Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3142 (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 14 April 2014 (→NCAA basketball championship (once a year)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Removal proposal: Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final (redux)

Closing my own proposal with no consensus to remove the Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final from ITN/R. Thanks to everyone who contributed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the closure. I was about to make the same conclusion. --Tone 09:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Following the unsuccessful nomination of the 2014 Winter Olympics ice hockey final at WP:ITN/C, 331dot has indicated that he would like to see a proposal to remove this item from ITN/R. It seems only reasonable to follow that up, so here we are. Useful background may include a previous discussion which was never closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as this is normally one of the clear highlights of the Winter Olympics, and 0.25 items per year is 4 times less than what Gaelic football has. Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal per my already stated reasons. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as this will always coincide with the end of the Winter Olympics, we will always have issues to explain to the vast majority of people not interested why one individual sport's gold medal game should share the blurb or share ITN with the closing ceremony. "Clear highlight" is 100% point-of-view, personal opinion. I couldn't care less who was in the ice hockey, nor could the vast majority of those reading Wikipedia, many more would be interested in downhill ski-ing or figure skating or skeleton or curling or biathlon. Moreover, the fact that some have voted to oppose it this year because of who was competing for it makes it perfect candidate for ITN/C, not ITN/R, if "who's in it" matters. Also, this should have been removed in the previous discussion where a clear consensus was not acted upon. But we are where we are. One note, could those "opposing" the removal please demonstrate the consensus which was formed to actually include it at ITN/R? It would be helpful to know that it wasn't just added by one user some years ago because "it seemed like a good idea"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there's been no consensus to include it at all, as I suspected. Not caring about it enough as a community to form a genuine consensus to include it is a perfect reason to remove it. Six years to remove it has finally come home to roost, if an ITN/R has massive opposition at ITN/C, you should be able to find your answer. The unfortunate thing is that many of those who frequent ITN/C do not frequent ITN/R, as such we'll usually end in stalemate and have a pointless ITN/R that'll never be posted because it's heavily opposed at ITN/C. In fact, why not just add the curling final, the women's ice hockey final, the double luge, to ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ice hockey result was posted in 2010 as well. This item could have been removed from the list after it was created(it was not), it could have been removed in 2010(it was not), it could have been removed after the last discussion(it was not). If it is now, I respect that, but it seems until now to have been accepted by default. If you want to draw more attention to the discussion, I think there are means for you to do so. If you have an actual proposal to add the events you mention, I'd be happy to explain why I wouldn't support adding them, but I won't tie up space here doing so. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's just a symptom of how badly thought out ITN/R has been over the years and the tacit acceptance of a couple of editor's ideas becoming written in stone. This proposal will fail, the good news being we'll have to wait until 2018 before we have to reject it all over again, and it's not worth the bytes being generated. What would be the decent thing would be to remove it entirely from ITNR and allow ITNC to determine whether it's worth being included, particularly, as I've noted, as some voters believe that ITNR should actually depend on who's in the final. Best laugh I've had all day. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for removal, although I'm not sure why we need to have this discussion in triplicate. No Olympic event should be singled out as ITNR for any reason. Olympic gold is undoubtedly a big deal within the world of ice hockey, but that doesn't not make it unique as an Olympic event. And, although I'm willing not to disagree that it is a big deal for North America, that's the opposite of a good reason for making it ITNR. It certainly doesn't have an especially high profile where I live, compared to, say, curling or skeleton. I guess it mainly depends on where your home country has a shot at a medal. Formerip (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. This is clearly the the effective world championship in Ice Hockey, and if it were a separate event going on at the same time it would be ITNR without question. It should be ITNR and should be posted this year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Removal As i stated in ITNC. Regardless of Canada winning... As far as ice hockey goes olympics final is the most watched and most popular game. Much more so that Stanley cup final. It is an international event carrying a lot significance (even if you only count that significance for Canada). An event watched by upwards of 80% population of a country should not just be ignored given the amount of sports stuff we post on ITN. I would rather not see any of the IIFH world championships and only have one olympics final for ice hockey -- Ashish-g55 15:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. But franky, we might as well just MFD this page if people at ITN/C won't respect it. Resolute 15:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respect comes to those who deserve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get off your high horse, Rambling Man. Resolute 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's The Rambling Man to you ...lute. Respecting ITN/R items which have never had an active consensus is a part of the ongoing evolution of ITN/R, which has needed a shake-up for some years. Sadly, this item is just one of a number of news items that a couple of blokes thought would be cool to include six years ago, but here we are, with the item being massively rejected at ITN/C. Speaks volumes, no need for it to be personal, and hey, we can do this all again in 2018 should we still be fortunate enough to be here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I guess it isn't British or American enough for most of you, so it should be removed, eh? "Massively rejected" in a remarkably short discussion, yet was beginning to equalize after the hasty withdrawl. And, of course, removing this from ITN/R is similarly "massively rejected" at this point as well. So where does that leave us? Resolute 16:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, it leaves us waiting to have this pointless discussion once again in 2018. Woo! Perhaps it'll be USA v Russia then and we can all get excited about it and claim it to be somehow more important than Sweden v Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. This event may well be more important than the the world championships, but so what. Olympic alpine skiing is the most important alpine skiing and Olympic skeleton is the most important skeleton. Why should we single out one event? Here the Premier Olympic Event™ is either the men's cross-country skiing 4 × 10 km relay or the 5 mile, but I personally prefer biathlon. The Ice Hockey final is only broadcast on the main channel as it is the only thing happening, if it had coincided with e.g. any cross-country skiing, alpine skiing or biathlon event it would be relegated to a secondary channel.
