Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Stale RD

Rees Mogg and Greig both died before oldest story in main template: that was agreed as threshold for removal. Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^T♦C 17:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ITN/A should probably contain a note in regards to this, and some text on RD in general. , LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that a story from the 26th has been added back "for balance", these two are not comparatively stale. Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to pop on and off RD items too. Maybe once they are off the first time, they don't go back up even if older full-sentence items come back "for balance"? Spencer^T♦C 05:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese high-speed rail line story was also from December 26, so I'm not sure what caused you to make the initial notification. -- tariqabjotu 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was mislead by a quick glance at the noms list by the Chinese subway nom: my error. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Dakar Rally from ITN/R

Please see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Proposal_-_Remove_Dakar_Rally_from_ITN.2FR. doktorb _words^deeds 11:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Auto-nomination of big-time ITN/R events

The emphasis on big-time slam-dunk ITN/R events like the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, World Series, Academy Awards and other major ITN/R items seems to always be more about who can rush over to ITN/C and nominate it first, rather than getting the article updated so it can be posted sooner rather than later. In fact, it will be interesting to see who takes home the coveted "Speedy Pete" award for the nominator of the Super Bowl this Sunday (Go Ravens!). I myself will admit to competing for this prestigious award as well in the past. Instead of the usual race for nomination, why don't we look into having major events like the Super Bowl and other sure-fire nominations get added in by AnomieBOT at the same time as the daily date-section postings. This way, the event is nominated well ahead of time, we can vote on it, when it's over we can update it, and it gets posted relatively quickly. The bot would just be programmed to post a basic nomination (with the bot as being listed as the nominator) along the lines of the usual "X defeats Y in the World Championship". Sources, name(s) of updater(s), and the final blurb can be added in by anyone when they are available. I'm not saying these events should be automatically posted, but they should be at least automatically nominated. What do you think? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

TBH, I'm more excited to see on who'd be the first one to oppose. I'm betting on... –HTD 03:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you and I are thinking alike here (we may even be thinking of the same one)... How about an over-under on how many will oppose?--WaltCip (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

lol that's too hard. It depends on how contentious the discussion would be. How about an over/under on:

• How many hours since it was updated would pass before an admin posts it? (My bet would be 25 hours.)
• How many kilobytes of discussion would be wasted? (2/3 as many as Ted Kennedy's.)
• What percentage of oppose votes would be "ZOMG US BIAZ" (90%)

This should be more exciting than the game per se lol –HTD 18:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your constant rehashing of this is really tiresome. Exactly how many votes were there at ITN?C agiainst this event at ITN/C last year? And how many on the grounds you suggest? Kevin McE (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this is too much of an issue. This could start a whole other debate on which ITN/R items should be bot nominated, and I think the current system is effective enough in allowing the item to appear. That said, items need to be nominated on days they occur (although the issue is more renominating the same, previously nominated item, at a later date, not the other way around). Spencer^T♦C 06:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I second that. The system works well as it is. Besides, I dread to think of a discussion about what items to include on such list... --Tone 09:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that being a problem. As I said above, this would only be used for the most popular of worldwide ITN/R sporting and entertainment events. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, there's a significant cohort looking to get rid of ITNR altogether, so I don't know that you'll get much traction for your proposal from them. --Jayron32 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago I suggested a system whereby events, including ITNR items, could be pre-nominated on WP:ITN/FE and then transferred to the candidates page by the bot when it created the relevant day. It would require sticking to a fixed format and/or using the template properly, but nothing outrageously difficult. Nothing ever happened. Worthwhile? Modest Genius ^talk 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support votes for ITNR useless

Tariq brought up the point for superbowl that has been said over and over again. I suggest we put a note in the ITN template for ITN/R events where it states "Support votes are not required" and also perhaps on ITN/C as well. People can continue to oppose if they like but there is really no need for support votes. If it gets enough opposes then perhaps its worth discussing if it should be even on ITNR and the discussion can evolve to removal from ITNR instead. Myself and im sure many others find the support votes for ITNR items utter waste of time and space. -- Ashish-g55 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If ITN/R genuinely only contained items for which we could be confident that there will be a consensus as to importance, the premise would be true and the proposal would be sound. As items listed at ITN/R are routinely challenged (due to the tiny input to discussion on listing, and the unclear nature of the votes there), they will sometimes require support to be shown. Pile-on support where there is no opposition is of course rather pointless, although harmless. Kevin McE (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In either case its opposes that matter for ITN/R events. I dont think supports add any value since an updated ITN/R will go up regardless of supports... Again we already know that this will not stop anyone from supporting but perhaps it "might" reduce the length of pile on supports for ITN/R items -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Items that are ITN/R have indeed been rejected despite updates. Until ITN/R is either disbanded, or reduced to include only items for which there is a genuine confidence that they would gain consensus for importance every year (and I see very few votes in ITN/R discussion on that basis), it cannot be taken as having the authority of consensus, and so it has no authority on wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant question, in my view, is whether the concept of ITN/R itself is backed by consensus. If it isn't, it should be shut down. If it is, any inappropriate items should be challenged there, ideally well in advance of their next recurrence, with consensus required for their retention (not their removal).

