It's not as if someone were prospecting and stumbled across a new element. Anyway, I didn't come here to throw down and demand that it be removed from ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is a valid concern, but our coverage of science topics is poor (at least beyond astronomy). Whilst the utility of creating new elements is debatable, at least we're guaranteed that in 100 years time they will still be on the periodic table. That's much harder to say for other experiments. I'd prefer to add additional science topics, either through ITN/C nominations or through ITNR, than remove new elements. Modest Genius talk 12:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've been mulling this a few days and am a bit torn. Part of me thinks "it's once or twice a year, so who cares". On the other hand, there are lots of other scientific experiments going on all the time, and the results from those (such as a metallic microlattice) have to go through the usual nomination process at ITN/C. Finally, and this may be offensive to some, I don't think it qualifies as discovery when you deliberately try to manufacture it in a laboratory environment. It's not as if someone were prospecting and stumbled across a new element. Anyway, I didn't come here to throw down and demand that it be removed from ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Question: were there instances where new elements that were created did not reach the 6th step after being recognized by the IUPAP/IUPAC? –HTD 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The sport event of the week
- The spanish FC Barcelona win the Final of the 2011 FIFA Club World Cup beating the brasilian Santos 4-0 in Yokohama, Japan. Barcelonawin the Cup for the second time in three years.--Feroang (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ITN/C, the place to nominate new items. Just posted, otherwise. --Tone 21:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Elections of very small countries (originally "Kiribati")
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 not very significant addition to ITN. The importance in the world wide political scheme of things of this small Pacific island is not demonstrated. I'm utterly surprised to see it get through. There was only ONE vote. It should be taken down. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with Ohconfucius. Can a kind soul link me to the WP:ITN/R discussion that pertains to the decision to report all national-level elections on ITN? Colipon+(Talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The importance of several other items that appear in ITN is often not of worldwide impotance. But ITN is not a news ticker. Posting the national election results even for small countries has been around for ages, probably even before ITNR was written. --Tone 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a reason to keep it around, if there is good reason to change it. To my understanding, ITN is supposed to be informative, but first and foremost its purpose is to showcase good articles. To me, posting elections of microstates is not only irrelevant, but it also puts substandard articles smack in the middle of the website's main page. We could have, for example, posted the Supreme Court appearance of the Pakistan prime minister, which would be able to showcase the article for Yousaf Raza Gillani, which is in much better shape (and much more relevant to a greater audience) than any Pacific island election. But I stress again, if there is some sort of consensus providing a rationale for this, I would like to see it. But otherwise I plan on challenging this practice as it seems rather absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The importance of several other items that appear in ITN is often not of worldwide impotance. But ITN is not a news ticker. Posting the national election results even for small countries has been around for ages, probably even before ITNR was written. --Tone 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with Ohconfucius. Can a kind soul link me to the WP:ITN/R discussion that pertains to the decision to report all national-level elections on ITN? Colipon+(Talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should not be on WP:ERRORS. Take it to WT:ITNR or WT:ITN.Modest Genius talk 17:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)- Please don't strike my comments, whoever it was, without noting that this discussion has been moved. Modest Genius talk 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I looked through the ITNR archives, and I couldn't find any discussion about adding "all elections" to the ITNR page in the first place. Hot StopUTC 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I am beginning to question the wisdom to the entire section entitled "Elections and Heads of State", and there is no comprehensive discussion over this issue in the archives (correct me if I'm wrong.) We need to have that comprehensive discussion of what constitutes a good ITN/R worthy event when it comes to politics. Here is the section in question:
- The results of general elections in:
- All states on the List of sovereign states;
- European Union elections.
- Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.
- The results of the elections for head of state:
- In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position
- Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included
- The succession of a head of state:
- In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where head of state is not an elected position.
Note that coronations, inaugurations, etcetera are generally not posted. Changes to the head of government are discussed on their own merits. If election is held in two rounds, only the second round results (i.e., when the official is actually elected) are usually posted.
I would like to challenge the current system on two different issues:
- The elections of minor states. I raise several reasons above: (1) the general lack of notability (2) the lack of reader interest (3) the incompleteness or mediocre quality of articles displayed on the main page.