    This highlights the problem; which events matter most is largely based on your geographical location, with modifications based on personal taste and unforeseen medal chances. The logical choice is to post blurbs for the ceremonies and for rarer news like Bjørndalen's record. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal There is no justification for having this as the one Olympic event that is singled out for special mention. Surely nobody can seriously contend that it is the most internationally popular Olympic event - that would be the 100m sprints. So then the argument seems to be that the best men's ice hockey players only play in the Olympics and not the world champs, whereas in other major events the top athletes compete in both the world champs and the Olympics. However, that argument would only make sense if we posted the events in question at the world championships. But you will search in vain for when we have posted the world champions in the 100m sprints, the 100m freestyle, downhill skiing, etc. The fact that the best players in men's ice hockey don't play in the world champs, while the best sprinters complete in both the world champions and the Olympics, can hardly be an argument for posting both the Olympics and the world champs in ice hockey but the 100m sprints in neither. If anything, it would support posting the 100m sprints (and, by similar reasoning, the downhill skiing, the 100m freestyle, etc) in both the Olympics and the world champs, and the men's ice hockey only in the Olympics. But nobody seems to be arguing for that, which isn't surprising since it would involve a big increase in the number of sporting events that we post. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is compelling rationale for both sides. On one hand, this is certainly one of the premier events of International Hockey, certainly on par with the Stanley Cup and equivalent to the World Cup for soccer. To that extent, this would seem undoubtedly ITN/R-worthy. But on the other hand, having the timing of the gold medal match always coinciding with the end of the Winter Games and the closing ceremonies creates a logistical quagmire that would require multiple Olympic-themed blurbs appearing at the same time. That would be a bit much since the aim of ITN is to "...reflect recent or current events of wide interest" and not just the biggest sports news of the day. In the end, we have to prioritize and I think it would be a difficult argument to make that the gold medal final of a single event is more important than the closing ceremonies of the entire games. So which blurb do you go with? The hockey game or the closing ceremonies? In the end, ITN/R shouldn't trump common sense or the greater goals of ITN to appeal to a wide-interest base and not just one category of interest (such as sports fans). AgneCheese/Wine 01:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. I seriously don't get what the big deal is about having it listed. It's the premier event in all of hockey. Shall we remove the FIFA World Cup too? Hot Stop 02:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the FIFA World Cup is not part of the Olympics, so no. Neljack (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that the ice hockey tournament is equivalent to the FIFA Cup in terms of Hockey; the world championships of ice hockey do not have the stature that the Olympic tournament does. (Ask an average sports fan to name the last world champion and ask someone to name who won the Gold medal) Interestingly the world ice hockey championship was actually part of the Olympics for many years. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, as part of its existence at itn/r was for the reason that it is the iihf final. Clearly not the case. So it literally is just one sport picked from the Games. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In most sports the Olympics is more important than the world championships (at least that is the general perception in my country). Despite the fact that in most other sports the same athletes take part, it is clear that the attention they receive in Olympic years is somewhat to hugely increased. Furthermore, if you mess up you have to wait 4 years rather than one or to, so becoming an Olympic champion is rarer and would tend to more prestigious. (This naturally has economic consequences, the value of an Olympic champion for sponsorships often exceed that of a world champion.) 62.249.160.48 (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITNR is about consensus. What I see here is that there's no consensus for a removal, and no consensus to retain as well. Lists on ITNR are supposed to be "automatic postings because almost everyone would agree that it'll be posted". If there is a significant number of people who think otherwise, then it has to be removed. Well, that has been The Rambling Man's argument from the start, purging the list of all the trouble-making components that provoke long discussions. In either case, ice hockey is the most visited article among the interdependent team sports in the 2012 and 2014 Olympics:
  • There's a reason you won't see much other events during the men's ice hockey final that your TV channel will find a reason not to show that crap: because it's one of the most popular events. The reason why the cross-country events are held on this day too is because they're a part of the closing ceremony program, and apparently the IOC loves these grind out "marathons" (oh! so manly!) as a part of the closing ceremonies. In the last 3 Winter Olympics, men's ice hockey, bobsleigh and the men's cross country skiing are on the final day of competition. If anyone argues that the reason why most people watch the Winter Olympics is due to bobsleds, I'd be waiting outside wielding a bat. #kidding –HTD 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those stats clearly make the point that readers (the people we are supposed to care about) care about the hockey tournament. Just an FYI, the articles on the opening and closing ceremonies from this year's event, which were displayed prominently on the front page, drew about 200,000 views -- one fourth of what the hockey tournament received. Hot Stop 02:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hockey tournament had a benefit of having games during the entire run of the Olympics; the ceremonies only happened once each, even with the added benefit of being posted in the main page... –HTD 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the highest profile regular competition for national teams in a major, international sport. There ARE other such international hockey competitions, but this is clearly the most important among them. We should be posting these results for that reason. This needs to be on ITNR. --Jayron32 02:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment strikes me as a little absurd that we're arguing to keep this as ITN/R when there's been a clear demonstration at ITN/C that it should not be. We now a different audience appearing and clamouring for it to be kept (although some only want it to feature in ITN if the teams in the final are somehow more notable than this year's pairing). Looking forward to 2018! Funny old world. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand that the intent of most of the editors that want to post this item is to post an important (the most important?) ice hockey tournament. Normally this would be a no-brainer. In this particular case I feel that the consequence of posting it is completely overlooked: posting sends a clear implication that it is the most important Olympic event. Regardless of intent this is deeply unfortunate and should be avoided. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every event posted has people who feel it is important and people who feel it isn't important. I get what you are saying, but there are reasons it could be considered important(it is always the last medal event and has no other events scheduled at the same time, I think). 331dot (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essentially my point is that ice hockey is not the appropiate context to judge this item. In an Olympic context, while clearly important (e.g. in Canada and Sweden), it is not sufficiently important to be the only Olympic event we post. It is especially problematic as it is chosen based on subjective criteria. An event being part of the closing ceremony could justify a combined blurb (though I still think it is an inferior option to not highlighting any event). 62.249.160.48 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is saying that this isn't important; what we're saying is that it's not uniquely important among Olympic events, so there's no justification for posting it and no other Olympic events. Neljack (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Unfortunately, regularly posting this gives the perception of systemic bias that only one of the many Olympic events are far and away more important than all of the others. The average casual reader is not an expert on ice hockey. All they will perceive is an unverified and very subjective claim that "men's hockey in the Olympics is significantly more notable than the other Olympic sports". Yes, it may be the "most popular or important" Olympic sport in your country or region, but not necessarily in every country that has participants. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, posting this says "This the the most important international hockey tournament in the world." --Jayron32 11:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This is the most important international hockey tournament in the world" is a very subjective claim, and a little premature. As usual, the National Hockey League is hesitant on whether they will continue letting their players participate in future Olympics. It took them until July 2013 to decide to commit to Sochi. So what happens if/when they decline to send "the best players", and the Olympics teams then comprise of amateurs or players from other leagues? Some of these subjective arguments that "it's the most premier ice hockey tournament" will become even more subjective. At least the IIHF World Championships will always have some NHL players (from those teams eliminated from playoff contention). It's very hard to justify something here re-occurring every four years when you always have the NHL not treating it as re-occurring. Even if the NHL eventually agrees to 2018, they will always be non-committal and "re-evaluating" 2022 and beyond. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jayron32, the point is that the Olympics is also the most important tournament for running, skiing, swimming, figure skating, etc - in fact, most Olympic sports - yet we only include ice hockey. That's why having this amounts to us saying that ice hockey is more important than any other Olympic event. Neljack (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, my support for removing this from ITNR is twofold: As Neljack has stated, it is unfair to single out one sport when all the other Olympics events can be considered "the most important international [Insert sport here] event in the world". And secondly, there is always this cloud hanging over the tournament: the National Hockey League is unwilling to commit long-term to interrupt its season midway and send its best players to the Olympics, and is instead always in this "re-evaluating" mode. How many rosters would have been affected if the NHL did not let its players go to Sochi? I'd say Canada, Sweden and the U.S. teams would have been affected the most -- three of the top four teams that finished the tournament. Compare that to the 2013 IIHF World Championship rosters, where there are always NHL players available, from those NHL teams that have been eliminated from Stanley Cup contention. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On accusations of systemic bias, this entire system systematizes systemic bias, as we "cherry pick" certain things from a set, and make them "representatives" of that entire set. So the allegations of systemic bias are true, yes we do that. Here. And it's legal. This cherry picking is usually in the reasoning that "it is the most important/followed/popular event from that field", the same reasoning that's being used in the ice hockey example. For example, we'd see the UEFA Champions League instead of the AFC Champions League, the Premier League instead of the J.League, and Six Nations instead of the Asian Five Nations. We do this all the time here. In some instances though, we accommodate something from the UK (and IRELAND! Yes, Ireland! Hong Kong has more people, but sorry, not Anglophone enough due to the handover lol), so the systemic "isn't so bad". Hence, the Academy and the BAFTAs, the Tonys and the Laurence Olivier, heck even the "International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award". Yeah, we do add another one but it doesn't solve the systemic bias problem at all. –HTD 07:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.
    1. Ice hockey is a highly popular sport among a significant number of nations. Yes it doesn't cover the whole world, but few sports do. There are more ice hockey players and fans than many of the sports we do have an ITNR entry for. So we should have one for ice hockey too for balance. That should include both the top club and international competitions.
    2. The Winter Olympics are the only time that the NHL teams release all their players to represent their countries. As a result, this is the top level of international ice hockey competition. The IIHF World Championships are held every year, but only feature a fraction of the world's best players (those whose NHL teams have already been eliminated). Ergo we should treat the Olympics event as more significant than the World Championships.
    3. Ice hockey is the flagship event of most Winter Olympics. The level of coverage in international media is higher than any other Winter Olympic sport. The mere fact that this competition is held as part of a larger sporting event is irrelevant. If it was separated it would still be a huge event with major interest. The historical curiosity (related to a power struggle between the IIHF and NHL) which means that there isn't a separate ice hockey tournament with top-level participation should not outweigh the significance of the event.
    4. It is the most significant Winter Olympic event. So there's no problem if we reflect that status by posting it. If people are unhappy, we can make it a separate blurb.