Either way, I see no point in supporting or opposing these events at ITN/C, which doesn't address the underlying problem. And I certainly disagree with the idea of permitting opposition but not support. (How can we possibly gauge consensus if only one opinion is allowed into the discussion?) —David Levy 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

i am not saying don't debate, i am saying there is no need for support !votes. or oppose !votes for that matter. -- Ashish-g55 21:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "support" and "oppose" comments, expressed at ITN/C instead of ITN/R's talk page, are unhelpful. I was addressing your statements that "people can continue to oppose if they like but there is really no need for support votes" and "its opposes that matter for ITN/R events. I dont think supports add any value..." —David Levy 21:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The support votes aren't useless; the nomination is useless, as neither support nor oppose votes on update should matter if ITNR works properly. But given an apparent insistence that these types of nominations continue to occur, ITNR is the real problem. In most cases, updates take longer to materialize than consensus regarding importance does anyway. And people seem to have forgotten the problematic squabbles that led to ITNR's establishment in the first place, or prefer that they happen regardless. Those squabbles are then compounded by those that occur at ITNR when someone dares to suggest that an item be removed. Really, at this point in time, ITNR just has no purpose. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the nomination is needed just to get the blurb going and talk about updates. Its really the pile on supports for stuff like superbowl thats useless. perhaps we can put a note "Discussion of exclusion/inclusion should take place at ITNR" or something similar. -- Ashish-g55 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be two points. Opposes may simply be votes that the item is not notable regardless of the ITNR status. And a lot of supports simply seem to be based on ignorance of the rules. Doing away with ITNR as such might help in both cases. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The reason support and oppose votes are helpful for ITNR items is that there are two requirements for ITN: Article quality and coverage in the news. ITNR events are presumed to meet the second, but the first would still need to be assessed every time an ITNR event comes up. The article needs to have a sufficient update and lack any glaring problems. There are many ITNR items that rightly fail to make the main page because the article never gets updated. That's why we need to vote on them too. --Jayron32 01:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  Um, ok. But what are the odds that an article about a particular game has been sufficiently updated four hours before the game has even begun? -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  In any case we dont need to "support" or "oppose" based on update. Nothing will go up on ITN without a proper update thats a given rule. Notability is what people !vote on which really makes no sense for ITN/R item. maybe we can leverage our [tag] and mention [Recurring] to emphasize that notability has already been determined, please go argue at ITN/R instead? We have to remember when someone new steps into ITN/C and sees a superbowl nomination their first instinct will be to support looking at all the other nominations. This problem could just be solved by changing the optics of ITN/R items. -- Ashish-g55 02:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly the case. because various Items have indeed ben posted to ITN/RD even thought they haven't been updated. Requiring items actually be updated is not problematic. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Shorter stays for sport

I suggest sports entries should stay shorter in ITN, but we should have more of them to make up for it and accommodate more interests. We currently [1] have entries about handball and tennis tournaments which ended 9 days ago. I'm sports interested and followed both events on tv but even I think "Still?" each time I see them on the main page. We (rightfully) post sport after the completion of a tournament, but people quickly lose interest in sport events. Other types of news stories usually keep interest longer as events develop, more details become known, reactions come in. The main thing in sport is who won and we don't need to keep saying that for a week when most readers with an interest in the sport already know. I suggest usually around two days for sport unless we lack stories. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sympathetic Oppose beatrix has been up even longer, and is just as stale. If we dropped sports items early, it would take even longer to push old items out the bottom. --IP98 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggested to compensate by making more sports stories. I imagine the total sport time in ITN being about the same. For example, instead of a tennis tournament (probably the fourth largest yearly tournament) which ended 10 days ago now, we could add the daily winners of the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2013. 11 World Champions will emerge on 11 different days (there are also two rest days). Each of them could stay until the next World Champion or rest day. Skiing has no ITNR entries and none of the 11 events are likely to get into ITN on their own with the current system. The Alpine World Ski Championships are the main event (possibly excepting the Winter Olympics) and only held every two years.

