February 2, 2012 (2012-02-02) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Sports
53 Dead in Japan Snow Storm
Crnorizec (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- add ukraine and the ship rescue in turkeyLihaas (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 53 dead in a snow storm is just about enough for me, and the number is likely to grow Crnorizec (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 70+ in ukraine
- At any rate the article is tagged and tghe update is poorLihaas (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
February 1, 2012 (2012-02-01) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
- oppose Corenlius was far more notable in more than his area.Lihaas (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not a chance this goes near itn. no subscriptions, no date of listing. only a confirmed intention.Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least 40 people were killed at a football game in Egypt.[5] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - please improve - Port Said football match disaster - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as soon as the article is decent enough. Main headline on UK BBC website right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also notable that all soccer matches have been banned in the country. Cannot support with the article as a substub, however. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Unusual and freakish event with a high death toll; it's inherent. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:37, 01 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with update - The event is certainly noteworthy but the article is only one paragraph long. It needs to be beefed up before it can be presented on the main page. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The deadliest football riot in Egyptian history. ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose people have been dying for weeks, months, in Egypt over all sorts of causes be they political, religious, or sports disputes. It's not particularly different than SNAFU for that country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - if we posted that knighting story which has no relevance outside the UK we should definitly post this one too.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly "no relevance outside the UK" includes the start of the downfall of the Eurozone which directly affects hundreds of millions of people and indirectly affects billions... Good to see you're up with the news BabbaQ!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Had it been in any other country in Europe it would never had been posted, thats a fact!! anyway not here to argue about that.. but about the ITN candidate at hand.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have added a short additional section to the article regarding "ultras", whom it would seem are to blame for much of the violence and are also involved in political protests. Jusdafax 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ready to post. Give me a good blurb, please. --Tone 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not DYK... I'll modify that. Posting. --Tone 22:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly check for an updae instead of just the "support" as consensus is not vote counting. There is not a word on the incident itself, just background, match details and reactions (and casualties). PULL it asap!Lihaas (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest that this be included in ITN. He was important in his field, a groundbreaker (first African-American to own a nationally syndicated show), internationally recognized/honored, and his was a sudden and tragic death. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- obvious support came o nom muyself. more important than other deaths weve postedLihaas (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support I agree he was a important figure in the history of modern music. My main concern is that two other very significant people, Wisława Szymborska and Angelo Dundee also died today. Can all three death posts be posted at the same time? If not I think Szymborska and Dundee should be listed first (one a literature Novel Prize winner and the other one probably the most well-known and influential trainer in boxing history) Secret account 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- c ome one, he was far more infleuntial thyan the latter 2.Lihaas (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose for now This may be a justifiable nomination, but we must have some standards as to the quality of what is written on this page. This nomination is rubbish. It fails to follow almost any of the instructions at the top of the page. It seems it's going to be of interest to almost exclusively American readers (I AM guessing here, for obvious reasons), which can be OK, but only if some effort is made to explain to readers who the hell this is, and we have no such explanation. Now, Don Cornelius may be very important, but without some greater effort by those nominating him here, he will miss out. Let's PLEASE raise our standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
January 31, 2012 (2012-01-31) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
Politics and elections
[Posted] Fred Goodwin loses his knighthood
Nominator's comments: Very significant for somebody to have a knighthood rescinded. There has been huge political pressure for this to happen from all sides. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (as nominator) - This is a big story in the UK and brings an end to years of calls for him to lose it. The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all been involved and it's been the lead story on news bulletins all over the country. Noteworthy because of how rare it is and because it's due to the part he played in the downturn we're all living through. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Significant as this one was not withdrawn for criminal activity, which Lester Piggott's OBE was. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - local story, not interesting or significant for anyone outside the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I find this a fascinating story that is likely to be of interest to a wide readership. Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. By the way, I am an American citizen, since that seems to be an issue here. Personally, I don't think it should be. Cheers! Jusdafax 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There's no doubt that this is significant. It's comparable to one having a Congressional Medal of Honor revoked.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There have been only six revocations ever (if this article is in shape) since the dawn of the universe. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Time for British editors to make their case! This is very rare (see Chocolate Horlicks). It is highly, highly uncommon for people to have their titles revoked. It is highly rare for people to be AWARDED them (and some Americans have, of course, been awarded honouary titles). That Sir Fred has had his knighthood revoked is significant in many fields - business, politics especially - and is doubtlessly highly notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. We could easily lose the blockquote at the foot of the article, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support not just because some fat cat banker lost the one of the highest civil honours available, but it was absolutely part of the mismanagement of banks in the UK, lending a helping hand to the economic "crisis" Europe finds itself in. Of course, expect to see many arguments of limited interest outside the Eurozone but this is English language Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, albeit a mild one. This is essentially a domestic political gesture of no wider significance. Sure, it's a rare event but rare events happen all the time. There's no real allegation of personal misconduct, this is merely another manifestation of the currently popular "give bankers a bloody nose" sentiment. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Support very rare and important event. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 22:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Support Agree with the point that Crispmuncher makes about this being a domestic political gesture, but the significance of that gesture, the fact the Monarch has got directly involved, is what makes me support. Mtking (edits) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Oppose this is the third time since 1991 that somebody is stripped of knighthood. Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK, this is not that ITN worthy. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK - you might want to check that comment out, plenty of Australian's have them, and of interest here see The Australian. Mtking (edits) 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have to disagree with crispmuncher. This isn't simply a political gesture designed to appease the public. His knighthood was awarded for services to banking, yet he was personally responsible for bringing RBS, a bank that was once the biggest in the world, to a point of near collapse. He took huge risks and bought another bank with cash (ABN AMRO) that turned out to be a complete dud which lead to RBS needing taxpayer money to keep it going. The Honours Forfeiture Committee said that his holding a knighthood brought the honours system into disrepute. As to the argument that knighthoods aren't widely known outside the UK, everyone's heard of Sir Elton John and Dame Elizabeth Taylor, right? --109.145.117.119 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also have to disagree with crispmuncher. The banking story is huge, as noted above. Knighthoods are well known, from Sir Francis Drake, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sir Paul McCartney. This story should be posted without further delay; in my view, consensus has been reached and minority arguments against posting are not convincing. Jusdafax 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready (I would post, but I !voted) Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blurb - I'm not happy with the blurb. It's different to the blurb I proposed even though nobody raised any objection during the above discussion. First of all, it should be 'Queen Elizabeth II'. Queen Elizabeth is just not the correct way to write her name and creates confusion. Second, it should be 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', not 'the Royal Bank of Scotland'. Pedantic maybe, but hey, I'm a pedant. Lets just get it right. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You proposing a blurb doesn't necessarily mean it's the blurb that will end up being used. The fact that no one objected to the blurb is rather irrelevant as the discussion wasn't about the blurb but rather about the news item. In any case, your blurb did go up as you proposed, but was adjusted by a different admin, David Levy, who you should ask about it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, to be fair "Queen Elizabeth" is utterly wrong and needs fixing. We're about 400 years beyond Queen Elizabeth, the current monarch is never referred to as such but ITN is such a flame-fest I'm reluctant to fix it. Hopefully David Levy (or someone disinterested) can adjust this... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't somebody just fix it? It's a matter of fact, not opinion. Queen Elizabeth is wrong, Queen Elizabeth II is right. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit taken aback by the assertion that the current monarch is "never" referred to as "Queen Elizabeth", and I certainly don't see how this could "create confusion" in a context obviously referring to a living person, but I've added the "II".
Our article is titled "Royal Bank of Scotland" and refers to "the Royal Bank of Scotland" throughout the prose (unless beginning a sentence). —David Levy 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Queen Elizabeth, as I'm sure you're aware, was a 16th/17th century monarch and in no way similar to our current monarch who is never legitimately referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" (that's purely erroneous). So thanks for fixing that. As for RBOS, the company themselves call it "The Royal Bank of Scotland", regardless of our erroneous article title. But since we go with reliable sources, not first-party sources, I guess this'll have to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be confusing in the same way that 'President Barack' would be confusing. It's just not right and everybody who knows it's not right would be confused as to why an encyclopedia is making such a basic error. I agree with The Rambling Man that any legitimate source knows that Queen Elizabeth is not right and the assertation that she is NEVER referred to as such is accurate if we are only basing it on credible sources. As for 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', the company's own website uses this format and therefore our article is wrong. Perhaps it has been stylised that way to conform to Wiki-standards which is fine, but it doesn't make it correct. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take your word for it that referring to the current monarch as "Queen Elizabeth" is improper, but it's quite common among news media inside and outside the UK.