  • For what it's worth, I'm from the UK, a country which is hardly noted as a powerhouse of ice hockey. Sorry for being late to this discussion. Modest Genius talk 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alpine skiing world cup

I am wondering how come we don't have it as ITNR? It seems to me that other than ice hockey, winter sports are heavily underrepresented on ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Nergaal raises a good point. It's been posted the last four years, often with unanimous support.[1] [2] [3] [4] I agree about the under-representation of winter sports, and skiing is one of the biggest of them. So I support adding the women's and men's overall winners to ITN/R (to be posted in a single blurb). Neljack (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the way we had it in the previous years. Naming both cup winners in a single blurb. --Tone 23:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it has been posted the last few years with little or no opposition. No reason not to add it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just so obvious. The traditional peak event of the snow sliding sports. Surely it's just an oversight that it wasn't already ITN/R. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Posted regularly with little opposition; it is the top level in the sport. No reason not to be ITNR I think. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Neljack. I'm not a huge fan of the event, and the articles are often poor before ITN comes along. But that doesn't discount the fact that this is a decently popular sport and ITN/C has consistently voted to post it, almost without opposition. Might as well add it to ITNR. Modest Genius talk 22:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Sec'y General

Proposal to make this ITNR. Though there may be some accusation of Eurocentric bias, it is the most notable international military supranational body. A new head should be ITNR, IMO. Possibly even the military head.Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - While there's clearly loads and loads of international orgs. and those with larger member numbers, NATO remains the most influential, even ahead of the United Nations. Military unions still rule the world, like it or not. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate (annually, once)

Hi! The Driehaus Architecture Prize is the most relevant international award in New Urbanism, New Classical and vernacular architecture, thus covering a field that is globally relevant and changed the discourse of architecture and urbanism considerably. It's awarded annually and comes with a prize money of $200'000, twice that of Pritzker. Pritzker is the only event that is ITNR so far in architecture, so I think a second/alternative award can and should be handled. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as this is currently a nomination at ITN/C, it'd be interesting to see what the comments say before deciding whether this has the gravitas to become an ITN/R item, particularly as we already have one architecture article there. Right now, neither the article itself nor sources relating to the award appear to indicate notability of the nature of Pritzker, so it's an oppose from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what the Pritzker means for the modernist monopoly, is the Driehaus for New Urbanist and Traditionalist architects. A global practice continuing throughout centuries and of far bigger artistic scope than everything modernist. -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Btw, there's 7(!) recurring award events listed underneath the film section, of course not all of them on par when it comes to relevance. So it'd be fair to have at least 2 very different ones (the most relevant in their respective fields) for architecture, imho. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And we only have 6 for Nobel Prizes (!) and 5 for global political summits and 4 for literature. My suggestion holds, if this gets any traction at ITN/C this year, then consider it a possibility, but right now, this is a poor cousin to Pritzker in a global sense. Don't forget the primary purpose of ITN is: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."... This item has barely made the mainstream news anywhere I've searched (e.g. this tells me something...). It's unlikely that anyone's searching for it. So it shouldn't be on ITN, let alone a shoo-in via ITN/R. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've seen news of a far minor scope up at ITN. But we'll see, perhaps Arts/Architecture gets a chance for once. :) Bontempi's Driehaus at ArchDaily. Cheers! Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
waeak support in the interest of diversification. Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA basketball championship (once a year)

Following the recent consensus to post NCAA basketball championship (March Madness) results, I propose to add the event to ITNR. According to Forbes, the NCAA men's final four (without counting the regular season games) is one of the world's top 10 sporting events, ranked just below Winter Olympics and above Major League Baseball. CBS and Turner are paying $10.8 billion for 14 years of NCAA basketball TV rights, or $771 million per year, compared to $4.38 billion NBC pays for 10 years (five events) of Olympics TV rights ($876 million per event). In addition, March Madness pools have become a major cultural phenomenon in the US, see USA Today article. This seems to be a major omission from ITNR. Disclaimer: I'm not American and rarely watch basketball games. -Zanhe (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we are speaking of just the men's tournament; the women's is not nearly as popular. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although the women's results can be easily combined with the men's, as we normally do in tennis events. -Zanhe (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Men's tournament Highest level competition in amateur basketball, big time impact on the sports world. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You got an easy ride on ITN/C with a speedy (probably too speedy) post and a time zone that naturally favoured US-centric argument. I could easily have torn apart your rationale if debate had been allowed to continue to the point where a genuine consensus emerged but have no interest in taking up that argument now. However, the guts of your argument was that this is one of the top sporting events in the country and the top basketball event. If that's the case the case for retaining the NBA is unclear. I'd say one or the other, I don't care which but I don't see a case for two. 46.208.40.139 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're mistaken on several accounts. I was not the nominator of the ITN/C entry, though I supported it. And NCAA final four is one of the World's top 10 sporting events (8th to be exact), not just the US, according to Forbes. -Zanhe (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I mixed you up with the original nominator. How is that several accounts? How is it eligible for ITNR when it has failed repeatedly in previous years? ITNR is for events that get through (or would get through) every time. Even this year consensus has been disputed on procedural grounds. 46.208.40.139 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is one of the most talked about events in the United States every year. Although it is not officially the "amateur level" of basketball (that would be the NBA Development League), it is way more popular than the official amateur level. Aside from the Super Bowl, not many other sporting events are so widely discussed by Americans, nor are they watched by so many people. This event is something culturally significant for Americans, which is shown by the amount of people who both watch and attend the games. It is also shown by how people do get really into the whole tournament, by making their own brackets and making their own predictions on which teams will win. Andise1 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been better to wait a few days before going to ITN/R and maybe have other discussion first, as was my plan... Since we are here, let me recap to central argument:
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. Instead of judging sports by their "level of play", we should judge them by the cultural impact. By cultural impact I mean things like "do people who don't follow the sport normally pay attention" and "is this something people talk about at the water cooler."
In the United States, only the Super Bowl is obviously more important culturally than the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Several US sports listed on ITN/R are obviously of less significance than the tournament. We should correct this by listing the tournament, and if necessary removing some of the other items (as I will propose soon).