- The requirement of "every head of state": many heads of state are simply figureheads. The President of Germany, for example, or the President of India. Few people have ever heard of these individuals, even though they are the heads of state of two of the world's most important nations. I do not think a change in head of state is notable per se - one would have to take some extenuating circumstances into account.
- Currently, for example, our ITN has an election of Taiwan (which is not considered part of the "List of Sovereign States" and therefore must always be nominated on ITN/C) but whose election is almost always notable and receives global coverage; and the election of Kiribati, which is not covered by any international media save perhaps a few newspapers out of Australia (and the country itself). To me, the current requirement to post every single election of every single sovereign state is absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- To briefly summarise a post of mine from the other discussion - Define "minor state". Without a precise definition, this will achieve nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it were up to me, only the very major countries with clear global influence should go into ITN/R. This is more or less defined as the G20. Every other election should be ITN/C, determined based on their own merits. I realize that this definition can be a little problematic, but this is not a reason to pretend there isn't a problem. If we absolutely cannot achieve a consensus on what this "minor state" criteria is, then the solution is to get rid of this entire category of ITN/Rs and determine everything based on merit. Colipon+(Talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- (eb) Let's just define it by the land size. Like Vatican and Monaco, the two smallest countries. I don't think anyone would oppose posting a change of the head of state in those two... There are almost 40 countries that are even smaller than Kiribati! I'd say let's stick with the quality of update, if it is good, I see no reason not to post it. After all, we tend to have an international ITN and while some countries are regularly featured, other would never make it otherwise. And we feature stories such as scientific discoveries and other stuff that won't affect majority of people on the short scale anyway. --Tone 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am most definitely open to post elections of 'minor' states if the article is in good condition and/or if the election itself is particularly notable. But this should be a case-by-case decision. Colipon+(Talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree on case-to-case. In any case, not all ITNR items make it to the Main page, some discussion is always helpful. --Tone 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have a feeling that a change in the Head of State of the Vatican City might be notable. I♦A 01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree on case-to-case. In any case, not all ITNR items make it to the Main page, some discussion is always helpful. --Tone 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am most definitely open to post elections of 'minor' states if the article is in good condition and/or if the election itself is particularly notable. But this should be a case-by-case decision. Colipon+(Talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- (eb) Let's just define it by the land size. Like Vatican and Monaco, the two smallest countries. I don't think anyone would oppose posting a change of the head of state in those two... There are almost 40 countries that are even smaller than Kiribati! I'd say let's stick with the quality of update, if it is good, I see no reason not to post it. After all, we tend to have an international ITN and while some countries are regularly featured, other would never make it otherwise. And we feature stories such as scientific discoveries and other stuff that won't affect majority of people on the short scale anyway. --Tone 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I am starting to think if ITN needs to have a look at what it is aims are, is it to act as a source of the top international news headlines, in which case how does that sit with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER or is it more to help inform readers, and broaden their general knowledge, so by posting about elections in, for example Jamaica, as we did a few weeks back sent me off to read up and learn about politics there in a way that for example the election of the next US president is not going to - I will have got all I need to know about that (and frankly probably a lot more) from traditional news sources. Mtking (edits) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Totally agree. To me, since we are an encyclopedia, the idea of showcasing good articles should always be paramount over everything else. Obviously some events will be assessed based on the sheer amount of news coverage they are receiving, but the most important thing is to have a good encyclopedic article to accompany what is happening in the news. So, in that sense, I am not opposed to posting about Jamaica's elections and the interest that it would spur as a result, but I think we should exercise some discretion in which one of these elections we should post, even if the reason for it is to generate reader interest. For one, I am a big fan of science articles, and these articles are always very underrepresented - partly because almost nothing in the scientific world (save for maybe the Nobel Prize) is considered ITN/R worthy. Colipon+(Talk) 22:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- What snobbery from some users on here. ITN/R ensures a "lock" for elections in all sovereign nations. We are an encyclopedia - that does mean we pick and choose which country is important or not, which nation is significant or not, or which people's votes are worthy or not. We cover the world for the target of giving people information - heck, how many users even knew where Kiribati was? I am wholly AGAINST all attempts to restrict the coverage of election results on ITN. Let's draw this discussion to a close - there should be no restriction. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why should we not follow how the rest of the world treats elections? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- We are not a newspaper. Or a periodical. Or a news ticker. ITN is a very little and weird place in the project, a sort of....debating club-meets-Twitter feed. There is a group of editors who believe that the Wiki project needs to be inclusive and expansive - I am one of those editors. If there's an election in Canada and Kiribati on the same day, those two exercises in democracy are identical to me. One housewife in Toronto and a mother in...the...capital island...thingy...are doing the same task. It is not up to us to rule that one vote is worth more than another, or that one country is more credible than another. Editors who wish to curtail ITN or ITN/C need to prove that they're not doing it for the wrong reasons - is it to make their lives easier? Is it to make Wikipedia less "world aware"? The world's mainstream media might treat small countries with contempts, but we sure as Hell don't. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is just pointless moralizing. Inclusivity does not imply the indiscriminate inclusion based on a standard that is set without community consensus. We make judgments all the time on the importance of all other news events at ITN/C, why should political elections be any different? This is not to make a slight on the importance of Pacific island states, it is merely a universalization of standards across all subject areas. Currently, ITN/R is heavily balanced in favour of political elections. Politics is the only subject area that I can see where we have this indiscriminate standard. In 'sports', we have to make a cut-off between what is important and ITN-worthy and what is not, the same as in 'science', 'awards', etc. Let's assume that 160/190 countries in the world are democracies, and that the average time between elections is 4 years. This averages out to 40 postings a year, which means almost a post every week. You add that to other 'head of state' changes, 'succession', etc., and you will have a politics-related post roughly every five days. By my rough estimate, this means we have more politics-related ITN/R's than we do for the rest of the subjects combined, counted on an annual basis. It seems that ITN is sometimes an election ticker and not a showcase of articles that it was meant to be. Colipon+(Talk) 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- But that one post a week would be it. Very few other national political events would qualify, and it would all be very predictable. No argument possible. It sounds like a very wise approach. If we allow debate for every election, those for "medium" importance countries could be posted at one time and then not be posted next time round, purely on the whim of whatever particular cohort of editors were paying attention at the time. Such inconsistency would not be acceptable to me. Post 'em all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your argument completely, it is impossible to draw a 'line' that everyone can agree on. But that doesn't change two things. 1) There was never a community consensus to "post them all" in the first place. And 2) the "whim of whatever particular cohort of editors" is a problem present with every other subject area, why are we making an exception for political elections alone? Colipon+(Talk) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- 1. Fair point. Let's work on it now. 2. Because we can? It's a situation where it would be a nice simple rule. Let's reduce argument. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree. We make judgements on notability all the time, on ITN and in mainspace - whether it be whether an topic deserves an article what should be in it (e.g. our policy on undue emphasis). To rank e.g. India in the same breath as a country of a few tens of thousands is the kind of disproportionate distortion we would be highly dubious of in mainspace. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your argument completely, it is impossible to draw a 'line' that everyone can agree on. But that doesn't change two things. 1) There was never a community consensus to "post them all" in the first place. And 2) the "whim of whatever particular cohort of editors" is a problem present with every other subject area, why are we making an exception for political elections alone? Colipon+(Talk) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- But that one post a week would be it. Very few other national political events would qualify, and it would all be very predictable. No argument possible. It sounds like a very wise approach. If we allow debate for every election, those for "medium" importance countries could be posted at one time and then not be posted next time round, purely on the whim of whatever particular cohort of editors were paying attention at the time. Such inconsistency would not be acceptable to me. Post 'em all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is just pointless moralizing. Inclusivity does not imply the indiscriminate inclusion based on a standard that is set without community consensus. We make judgments all the time on the importance of all other news events at ITN/C, why should political elections be any