To be clear, I'm not defending the practice or arguing that we should follow suit; I'm explaining why I believed it to be acceptable. I apologize for my confusion and thank the two of you for setting me straight.
If "The" is an official part of the bank's name, our article should be renamed/edited accordingly. (This doesn't contradict Wikipedia's conventions.) —David Levy 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say it's "improper", just inaccurate. News media "inside" the UK don't say "Queen Elizabeth" ever, as far as I know, they just say "the Queen", so not sure where you get that idea from. As for naming the bank, it's probably pretty common that articles slated for main page inclusion aren't named correctly, this is just another example of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no need to apologise, David. I would be genuinely amazed if any reputable news media referred to her as Queen Elizabeth. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC News, London Evening Standard, The Australian, The Gazette/National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CBS News, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters
Of course, references to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana" (which I know to be incorrect) probably are more widespread. —David Levy 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is perfectly correct, as is a plain "Queen Elizabeth". Lack of precision does not make it wrong, especially when who is being referred to is clear from the context. Personally, I don't see why we are focussing so much on her anyway, she acted in name only, there was never any question of her not following the official request. We're generally not so pernickety about e.g. the Queen calling a general election, although constitutionally only she has that power. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I thought that "Queen Elizabeth" was correct (and merely lacked precision unneeded in this context), but I've been told that it isn't.
My understanding is that the styling "Princess Diana" is improper because Diana was neither born a princess nor created one by the Queen. ("Princess Charles" would have been correct, but it never entered popular use.) —David Levy 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just reiterating I posted the blurb suggested here...I would agree that "Queen Elizabeth" needs the "II" on the end, so good move fixing that. I'm also wondering whether linking "knighthood" might be advisable, but beyond that the blurb looks alright to me the way it is now. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
January 30, 2012 (2012-01-30) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters
Law and crime
Science and technology
Politics and elections
--Jayron32 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Major case in Canada regarding so-called "Honor killings". Been all over the news today. The article is OK, and I know the update is a bit short, but hoping that attention here at ITN/C could encourage a bigger update regarding the conviction and reactions to it. I'm a bit short on time at the minute, but hope to get on this as well in the near future. Given the coverage in the news, this seems to be a newsworthy event, so I think that if we can add a paragraph or so of text on the conviction, it would be ITN worthy. Besides, its been a bit slow, and an update once in a while is nice. --Jayron32 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just so you know thats something normal in the arab/islamic countries and arab/islamic families arround the world.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The case established that murder is illegal in Canada. That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me, regardless of what some extremists may believe. I'm leaning towards oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as it has no real significance. Honour killings have never been legal in this country and the whole hubub behind this case was the media putting the Islamic spin on it. Besides, by all accounts the decision will be appealed. A media-driven case with no major legal significance isn't good enough for ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
January 29, 2012 (2012-01-29) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Nominator's comments: European Championship in the Olympic sport, also related to the spots at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. --Avala (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support since it's Olympic sport with growing popularity everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward oppose. Although these are international level championships that lead to the Olympics, they are not at the highest international level (like the Olympics or 2011 FINA Men's Water Polo World League). SpencerT♦C 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. Hardly any text in the article. As far as I know, water polo is a minor sport, almost insignificant as a spectator sport, along the lines of rythmic gymnastics or, well, I was going to say team handball but it looks like that's another story. The fact that a sport is in the Olympics doesn't make its regional championship a major news event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Mwalcoff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Despite being a Olympic sport, it is almost a minority sport with no wide media coverage outside of the Olympics like handball. Donnie Park (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question is a notion that it is a "minor sport" an objective or a subjective view? Because it is an Olympic sport. So this can only be seen as POV pushing. What differentiates handball from waterpolo? Objectively nothing. Most of the people from Europe may see baseball as something relevant along the lines of rhythmic gymnastics yet we will include it in the ITN as the POV is not what we are here for.--Avala (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the page, the gold medal game was attended by 2300 people, a pretty strong and objective indication that the sport is minor. Even the most sparsely attended regular-season Major League Baseball game will have a paid attendance almost five times that. Fourteen countries broadcast games from the tournament and ten broadcast the final--or, less than half of the countries than are showing this year's Super Bowl. Whether Europeans "see" baseball or American football as something akin to rhythmic gymnastics or waterpolo, objective facts are that they are not. PeteF3 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's completely inappropriate to compare a sports game played indoors with one played outdoors. Attendance of 2,300 spectators for a swim stadium with capacity of 3,000 makes it more than 75%. Five times that makes it 12,000 which is barely 25% of the average capacity for a baseball stadium.