Historically, the NCAA tournament was listed in 2010 (11-6 !vote) and 2011 (10-6). It was rejected in 2012 (11-12) and 2013 (14-14). (Prior to 2010, ITN was an informal process without a !voting stage.) This year it passed with a 14:1 !vote (so far) including support from several voices who had opposed in previous years. It is not plausible that it was posted merely because of timing - the margin may have eventually narrowed, but it was clearly going to have majority support. Based on this discussion and the discussion on this year's nomination for The Boat Race (which was also rejected previously), I feel there is an emerging consensus that cultural impact is an important and valid way to judge sports. Thus, I support adding the NCAA Men's Tournament to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to also mentioning the women's tournament, for the record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. ITN is already too balanced towards sporting events; adding more that are little known outside the country in which the event occurs seems unbalanced. I'd have voted against posting this year's if I'd been active during the brief discussion period. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several (American) items listed that I think should be removed. If they are removed in, would that help alleviate the concern? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that ITN is overweighted with sporting events. However, the solution is to remove other far less influential events (netball anyone?), instead of excluding an event that is ranked in the top ten of the world. -Zanhe (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing netball would be a perfect way of reinforcing our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would only be the case if netball was equivalent to this tournament and being excluded because it is from a certain region, not if it was excluded due to its level of interest. 331dot (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing netball (which I am not advocating) probably would not be a good example of systematic bias - it is played mostly in English speaking countries. Now if someone says remove table tennis or badminton or sumo, that would be a perfect example of systematic bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of our systemic boas is that most editors are male. Netball is primarily a sport played by females. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest each major sport (though we could argue forever over what constitutes that; to this non-sport-loving Brit, basketball is a peripheral sport I'd barely heard of before I started reading ITN/C; netball is far more familiar) should only have a single ITN/R per non-Olympics year. The only way I'd be neutral towards this addition would be if it replaced all other basketball coverage. I'd be strongly in favour of pruning ITN/R for other sports but I doubt I'd find consensus for such a radical change. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, basketball is most likely in the global top five. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any stats on that? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except for soccer, which is a clear #1, basketball should give rugby and cricket some competition at #2. Heck, FIBA (213) has more members than the International Cricket Council (106) or the International Rugby Board (100). Outside the test playing teams for the rugby and cricket, no one gives a shit. For example, the Russian Wikipedia article of the Russian rugby team, the 19th ranked rugby team in the world, has more 2/3 of its players in red links. Any of the three ICC world rankings doesn't even reach into the top 20; the 12 best Twenty20 team, Netherlands, doesn't even have an article on a single player in the Dutch article (I dunno if that's Walloon or Flemish)! Italy, the 21st strongest team in FIBA, has all of its players have articles in the Italian Wikipedia. –HTD 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very difficult/impossible to create a definite list. Other than football (soccer), almost all sports have huge appeal in some regions, and none in others. MostPopularSports.net has taken a reasonable crack at it using an objective measure (details). On their list claims basketball is #2 globally (it is popular in China, so that helps a lot). Subjectively, if I was forced to guess, I'd say cricket is the real #2 (#3 on their list). The rest of their top 10 is tennis, baseball, table tennis, golf, volleyball, badminton, and rugby. Looks like a reasonable list to me, although I'd guess it overestimates baseball a bit (they don't give scores so there may be little difference between 5 and 10). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Football > ... > basketball > cricket > (could be ice or field) hockey > rugby. Football is spiking every September. What's up with that? I think it includes other types of football that are also called "football". –HTD 22:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing by search term, so naturally "football" would capture all varieties ("hockey" also captures both varieties of hockey). You can also search by topic (enter the term and wait a few seconds for a popup list) which fixes that problem. Conclusion is the same though - football wins easily. here are some contenders, minus football to avoid obscuring the others. Basketball wins, but cricket is gaining - probably because internet use is increasing in Pakistan & India rather than actual popularity increase. If you look at just the last year cricket passes tennis for #2 and is close to basketball... I would caution against reading much into Google trends though as 1) other search engines are dominant in some parts of the world and 2) internet access is far from universal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, judging by the link you provided, rugby is abysmal. I even tried "rugby football (sport)" and got the same result. Cricket is doing well because of the sheer size of Pakistan and India; there's also strong interest in the West Indies (see "Regional interest"). Basketball's more spread out with Lithuania, USA, the Philippines and the former Yugoslavia leading the way, with basketball even being heavily searched in places such as Bahamas and British Virgin Islands. –HTD 00:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To determine how popular a sport is on the places where it is not traditionally strong, I got the teams eliminated in the group stages of the last world cups of cricket, rugby (for rugby, the last two places) and basketball. Then I got the search volume index for each country.
Country Cricket Rugby Basketball
Zimbabwe 7
Canada 3 2 47
Kenya 3
Zimbabwe 5
Bangladesh 43
Ireland 3
Netherlands 1
Japan 3
Georgia 4
Romania 1
USA 1
Russia 0
Namibia 11
Fiji 47
Germany 10
Jordan 16
Iran 9
Tunisia 7
Puerto Rico 24
Ivory Coast 1
Lebanon 21
Canada 47
Average 9.29 8.63 16.88

LOL Canada always eliminated. –HTD 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose At least for now. Too many negatives surrounding this right now. I might change my mind later. This was posted far too hastily, in a way that endorses the image of Americans bullying things through (whether that's fair or not). Too many Americans are just telling us "It IS important", without really being able to explain why. They are obviously excited about this event right now. Maybe the nomination should wait until the irrational excitement dies down. There are a million questions that non-Americans could ask. Why is it called an amateur tournament when most (if not all?) of the players are paid to be there? (Scholarships? LOL.) We have a massive systemic bias in Wikipedia. Adding this will just reinforce it. The amount of American money involved should not be part of "In The NEWS". Events in much poorer countries can be much more significant in those countries. Etc, etc, etc. Why don't you wait until the immediate excitement has died down, and carefully come up with a clean, rational argument, that puts this in a global perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HiLo - Yah, it would have been better to wait to nominate (as was my plan). Do you really feel my argument failed to explain why it is important though? If so, what would you like as evidence? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Based on any significant statistical measure, this is the third biggest sporting event in the U.S. (after the Super Bowl and the NCAA FBS Championship). This is a more important event in the basketball world than the NBA Finals, based on any statistical measure of interest.--Jayron32 01:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is FBS? (The problem is only made worse when the language is obscure. Oh, and while we're at it, what is NCAA? Yes, I know I could look them up, but if you want to make it easy for others to accept your points....) HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the TV viewership data from 2012 for sporting events in the U.S. (the most recent report I could find data for) The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the group that oversees College Athletics in the U.S. FBS is the Football Bowl Subdivision, the highest level of college football in the United States. According to that report I just linked, in 2012, the top championship games in the United States sports were (by viewership):