Beatrix may also be a short-interest story staying too long but it would probably be too much hassle to discuss for each entry how long it should stay. For sports stories in general, there might be support for keeping them briefly without having to discuss each time. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Once more I must repeat the old tired mantra that ITN is not a news ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• And once again I must repeat the admonishment that there's a thousand non-sports stories out in the world today, that only require you to update articles at Wikipedia and then nominate said articles. It's a guarantee that 100% of the time, the unnominated article does not make ITN. If the speed at which stories roll off ITN bothers you, then you only have you to blame that you didn't work hard enough to get new stories onto ITN. --Jayron32 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, Jayron, change the record. Your constant harping in this matter is getting really tiresome. Editors have a variety of interest, expertise, time commitment and competence: that does not exclude them from commenting on what happens here. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. --Jayron32 07:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for the Main Page that affects this project

A proposal is being drawn up, which directly involves both the In The News and On This Day project. In order to integrate Today's article's for improvement onto the left hand side of the Main Page (under DYK), it is being suggested that ITN and OTD both carry one additional item. The reason for doing this is because adding TAFI makes the left hand side have too much text, and generating empty whitespace on the right hand side (example here). If there are no objections to this proposal and the editors involed in the project approve the addition of one item per cycle, then TAFI can be integrated on the Main Page. Please comment here to voice your opinion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Stale RD - Ieng Sary

Time for Ieng Sary to expire off. --IP98 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent deaths

You should have removed just the name, not the link to recent deaths.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been fixed [2]. Spencer^T♦C 14:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for recent deaths (RD)

I think it's time to codify this. Participants are arriving who weren't here for the "initial" RD discussions. Suggest something like (but with better prose)

A death nomination will be considered for the recent deaths ticker by adding "recent deaths = yes" to the nomination template. A recent death nomination must

#Meet minimum update and article quality requirements
#Satisfy the death criteria above

A death nomination may be posted with a "full blurb" if there is consensus to do so.

Or something. I don't know, but either way we've had RD for a while now and it's really time to add something to the instructions about it. I'm deliberately leaving out when to choose RD vs "full blurb" for now. I would rather get consensus on something less contentious before moving on that item. --IP98 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about WP:ITN or Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header? Or both? Might I suggest something like this? I don't think that the update and death criteria requirements need to be mentioned, since they are already listed and haven't changed. The "overwhelming significance and influence" part can be omitted, if we don't want to go there yet - I think it reflects reality, but there is plenty of room for disagreement on that point and it should probably be worded a bit more objectively anyway. I agree that we need to have something there, after five or six months (or however long it has been since it was implemented). --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Could be both, at least WP:ITN. I like your previous contribution but without the "overwhelming significance and influence" for now. I want to mention the requirements mostly in response to my discussion with Bloom6132 at WP:ITN/C, but can do without I guess if the admins all understand there is no difference. --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic point here is that the rules have not changed and we are not proposing that they be changed. So new verbiage may be not only problematic and hard to achieve consensus on--it's also simply unnecessary. I think just occasionally pointing out the RfC discussion as IP98 did today, when it is necessary, should be sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sufficient for old hands, maybe, but it would be good to have a written guide for visitors. Formerip (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITN has no minimum update requirements, but acknowledges that what is sufficient is a subjective decision, so that part of the proposal would need to be changed. Otherwise, this is something that should have been formalised before RD was initiated, so yes, something should be there. Kevin McE (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITN does agree, however, that ...a one-sentence update is highly questionable and that a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient. So, yeah, there is a requirement, it's just not a hard and fast rule. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To do "more than sufficient" by definition cannot be a minimum requirement: to describe something as "questionable" is not to say that it is necessarily insufficient. There is no specific requirement, other than that a subjective assessment considers it satisfactory, so asserting that something must meet a " minimum update ... requirement" is nonsensical. Kevin McE (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So here is the thing, like you pointed out, the !rules say "updated enough is subjective". So my subjective requirement is 5 sentences. I'll continue to withhold my support from nominations until the update that I consider minimum has been met. Others are free to do the same. If you want to have a lower threshold, that's certainly your prerogative. In the absence of any hard rule (which you've repeatedly pointed out), calling anyone's subjective minimum "nonsensical" is exceptionally ignorant and borders on uncivil. Good day. --IP98 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to your own fabrication as to whatever standard you are willing to support a nomination at: you are not entitled to describe your individual preference as the standard.