different? This is not to make a slight on the importance of Pacific island states, it is merely a universalization of standards across all subject areas. Currently, ITN/R is heavily balanced in favour of political elections. Politics is the only subject area that I can see where we have this indiscriminate standard. In 'sports', we have to make a cut-off between what is important and ITN-worthy and what is not, the same as in 'science', 'awards', etc. Let's assume that 160/190 countries in the world are democracies, and that the average time between elections is 4 years. This averages out to 40 postings a year, which means almost a post every week. You add that to other 'head of state' changes, 'succession', etc., and you will have a politics-related post roughly every five days. By my rough estimate, this means we have more politics-related ITN/R's than we do for the rest of the subjects combined, counted on an annual basis. It seems that ITN is sometimes an election ticker and not a showcase of articles that it was meant to be. Colipon+(Talk) 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- We are not a newspaper. Or a periodical. Or a news ticker. ITN is a very little and weird place in the project, a sort of....debating club-meets-Twitter feed. There is a group of editors who believe that the Wiki project needs to be inclusive and expansive - I am one of those editors. If there's an election in Canada and Kiribati on the same day, those two exercises in democracy are identical to me. One housewife in Toronto and a mother in...the...capital island...thingy...are doing the same task. It is not up to us to rule that one vote is worth more than another, or that one country is more credible than another. Editors who wish to curtail ITN or ITN/C need to prove that they're not doing it for the wrong reasons - is it to make their lives easier? Is it to make Wikipedia less "world aware"? The world's mainstream media might treat small countries with contempts, but we sure as Hell don't. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why should we not follow how the rest of the world treats elections? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I am not opposed, per se, to such elections being ITN/R items. I think they should qualify if the quality of the article is sufficient to appear on the main page. While it doesn't have to be perfect, article quality should be a stronger prerequisite for ITN/R items. Just because its on the list and has a bluelink doesn't mean it should be automatically passed. ITN/R is meant to stop the debate over the appropriateness of the subject, but we should still have a hearty debate over the quality of the article. If the article sucks, it shouldn't be on the main page even if it is on ITN/R. --Jayron32 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the absurdities in ITN is that we often have debates about events which receive widespread media coverage and of much greater significance (such as the William-Kate Royal Wedding, or the firing of Joe Paterno), and we tend to reject a lot of postings purely based on it being 'US-centric.' But you look at any of these articles that we've debated over, or even any of the Did-You-Know articles on the Main Page, and you will notice that the least notable articles we have ever posted are about the elections of minor Pacific Island states, at least based on the criteria of 1) the number of people it affects, 2) the amount of influence it has on the subject area, and 3) academic or media interest. When you juxtaposition a Tuvalu parliamentary election to the firing of Joe Paterno, for example, the comparison is absurd. Those supporting a post for the latter will legitimately complain that the latter dwarves the former in significance by several orders of magnitude, not to mention that the latter is just a much better encyclopedic article. Thus, we must set a list of reasonable criteria, not only for election-related postings, but for postings in general, because as of now it seems the decisions to post items is rather arbitrary. Colipon+(Talk) 03:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have to disagree about the Paterno story being more encyclopaedic. Newsworthy it may have been, but it boiled down to a sport and sex story relevant to just one country, something traditional encyclopaedias would have had far fewer of than formal election details. But let's not re-open that international can of worms. The problem is that postings are not arbitrary. Having fixed criteria would be arbitrary, and I personally think it's the right way to go with elections. It has to be all, or none, or somewhere in between. If it's the latter, where? Only one editor has made a suggestion - the G20 nations. Does that work for everybody? I doubt it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original purpose of ITN/R was so that events which occur on regular intervals don't have to be nominated every time they happen if their notability is so well-established that editors will very likely reach a consensus to post that article every time. Something like the US presidential election is one of these events. It would be nominated every time it happens, regardless of the extenuating circumstances, so we may as well put it under ITN/R so we can save the redundant discussions. Going by this rationale, we can then clearly see why the World Cup Finals or the discovery of a new periodic table element is in ITN/R. Such a rationale falls apart entirely when it comes to the elections of small countries. How likely is it that an election of, say, Tuvalu or Antigua and Barbuda, will be nominated, if ITN/R did not exist? And how likely is it that all editors will agree on posting it? Close to none. Colipon+(Talk) 04:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The "R" stands for "Recurring", not "Regular". Most countries' elections are not held on dates as predictable and regular as the USA's, but they certainly recur. As for which ones are important enough, well... HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we can seriously say that the mayor of London (or New York, or another major world city) is less important than the leader of some Pacific island. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose restricting what elections are posted. I started the below discussion to try and establish one, but I'm generally opposed to it. I only hear about elections in Africa or elsewhere because of WP: it sure as hell isn't on Google. Most countries do it every 4 or 5 years, so it's not like there is a flood of elections to wade through. ITN posts questionable shit all the time, JoePa, a soccer pageant in Japan, death of XYZ favourite athlete/celebrity/politician, Steve (bow before me iPhone user) Jobs, all of which are frankly less meaningful than an expression of Democracy. Someone didn't like a Pacific island so now we're here. Sad. So in short: Very strong support posting every election which determines head of state as long as there is a quality article to go with it.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- for the record ITN is NOT about "showcasing" articles, thats what DYK is for. ITN for, as the name explicitly says, whats in the news. Bearing in myind pobv/globalize issues otherwise the vast majority of stuff woulkdnt get on and this would just be a mainstream media outlet.Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
What countries get in
So then the question is who makes the cut? Is democracy in Seychelles or Maldives or Cape Verde less significant because of the population? What about large countries with smaller populations like Canada or Australia? Tiny countries with a high population like Singapore? Countries with rigged elections like China and Iran? I would like this subsection to be used to explore the criteria for inclusion. If we can reach a consensus, then great, if not, the whole issue ought to die. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Population density?
- Freedom of the electoral process?
- International recognition of the state?
- List of sovereign states ought to be used for this
- Coverage in international media?
- English speaking countries?
- Only countries (regardless of size) where English is an official language should be considered, as well as commonwealth countries. All others should be on the language specific wikipedia for their official language. This is the English Wikipedia, which is the place people from qualifying countries would go for information. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to add more
- My suggestion, top of the head stuff. If we have to include only "notable countries", then I would assume ITN had to include, almost without question, elections involving the European Union,. the United Kingdom, and all European nations, all African countries, almost all Asian nations, almost all Oceania countries, all South American countries, all North American countries, and *no* Caribbean countries. The countries I would ask be involved in discussion are: the smallest Asian nations (Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.), the smallest Pacific countries (those island nations on either side of the International Date Line), and the whole Caribbean. That would be a good starting point for discussion. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- So should we maintain a list of elections to post, or criteria for inclusion? If the former, I'll port the list of sovereign states over as a table and we can work through it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
G20 Suggestion
My G20 suggestion is imperfect, I will concede fully. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. I challenge the assumption that all elections are worthy news and/or encyclopedic, sometimes even in the country in which it has taken place. Again, it is my belief that ITN revolves around this principle: a news item should only be ITN/R if it is likely to be nominated at every occurrence, and it can be reasonably expected that editors will agree to its posting every time. This should be the ideal "ITNR Test". Generally, those items that pass this 'ITNR' test will also automatically pass the notability test - they are often top stories or front page news on global newspapers. All other news items should be nominated and screened via ITN/C.
So, to give a few examples of which elections (and other political events) which would clearly pass 'the ITNR test':
- US Presidential (and "midterm") elections
- China Communist Party Congresses (Gen. Sec'y, Premier)
- Brazil presidential elections
- Russia presidential elections
- India legislative elections (PM)
- European Parliament elections
- UK legislative elections (PM)
- German legislative elections (Chancellor)
- Italy legislative elections (PM)
- Canadian legislative elections (PM)
- French presidential and legislative elections (President, PM)
- Mexican presidential elections
- Japan legislative elections (PM)
- Australia legislative elections (PM)
- Death and selection of popes
- Death and accession of major monarchs (UK, Saudi Arabia)
Head of State changes are not always notable, and do not always clearly pass the "ITNR test". For example, the appointment of a ceremonial figurehead for President in Italy, India or Germany is generally not even considered a significant event in their home countries. Similarly, changes to viceregal representatives that act on behalf of the Crown in Commonwealth countries is also not always notable (and will rarely be front page news outside the country in question).