  1. The Super Bowl: 111,346,000 viewers
  2. The College Football Championship (known as the BCS Championship Game): 26,380,000 viewers
  3. The NCAA Division I Mens Basketball Championship game: 20,869,000 viewers
  4. The NBA Finals series: Average of 16,855,000 viewers
  5. The Daytona 500 (not a championship, per se, but the most watched auto race in the U.S.): 13,669,000 viewers
  6. The World Series (baseball) Average of 12,660,000 viewers
It is what it is. Those are the most popular sports, by the viewership of their most watched games, last year. Pro Football is first, followed by College Football, followed by College Basketball, followed by Pro Basketball. --Jayron32 02:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Forbes ranking, the NCAA basketball final four generates twice as much revenue per day of competition as NCAA FBS. -Zanhe (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe - you seem pretty obsessed with money being a key element, but given that this discussion is ostensibly about sport, it's a distracting issue. Obviously American sports will inevitably involve more money than those in less wealthy nations (even "amateur" American sports involve a lot of money in scholarships). That doesn't automatically make them more important. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree money is not a good measure of global significance, but presumably it could be used as an objective way to compare one American sport to another American sport. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly to pretend that money is not important, especially in sports. Viewership and revenue are the only objective measurements of a spectator sport's real influence. All other arguments are subjective. -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Viewership is important, but sometimes only as a proportion of potential audience. Using revenue as a measure says that events in wealthy countries are more important that events in poorer countries. That's pure systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as if we're adding ITNR items from poor (or even "middle class") countries. I'd prefer viewership too over "money", but I'd prefer the "percentages" of the people who watched, not the gross numbers. For example, the Super Bowl is absolutely massive in the US, but I heard the World Baseball Classic was bigger in Cuba than the Super Bowl is to America, and that the Cubans were royally pissed when the Euro-centric IOC ditched baseball... and eventually added rugby. –HTD 12:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to reluctantly Oppose this. I tend to agree that the nomination this year at ITN/C only got through because it was rushed through - there was some movement to pull it once editors from other parts of the world came online and I think there would have been more if the nomination had been left open longer; I'd have opposed that nomination but didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue for a pull. Given the considerable opposition in other years, it seems unlikely that it would have got up on a fair consideration. But my main reason for opposing it is that its interest seems to be almost entirely limited to the USA and we already have the NBA finals. I find it difficult to accept that this amateur competition is actually less significant there than the NBA; certainly outside of the USA the NBA finals are much more significant than the NCAA competition (I guess what I mean is, that growing up in Australia and now living in the UK, I'd heard of the NBA and could name a few teams, but had not even a vague idea that something like the NCAA existed). At any rate, I think having two USA basketball competitions in ITN/R is excessive, so the only way I'd move to supporting this is if the NBA championship is removed first. GoldenRing (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Every previous year there were less supports and more opposes within the time frame it was posted this year. Some who had opposed in previous years supported this year. It was posted in 2010+2011 after 2 days of discussion. Far eastern (e.g. Australia) time zones had been online for a while when it was posted. It is thus disingenuous to say it got through solely because of timing - the ratio of support:oppose would have likely narrowed but it would have had a clear majority regardless. The tournament is widely followed in Canada and the Philippines. It is modestly followed in Mexico and parts of Asia. That is a similar level of non-home country interest as The Boat Race. (Both are covered by RS around the globe.)
The NCAA tournament is more important within the United States, while the NBA is more important internationally. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has higher viewership than the majority of items on ITN/R. American universities are also attended by hundreds of thousands of international students from all over the world. -Zanhe (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree with the suggestion of including the women's tournament in the same blurb. Neljack (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but support more than oppose (men's); oppose (women's). The arguments for the popularity of the tournament are convincing, even though I had never even heard of it prior to this discussion. The tournament does not seem to have the same sense of tradition and culture as other similar events, though, such as the Boat Race. I must oppose adding the women's tournament, however. The arguments for popularity have been made for the popularity of the men's tournament. There is nothing to suggest that the women's tournament is remotely important, as insensitive as this might sound. It is not Wikipedia's duty to elevate the women's tournament to the same place as the men's. To put it another way, if the tournaments took place at different times of the year, I think we would be hard-pressed to conclude that the women's tournament alone is worthy of being posted. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - the women's tournament generates less than 5% of the interest of the men's even if the US. If listed, it would be based on gender equality concerns, not based on the arguments supplied for the men's tournament. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose ITNR is to avoid pointless debate over things that are obvious candidates. This isn't it - it managed to get in this year on a consensus that has legitimately been questioned. In previous years it has failed completely. If it's not a sure thing every year ITNR status isn't appropriate. Using the status to get things put up that otherwise wouldn't be is an abuse of the intentions of ITNR, to cut pointless debate for the most obvious and clear cut nominations. 3142 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Boat Race

I was going to wait a few days, but since the NCAA discussion has been opened now, it is only fair to start The Boat Race discussion too...

The argument for adding The Boat Race to ITN/R is (from my perspective) the same as the NCAA tournament. That is, the sport is of huge cultural importance. Each year millions of people who normally never follow rowing tune into The Boat Race in the United Kingdom (and to lesser degrees in Canada and Australia). It is widely talked about and its importance clearly goes beyond its "level of play".