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bring up any comparison to baseball, just expanded on it. If there are no swim stadiums with a capacity over 3,000, well...see the first point. Evidently the demand just isn't high enough to justify it. Hockey and basketball are played indoors and most top-level teams would go under at the first game with a 2300-3000 attendance. The comparison was also between a gold medal game and a regular-season baseball game--no stadium in the U.S. would fail to sell out a World Series game. PeteF3 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of mentioning 2300 attendance if that is the maximum of the venue? It's not comparable with football, or at least you then need to say, it's like 75000 people attending football final which all out of a sudden is no longer sounding so bad. And what do you think is the attendance of other sports with limited venues? How many people attend Formula 1 or ski jumping? However here is another number which I would like to hear a comment on - 2.749.000 people watched the game in Serbia alone, and that is not counting cable channels which also had it on, just the RTS station - [6]. That's about the third of a population, pretty much the same percentage as the Super Bowl in the US. How is that for irrelevant?--Avala (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Handball is sport that receives growing attention in the countries where it was not previously played. It was reported that coach of the Great Britain Olympic team will attend the final accompained with other members of the OC for the Olympic event. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There should be a prose summary of the final match in the article. SpencerT♦C 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, and further explanation: This is an Olympic sport (has been since 1972) and a truly international one. It's NOT the game known commonly as Handball in the USA, Ireland and Australia. (A look at the Handball disambiguation page will help interested readers.) The relevant Wikipedia article for this sport is Team handball. If you've never heard of it, here's your big chance to broaden your knowledge! HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Olympic sport.--Avala (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've updated the section about the final adding some prose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting Consensus seems clear, update is sufficient, and timer running out. SpencerT♦C 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does consensu\is "seem clear" with 2 supports when its not a minority topic and the article needs updating???!Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus was 100% clear because nobody had opposed the nomination at that time. Updating the article was needed, but has nothing to do with consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose pending some kind of proof that this is a "big deal." When I lived in Europe, it seemed team handball was a game played in front of sparse crowds with limited media coverage. Will reconsider if someone can demonstrate to me that this is a major event that a lot of readers care about. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if the attendance of 100% of seats in a 25000 arena is a sparse crowd what is then good attendance for you? Selling two tickets per seat? That is illegal and against safety regulations. There is your proof.--Avala (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. One what basis was consensus 'clear'? THe article has almost no prose except the final match. Has receieved minimal media coverage in English. The sport has very limited popularity outside a small portion of the world. We already have the World Championship for this sport; the European championship is of no interest to readers outside continental Europe. This is sports cruft.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "On what basis was consensus clear?" Ummm. No opposition at the time. "Has receieved minimal media coverage in English." Hmmm. Those evil foreigners who don't speak Godzone! Is that really one of our criteria? "limited popularity" The final filled what is described as "one of the largest indoor arenas in the world". What more can it do? "small portion of the world" I don't really want to reopen old wounds, but Joe Paterno? "We already have the World Championship...the European championship is of no interest to readers outside continental Europe" The same could probably be said about the world championship anyway, but so what? I could say Joe Paterno again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of English media coverage matters for sourcing. The current article lacks any media sources in English. It's entirely reliant on one German article and the official tournament website for references
- Not sure what bringing up JoPa does except open old wounds, but both recent college football nominations recently were not posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Replace Joe with American Football. One small area of the world. No world championship to even compare anything with. Look, these objections are exactly the kind of thing that discourages people nominating items here. We need MORE items. And you guys come up with not very serious objections. I can't figure it. Why do you do it, really? HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't care less about handball, but for those saying that this final hasn't been covered by English sources, see Reuters, ESPN, AFP, Al Jazeera (video). Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have nomination about this event. Men's final can be discussed in the same nomination. I suggest to close this one, just to provide more comprehension on the page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Propose to add in a "record breaking" final and also to mention the 100th anniversary of the event.
- man, 2/3 Serbian finals victories today ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox.jpg)