Those who accuse lists like this one of 'exclusivity', please rethink. The idea is not to exclude elections, but rather to treat them on a case-by-case basis much like everything else nominated by ITNR. So let's say there is a pivotal election in Trinidad and Tobago, it can definitely be nominated and will likely be approved if a) the election itself produced some sort of newsworthy effect internationally or had great impact or b) the article in question is very well written. Colipon+(Talk) 05:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to add on to the list. This is a fluid list. Power dynamics shift over time. There are a lot of 'in between' cases that can be nominated in ITN/R instead of ITN/C, such as Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, South Korea, Argentina, South Africa, even "hotspots" like Israel, Palestine (Gaza Strip), Iraq, Iran, Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Taiwan - perhaps even subnational entities whose politics are particularly noteworthy like Quebec, New York City, London, Wallonia/Flanders. But a positive onus should be placed on these events to prove that they pass the ITNR test, not the other way around. Once these nominations gain consensus at ITNR, we can add them accordingly based on merit. Similarly, they can be removed from ITNR (let's say Italy loses its geopolitical standing due to the euro debt crisis), if the community can reach consensus. Colipon+(Talk) 05:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- A good list to start from. It's quite early and I've not had a brew yet, so my amendments here come from a half-awake brain! I would add;
- Spanish legislative election (PM)
And I would amend the last one to "all" monarchs.
doktorb wordsdeeds 05:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm thinking the G20 as a hard and fast list is a pretty good idea. Spain, Israel, Iran, etc, can also be nominated, but will have to pass the notability test and the quality test. G20 countries get a pass on notability. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
FWIW: Oppose all monarchs unless they have power (IE Saudi Arabia is in, UK is out). Oppose the pope, since he's not elected. The pope will always pass an ITN discussion, and it's not often enough for ITN/R. Oppose EU states on the basis of EU membership. Oppose EU parliament. Support Head of the EC. Oppose legislative elections that don't also determine the head of state (IE Canada and UK in, USA out). I've listed the G20 below with the EU excluded (so it's more of a G19). I think it's a decent list. All other countries can be nominated, but will have to go through the regular process and pass the notability clause, the below get an instant pass on notability. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- South Africa
- Canada
- Mexico
- United States
- Argentina
- Brazil
- China
- Japan
- South Korea
- India
- Indonesia
- Saudi Arabia
- Russia
- Turkey
- France
- Germany
- Italy
- United Kingdom
- Australia
--76.18.43.253 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Oppose legislative elections that don't also determine the head of state (IE Canada and UK in, USA out)." Wrong. –HTD 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly
iswas Kevin Rudd's position in the Aussie government? –HTD 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- What exactly
- Why? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where exactly to comment but just want to add my 2 cents- I think that any and all election articles should have a fair run at ITN/C. If a national level article is updated sufficiently, then it should go up. I've found from personal experience that some nations (sorry, can't remember a specific example) are too small and the coverage of the election is so narrow that I cannot add a sufficient enough update. In this case, the election shouldn't go up. This way, we can also make allowances for special circumstances, such as when the first democratic elections occurred in the Maldives. SpencerT♦C 03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Case in point: Kiribati presidential election, 2012. Although there are several sections, this shouldn't go up until each section has a quality paragraph of well-written and referenced prose. And I'll liberally define a paragraph as three sentences of decent length. As of now, the Kiribati article wouldn't qualify until it can be updated more. If it can't be updated to a point of sufficient length, it should not go up. SpencerT♦C 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose all of the above, we are forgetting what WP is, it is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia, this little corner of the home page should be used to help readers find pages they may be looking for following hearing something on the news, but also to foster readers going off and learning something new, posting about elections helps that, and in reply to 76.18.43.253, if they think the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the appointment of a new head of state for the 16 Commonwealth realms will be anything other than very significant and the cause of a huge spike in interest in articles relating to the appointment and succession of a new monarch you are mistaken. Mtking (edits) 08:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Changing the policy on ITN/R does not keep people from learning about new things: they just have to go thru the normal nominating process at ITN/C. And there is always DYK. If we are imposing this artificial standard for elections, then why are we not rigidly pursuing this standard for all other subject areas? It would seem to me that this is a double standard. Colipon+(Talk) 17:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Elections for really small countries