This year was the first time The Boat Race was published, however it was done so unanimously (7-0 !vote), including support from multiple people who opposed in previous years. The 2012 edition was rejected 9-14 but the discussion was partially derailed based on anger NCAA basketball wasn't posted. It failed 2-5 in 2011. It wasn't nominated in 2010 or 2013. (Prior to 2010, ITN was an informal process with minimal discussion on items.) Based on people changing sides and the discussion on this year's NCAA tournament, I believe there is an emerging consensus that cultural impact is a valid and important way to judge sports stories. Therefore, I feel The Boat Race should be added to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might be worth noting that after this year's successful nomination, I've been working hard(ish) on getting a decent "cookie cutter" template of an article, based on the 2014 one, to give each race the coverage the global interest it generates deserves. The closest race in history (Oxford winning by a mere 12 inches over a four+ mile race is now covered in The Boat Race 2003). So I'll support this proposal, and hope, in the good faith and nice talk we've had (in the main) about both the Boat Race and the NCAA discussion, we can embrace cultural significance on both sides of the pond. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As I wrote above, ITN is already too balanced towards sporting events; adding more that are little known outside the country in which the event occurs seems unbalanced. I'd have voted against posting this year's if I'd been active during the brief discussion period. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you've already blown constructive, respectful discussion right out of the water there. Congratulations. The very first post mentioned interest outside the UK, yet you write "...little known outside the country in which the event occurs". Just saying the opposite of what another editor says, without further clarification, is bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion period was 23 hours and resulted in unanimous consensus. I am not sure who you think was not represented in the discussion, but it most certainly was not just one country/region commenting... If we remove a couple items of less significance to "make room" for this, would that alleviate your concern? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck 'brief'; I rarely edit over weekends. There's been negative comment on the main-page talk about this item in particular, college-level sport in general, as well as the current preponderance of sport. I find it hard to see the global significance of the Boat Race despite having attended one of the two universities -- even to Oxbridge graduates it's only a mild curiosity unless one happened to be a keen boatie, and elsewhere? I'd be surprised if it made a ripple in most countries. Everyone would surely agree the quality of the race is far inferior to, say, the Olympic rowing events. And if you're talking top n events in British sport, then it would I think be far down below Wimbledon, the FA cup/premier league, the Ashes, the Grand National, the London marathon, and probably many others in terms of wide, sustained interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are seriously under estimating the appeal of The Boat Race. From what I understand, The Boat Race is watched live by >10% of the UK population and seen by over 100 million people world wide. I seriously doubt the two Universities have 100 million "boatie" alumni. What you really mean is it is of no significance to you - but it is of significance to 100 million people.
As to the comment on the main page, it is the typical idiotic objection we get any time one subject area or country has a lot of stories at the same time by pure coincidence. Someone always takes the sample size of 6 items, sees 3 of the same type and assumes that is normal. It is not. We absolutely should not be basing any decisions on such complaints. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have next to zero interest in nearly all sports, so it's not just that I happen to have minimal personal interest in this one in particular. All the things I mentioned, and probably several rugby & snooker events too, have a far greater following in the British press than the Boat Race. More generally, though this isn't perhaps the place for this discussion, I'm worried with adding this & other events that are agreed not to represent the top level of the sport, that sport will simply overwhelm ITN. I feel this is already a significant problem; as I recall, there are often 2 or 3 sports events in the 6 total, and this is rarely the case for other broad categories. I suspect in part it's because it is quite easy to write an update for a sporting event that will satisfy ITN regulars, and rather harder to do so about, say, an ongoing war, an economic change, a global convention, a science item, or even an election in a non-Anglophone country. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You recall incorrectly. Different sports do tend to end at similar times of the year, so there are times when 2+ are listed, but it is far from the norm. Having 0 listed is more common than 2. The most posted category is natural disasters. If every election article was updated, then elections would be #1, but thankfully (IMO) many have no interest in being updated (I don't think it is more difficult to do, though). If you want to talk about something that is of interest to very few people outside it's home country, an election certainly qualifies.
Like I said, I do want to eliminate a few sports items form the list in interest of moving to a list that better reflects cultural importance (and is roughly the same size as current). I was actually going to make that proposal first, and after the current items rotated off the template, but then NCAA basketball was nominated, forcing my hand so to speak. Now I will let these two nominations runs their course and then, whatever the outcome of these, will restart the process with a discussion about what we want to feature in more general terms before returning to specific items.