However, that has nothing to do with the discussion here. You have proposed a text for the page that describes and defines the ITN feature that incorporates reference to a minimum update requirement that does not exist.

That is what I described as nonsensical, not your subjective judgement, and failure to make the distinction is exceptionally ignorant, and borders on bad faith. Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unready candidates

This is rather sad. We've got various users repeatedly marking unready nominations as ready, such as Pietro Mennea, as of this edit by the nominator yelling at people to make the article ready, or to ignore the requimnts, or both. A comment on this by an admin would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What requirement? The only requirement is that it is sufficiently updated to persuade the subjective judgement of the admin who will make the decision. We are instructed that "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post." In the case of Mennea the !vote is 7:1 in favour of posting, and the article has as much detail on the manner of his death as is in the public forum. Marking as [Ready] is not yelling at anybody: it is bringing the attention of an admin to the fact that we believe that the time has come to pass judgement on the article. An admin can then apply their own discretion ("The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves") and, if they believe that it is not ready, can explain what they consider to be deficient.

If anything is sad it is some editors trying to apply a rigid standard that is no part of policy to obstruct the posting of items on which they disagree with the consensus as to importance.

I believe that you need to either substantiate the accusation against the nominator of "yelling at people to make the article ready", or to apologise and withdraw the accusation: I see nothing in the thread that could possibly be construed as such. Kevin McE (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, you're the user here who's coming up with ideas like a "rotten egg" barnstar for nominators who make nominations which aren't updated in time (now that really is sad), yet you actively refuse to do anything about it yourself, nor do you give any information as to what you want to see to enhance the articles in question. All you do is to point at mythical "requirement" which, as has been pointed out to you and other editors who have adopted similar approaches to this, is not a requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, Medeis, could you return to this discussion, and the multiple other discussions at ITN/C which you seem to have abandoned? Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tap, tap.... is this thing on? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: NCAA basketball championship

Can an uninvolved admin please evaluate this item? Discussion has been long enough (at this point "relisting for more discussion" isn't really helpful), so this should either be posted or closed. It would be preferable if this didn't wait in limbo. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 22:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted a request on WP:AN. Most (all?) of the regular ITN admins are involved and can't close. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think all are involved, but thanks for leaving a note at AN. Spencer^T♦C 02:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there are two [Ready] stories that seem to be getting buried under all the NCAA & Ebert chatter. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 13:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Items needing admin attention.

This and this have been marked as [Ready] for several hours now, and this should probably be judged for readiness. I fear these uncontroversial items have been "drowned-out" by the debates happening on other stories. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks Tariq. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin and user repeatedly arguing in various nominations

I have noticed two users, one who is an admin, the other a regular contributor to ITN, have been "arguing" with each other in various ITN nominations. I think it is best if these two users stop their "arguing", especially since one of the users is an admin and should act as civil as possible. I am not taking any sides in this "dispute" between the two users. I just find it unnecessary and not helpful to the various ITN nominations.

For anyone confused on who the two users being referred to are, they are μηδείς (Medeis) and The Rambling Man

I find it a bit surprising for an admin to go and repeatedly "argue" with a regular user. Even if the regular user is wrong, it still is a bit unadminlike (if that is a word) for an admin to be doing. Andise1 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I can't apologise enough for appearing "unadminlike" although I would draw your attention to the fact that this is a content dispute. I certainly won't be commenting further. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. As this may affect your project, I would encourage you to leave feedback and participate in the discussion.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Leading with snooker story

Considering that most people in the world have never even heard of snooker, does it really make sense for us to lead with the current story? It seems rather Anglocentric from my POV. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that most people in the world have never even heard of snooker --IP98 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More relevantly, it leads because it happened most recently. If you wish to take place in discussions over what news items appear on the main page, please contribute at WP:ITN/C. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Newest story first, there is no other ranking system used here. Thanks for your tolerance and understanding. GRAPPLE X 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link on Israeli Syria airstrike