can still be on ITNR, only that the articles should be good enough (same is true for the rest of items here). Apparently, the Kiribati one slipped through the cracks... that means while elections for elections in such countries can still be listed here, it's just that sometimes it's impossible to write a good article about it. Any other suggestions of using any arbitrary number or collection of countries (G20? No Venezuela, Thailand, Pakistan, Kenya, Serbia, Ukraine, New Zealand, Israel, etc.?) will do more harm than good. –HTD 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Contrary to what Colipon supposes, all elections that are currently considered worthy for ITNR are newsworthy. The practice of smoothing the path for elections in smaller and developing countries helps ITN to maintain global coverage. And, as has been stated, it is a misunderstanding that we are supposed to restrict ITN only to the very most significant stories. News stories are perfectly valid if, among other things, they are likely to be educational and interesting to readers. --FormerIP (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are many other ways to support 'global coverage'. Simply posting which party (or which guy) won an election here and there does nothing for our readers, especially when most of the articles are in very poor condition. Also, I just don't understand, what is it about elections make them inherently valuable to our readers? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything, the only topical area that receives such heavy ITN/R coverage is political events like elections. Politics postings in ITN should be held to the same standard as everything else in ITN - judged by notability and quality of article. Otherwise it's a double standard. Colipon+(Talk) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The debate for what is ITN is above. This section is to reach a consensus on what countries should be ITN/R, if not all. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are many other ways to support 'global coverage'. Simply posting which party (or which guy) won an election here and there does nothing for our readers, especially when most of the articles are in very poor condition. Also, I just don't understand, what is it about elections make them inherently valuable to our readers? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about everything, the only topical area that receives such heavy ITN/R coverage is political events like elections. Politics postings in ITN should be held to the same standard as everything else in ITN - judged by notability and quality of article. Otherwise it's a double standard. Colipon+(Talk) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose any change to the current criteria, as per my reasons in the previous debate. The purpose of ITN is to draw attention to articles on current events that have been sufficiently updated. As long as an editor puts in the effort to update an article sufficiently, I see no problem in posting a current-affairs item that directly affects the lives of an entire nationality. As far as I'm concerned, any specific event notable enough for its own article is notable enough for ITN. In addition, no selective criterion can possibly be proposed without being purely arbitrary and constructed from attributes completely unrelated to the subject (like GDP, as proposed above). Nightw 12:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support A line has to drawn somewhere and the G20 may be an arbitrary one but that is always going to be the case, and at least it has the benefits of being clear and unambiguous. ITNR serves to document items with a clear and unambiguous consensus and it is clear that there is a dissatisfaction with with the current listing of very small countries. Therefore it has already lost its legitimacy as an ITNR item and elections (any elections) can legitimately be challenged. Personally I don't want to get involved in pointless debates as to whether the US presidential result is notable enough to post, but that is precisely what could easily happen if the entire section becomes regarded as illegitimate. That is precisely the reasoning behind ITNR in the first place and why it shouldn't be used to get a bye on notability when it would not stand up to the normal standards of scrutiny at ITN/C. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
- Support seems like a sensible line. G20 seems about right - and that means we post the EU elections as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- It hardly matters and won't help much Something's been bothering me about this, and it's finally gelled in my slow brain. The G20 nations aren't the problem. If we have no list, elections in these countries get posted with little argument anyway, and those supporting this seem to also be saying that elections in other places can still be nominated and discussed at the time, leading to pretty much the same arguments we have now. So what will we gain? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Very evidently, the issue is with really small countries' elections being posted when they wouldn't otherwise pass the ITN/C notability. That's it. Colipon+(Talk) 02:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whenever the elections of pacific island states (not those exclusively, but often is the case) get posted on ITN, there are always debates in the ITN/C page. This is obviously problematic because these postings would otherwise not pass an ITN/C discussion. Colipon+(Talk) 04:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Does anyone have any final comments on this? It seems to me that this discussion is in danger of fizzling out without any actual conclusions like too many discussions here before it. I'll give it another 24 hours after which it seems appropriate to tag {{uninvolved}} for an admin to make a determination of consensus or lack thereof. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe this requires an admin to determine consensus as there's no administrative action to take. I'd suggest any uninvolved editor could make the decision — I'd be happy to do it this time tomorrow if necessary. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy with that if everyone else is. It simply seems to me that we need a guillotine to draw a line under the discussion and draw the appropriate conclusions. I may advance it as a general principal if it works OK without too much controversy - many other discussions (AfD etc) already have definite time limits after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do not close discussion yet