We could do better, but overall we do a good job of being balanced on ITN. You are partially right though - the main obstacle toward getting (even more) diverse offerings is interest in writing the stories. Getting the !votes is usually not that hard if you explain why a story should be posted well. I would like to point out that I personally have gone out of my way to nominate and write "underrepresented" stories (by country or subject area). However, I am only one person. If you care about preventing an over abundance of sport stories, I suggest you help write stories. That is a far better option than opposing sport stories that millions of people care deeply about. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone & looked at ITN history back to 1 January, and you are right that 3 is unusual; at least in Northern hemisphere winter/spring it usually seems to run at 1, with occasional 0 & 2. The only other 3 so far this year would be counting the Winter Olympics sticky as an item. I'd love to see more topic diversity, but looking through the past just over three months we've actually been doing better than we were last year on that one. Adding new items to ITN/R in the well-represented areas doesn't tend to promote topic diversity, which is why I think it should be done extremely cautiously. I'd be much happier to accept new sport items if an equivalent number could be removed at the same time. And indeed, the best way to increase diversity is to write material, but I've had limited luck with that at ITN. Most of the times I've worked hard on an article it's not found consensus to post, which doesn't tend to increase enthusiasm. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you re:enthusiasm. Unfortunately there are some ITN regulars who never write anything yet oppose everything they can... Since this is getting off topic, I think I will leave my other thoughts on your talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support but I think we have enough sports items in ITN/R as it is. The thing that tips this into weak support (instead of my reluctant oppose for the NCAA basketball item) is that this has some cultural impact outside of its home country. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This is a hugely important aspect of the British sporting calendar, both for its impact in sport and its impact culturally. User:The Rambling Man wrote that it was watched by more than 10% of the British population, which is remarkable, especially considering that the vast majority of these people would have attended neither of the universities. The Boat Race 2003 says that 400 million watched the event on the television, which emphasises its importance outside the United Kingdom. An entirely unopposed nomination is remarkable in itself. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 400 million? What channel was this on? The source says "estimated global television audience", which could probably mean the number of people who could watch the race; not everyone cared to watch though (do UK viewers count double?). This is like "a billion people" watched a regular season NBA game between the Houston Rockets and the Milwaukee Bucks several years ago. –HTD 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 400 million is provided in a reference on The Boat Race 2003. I believe that User:The Rambling Man has recently made a substantial effort to improve this article. User:CaptRik wrote at WP:ITNC that the figure this year had been 130 million people. A quick image search will show you the tens of thousands of people who line the river to watch the race. In addition to being so incredibly popular both in the United Kingdom and abroad, it encapsulates huge amounts of tradition between two of the greatest universities in the world and arguably the two with the most esteemed histories and traditions of all. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the reference, but 400 million? Again, where was this on? 10% of the UK population is 6 million. It needs 394 million more. I could imagine Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to somehow care, but their combined population only reaches up to 67.7 million. If 100% of the people watched from those 4 countries, plus 10% in the UK, it won't reach "400 million". –HTD 22:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The estimate is probably based on either the number who had access to it live or the number who saw coverage of it (on the news, etc.), rather than the number who watched it live. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. –HTD 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true as claimed (and I see no reason to doubt it) that it is broadcast in 180 countries, that is probably a potential audience nearer to 4 billion than 400 million - that is, 4 billion people who could watch it if they chose to. Admittedly 4 billion is a guess, trying to take into account the populations of those 180 countries, the fraction with access to television etc, but it's at least the right order of magnitude. Given that, an actual audience of 400 million seems plausible, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
400 million is 10% if 4 billion. 10% of Brits with TV watched this. That means 10% of people in those 180 countries, with or without TV has to watch this live. That's rich. –HTD 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Boat Race is broadcast in over 180 countries, not just the few you've mentioned. It's a global phenomenon. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, where else? Korea? China? Slovakia? Uruguay? Do those random countries even know this event exists? –HTD 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get what you're driving at. A quarter of a million people show up to watch it live. The race is broadcast globally. Alumni and non-alumni from around the world watch it. It's global. "I could imagine Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to somehow care", no, it's much wider than that. Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan etc. Another link from 2005 describing its broadcast (at that time) in over 100 countries. And one from 2010, from the BBC, stating the race was shown in "China, Russia, Croatia, the USA and Italy" for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What channel was this on Sri Lanka? Some cable channel? The only way "400 million" could watch this if it's on "free TV" on all these countries, and 10% of the people, who may not have TV be able to watch. That should be like more than the reach it gets on its home country; I can buy that if it's Man Utd vs Liverpool. But the boat race? Nah. –HTD 14:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. I've got better things to do here than worry about you disputing everything presented. I don't really care what you think at all. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I give up too. I'm just using math here now. 10% of Brits watched the boat race. Clearly, interest elsewhere couldn't be more than 10% of its population watching this, but 10% of 4 billion is 400 million. I give up. It's like claiming a billion people watched the Super Bowl, when it was like 100+ million Americans and 10+ million others. –HTD 14:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can believe 100-400M people care enough to at least check the result/watch a news clip/read a news article. That is probably the more relevant # then the amount of people who watched it live anyways. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. But the argument was "the TV audience was 400 million" or even "4 billion(!!!)". –HTD 15:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was never an "argument", it was a quote from a referenced source. And it was never referenced as 4 billion, not sure where you got that from. In response, all of your arguments have been synthesised and anecdotal and hunches; most responses provided to you have been referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. GoldenRing used that "4 billion" figure. Everything else is just math. I'm never trusting these "global viewing figures" as all of these, from the boat race, Olympics, NBA, anything, is pure hyperbole. We could add up national figures though, which what I did. Nowhere approaches 400 million, heck even 100 million. If 10% of Americans watched the boat race, it can compete for the TV ratings of the World Series (#baseballbashing) . –HTD 16:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're just discussing the Boat Race here. So perhaps now you accept it's broadcast in somewhere between 100 and 180 countries, it's impossible to determine how many actual viewers there were, there's an argument to discuss about potential viewers, but since you're now aware that it's broadcast in China, you could up the "available viewers" by a billion. Time to stop arguing the toss, and just accept that this is a global event, whether you personally believe it to be or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"you accept it's broadcast in somewhere between 100 and 180 countries" ... "and just accept that this is a global event. Noted. –HTD 22:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC's broadcasting info - [9] if anyone is interested. CaptRik (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in excess of 7 million UK TV viewers, and tens of millions around the world" is certainly a lot more plausible than "4 billion" or even "400 million". –HTD 23:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really tempted to oppose per TRM's arguments against the inclusion of the Olympic hockey final, nearly all of which apply here. Instead, I will simply note that Oxford says the average viewership is around 100 million worldwide. The 400 million figure was evidently a one-year figure, and a questionable one at that. Resolute 23:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even a figure of 100 million is remarkable considering the two universities only have around 40 thousand current students combined. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While the exact figures can be debated, it is clear that this is a widely followed event not only in the UK but elsewhere, involving two universities with worldwide reputations. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items&oldid=604084912"