The current item on the airstrikes in Syria links to Syrian civil war#Israeli_airstrikes. However, that article now links to a more detailed main article, January 2013 Israeli airstrike in Syria. Should the link be updated to reflect that? 140.247.0.7 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe do a move to Israel and the Syrian civil war and reorganize it, preserving the background section and doing subsections for the two strikes. As it stands now, the May attacks aren't covered as well as they are at Syrian civil war. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest

If people want to complain about ITN/R articles being nominated, then adequately updated, then posted, ITN/R is the place to do it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to clog up the nom (from which I abstain), but can someone explain how this is different from "blah blah idol" or "X factor". Sure it's "international" and "popular" but at the nuts and bolts level is there a difference? --IP98 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC) They are nothing alike, aside from the fact they are music based. You abstain because you know your obvious oppose wont amount to anything. --85.210.96.53 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC) It was a legitimate question that didn't deserve your hateful remarks. --IP98 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I don't want to resurrect this discussion, but Eurovision 2009 had 9 million votes; in American Idol 2012, 132 million votes, and an entire Philippine province disappointed. –HTD 03:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC) There are big differences in the voting systems. Here are some of them. American Idol allows you to vote as often as you want, and the host actively encourages viewers to vote many times. You can even get software to make many votes for you.[3] American Idol has a toll-free number for voting. Eurovision does not, at least in the countries I know about. American Idol viewers can vote for hours, Eurovision far shorter. Eurovision doesn't allow voting for your own country so many viewers cannot vote on their real preference and have less motivation to vote. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC) AFAIK, Idol only allows someone to vote for 2 hours after the show was aired. Dunno about Eurovision. Dunno if Eurovision allows viewers to vote as many times as they want though. –HTD 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC) American idol#Audience voting says "up to four hours for the finale". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) They must've changed it then, or the 4-hour rule is only for the finale. Probably because not all of the people who wanted to vote got in. –HTD 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC) FWIW could be pop idol or UK X factor, not trying to be US centric. That helps. My only other question is the contestants. On the idol/factor shows they get sourced from open auditions, how are the Eurovision songs picked? Is it up to each individual country? --IP98 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, the broadcaster of each country can choose how to select their participant. Denmark always does it with a television contest on a single day. In Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Dansk Melodi Grand Prix 2013 the broadcaster, or a jury appointed by them, chose 10 songs out of 692 submissions for the contest. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) In any case, if people want this to be removed from ITN/R, then they should make that proposal. These comparisons of voting periods, voting rules etc are fascinating, but have no relevance really when it comes to the fact that this is in ITN/R, so all that's required under current guidelines is a "suitable update". Nothing more to see here, move along, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Meh. Removing this from ITNR is next to impossible. If this is removed, I wont edit for 6 momths. lol. –HTD 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Then this discussion is entirely nugatory. As I said, nothing more to see here, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC) No complaining from me, just an honest inquiry. Thanks to HTD and PrimeHunter for helping me out. --IP98 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Struga Poetry Evenings at WT:ITN/R

If any mildly interested admin is concerned, there seems a clear consensus to remove this from ITN/R. Please action this, or at least go take a look and make a judgement on how it currently appears from an outside perspective! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

E3 2013

Can we have an admin take a look at this news item for June 11th, 2013, and either close or post it? Based on the lack of clear consensus it doesn't look as if it'll get posted.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As a note, as the event is now over, I'm not sure how much it can be ITN. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^T♦C 02:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination reopened; this is an ITN/R item and needs an update before posting. The item is not updated, which is why I closed, but since it's not stale enough to not appear on the template, there is a small chance that the article can still be updated for posting (which in my opinion is doubtful). Notability concerns regarding the conference need to be taken up at the ITN/R talk page. Spencer^T♦C 22:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to disband ITN/R

Please be advised that there is an attempt to take the teeth out of ITN/R here. --IP98 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood the proposal if you consider it that way. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite, there is an attempt to make ITN/R align with the reality of the way ITN/R is failing right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Status of P:CE/Sports

There's is a discussion at Portal talk:Current events/Sports on what to do with that portal: either a full-fledged MFD, reformatting or something else. The portal hasn't been updated since the end of May. –HTD 14:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Traaaaaaaaaaayvon Martin

Can someone close the long winded discussion on the candidates page? I think two things are clear

A) There is no consensus to post, and

B) The nom is stale, this happened too long ago for it to be posted now.

Thoughts? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 07:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been closed. And rightly so doktorb _words^deeds 18:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)