The problem with closing this as 'no consensus' is that the issue with extremely small countries' elections getting posted next to much more notable items will always raise the eyebrows of editors; if not me, then someone else will raise objections - so much that these elections will become events of 'recurring objections' on ITN. To me, this is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed, and we are only stuck on having a hard-and-fast rule on which countries are included and which are not, but many of us agree in principle that elections should be held to the same standard of scrutiny as other ordinary ITN/C candidates.I would suggest, at this stage, that we invite some totally uninvolved admins or otherwise experienced users to give their take, before closing this debate, to see if there are any fresh perspectives that perhaps we have not considered ourselves. Perhaps an invitation at a noticeboard or the politics workgroup. Colipon+(Talk) 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who's not weighed in on the merits of the discussion, this does come across as a "it's not the result I want, so don't close it" kind of plea... I'll hold off on making a call on the discussion though if that's agreed by most people. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Elfstedentocht
I'd like to propose that the Elfstedentocht is added to ITN/R under the sport of skating. The event will not occur more than once per annum, and in many years it won't run. But, when it is run, it is a major national event in the Netherlands. The last event was in 1997, which is eight years before Wikipedia was thought of, and thus why this hasn't come up before. The most is has occurred is on three consecutive years. There is a very strong possibility that there will be a race this year. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that it is a national event. That isn't an absolute bar but it has to break out of that "domestic issue" box. We do have plenty of domestic sport on ITNR (Super Bowl, Permier League etc) but those all attract a significant degree of international attention. This one seems to lack that - speaking on a purely personal basis I'd never even heard of it. Of course, that doesn't mean much but it is an indicator that perhaps this one is a little too obscure to merit a listing. I'd say put it up at ITN/C it and when it runs: we'll get a much better feel for attitudes towards it then. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC).
- Isn't this not recurring enough? –HTD 13:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems significant enough, but it's very rare (which is partly why it's significant when it does happen). I'm not sure if that means we should leave it to ITN/C? I also notice that we have no entries on ITNR for skating, nor for comparable 'rare' events in other sports e.g. the Big Wave Invitational. Modest Genius talk 10:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as rare as this event is, I don't see the necessity to add it to ITNR, as it serves more as a guideline for annual events (or at least those that happen every couple of years). As this event will most likely happen this year for the first time after 15 years, that will be significant. If it happens next year again, it will be considerably less special, I'd say. So I'd stick to case-by-case basis here. --Tone 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
EU elections
This is a subnational entity and pov. There is also a latin american and asian parliament which should then be posted. Nevertheless, the EU parliament has no playing power...the big player being the ECB thats not elected, the other heads that are not elected. This signifies nothing and is far less powerful in actual practice (symbolism of "democracy" aside) than many smaller states like even Nepal or lanka that have geostratigic imperatives.Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the EU is a supernational entity. This has been discussed several times on ITN/C, and has always had strong support for posting. I find your opposition to this rather odd, since you previously requested for them to be added to ITNR. The EU parliament does have fairly significant power, albeit of a kind that does not attract much popular attention. The comparison with the ECB is very odd, since the elected parliament of the EU and the central bank of the Eurozone are very different things. Nor is the straw man argument about other elections - which we post already - relevant. Modest Genius talk 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lihaas, you are completely wrong. The EU Parliament is (and will get) stronger with new powers awarded to MEPs. The next EU elections will be, with the addition of Croatia, one of the largest ever pan-continental democratic elections. Your problem is itself POV and can be easily dismissed doktorb wordsdeeds 12:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)