| blurb = '''[[Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange|Willem-Alexander]]''' becomes [[List of monarchs of the Netherlands|King of the Netherlands]].
| altblurb ='''[[Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange|Willem-Alexander]]''' becomes [[List of monarchs of the Netherlands|King of the Netherlands]], succeeding his abdicating mother, [[Beatrix of the Netherlands]].
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Police in Dhaka clash with factory workers protesting the disaster and advocating for capital punishment to be administered to the factory's owner. (BBC)
An Israeli air strike on Gaza City kills Hitham Maskhal, a well known Palestinian militant and injures another in the first such attack since the November ceasefire. Both suspected Palestinian militants were part of the militant group which fired rockets at the southern Israeli city of Eilat two weeks ago. (BBC)
Prosecutors discuss a plea deal (avoidance of the death penalty in exchange for a likely sentence of life in prison without parole) for the surviving Boston bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Police have taken DNA from Tamerlan Tsarnaev's wife and are exploring the brothers' connection to two deceased Russian extremists. (NBC)
Nominator's comments: No idea if this is going to get posted, but I figured it was worth a shot. Landmark event in sports worldwide, not just in the U.S. Major milestone for gay rights, and could possibly pave the way for other athletes worldwide to follow suit, as the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL are highly influential in not only sports, but society and culture around the world. Similar to past achievements such as that of Jackie Robinson and Billie Jean King in sport. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question (and I think this sort of thing is good and should be posted, by the way), you say "active" player in the "four major NA sports leagues", that's not really clear to me as a non-North American. And who else came out from those leagues, and when? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In other words, he is the only player who is actively participating in either the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL to openly come out as gay. Others have either kept it to themselves or close family/friends while playing, or have announced it long into retirement, for fear that it would have a negative effect on their professional careers (for example, teams avoiding signing them because they are gay, out of discrimination), or their livelihood (other players discriminating against them, public discrimination and ridicule). I don't believe that there is any kind of list to my knowledge of athletes who have come out as gay post-retirement because of these same reasons, but likely we will likely see some names in news articles of athletes who have either advocated for gay rights (such as Brendon Ayanbadejo) or who have came out following their retirement. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article on this subject on TSN, John Amaechi (NBA), Esera Tuaolo (NFL) and Billy Bean (MLB) have all come out post-retirement. Also, there have been a few retired MLS players who came out recently, as well as several WNBA players. --PlasmaTwa217:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of the "four major sports leagues" is that this is the first time an active player in a team sport has come out, at least in North America. There's been all sorts of consternation about how players would not like having to share a locker room with a gay teammate. A handful of players have come out after retirement (Billy Bean is the first that comes to mind, also John Amaechi) but not while active. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was more the "four major NA sports leagues", that doesn't actually seem to include Canada in the link, I'm just a little uncertain the current blurb phrasing is spot on (nor accessible to everyone across the globe...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Muboshgu, please watch out when replying. You erased my comment when you posted) Oppose because this really is an American-centric item. That gets thrown around a lot, but Collins is not the first athlete to come out as gay while competing. There have been several notable athletes worldwide who have come out while playing - Gareth Thomas specifically comes to mind - so I don't see why weight should be given specifically to a player because he is the first in North America. --PlasmaTwa217:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you're correct in that he is not the first to do so worldwide, the four major North American sports leagues arguably have a far more global reach and impact (in both sport and culture/society) than the Welsh Rugby Union for example. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. This article is a trainwreck, it would be better if we could find some other milestone than relate it to some arbitrary "top four leagues in North America" concept. In other words, if he was the first ever active NBA player to come out, then I'd definitely vote support.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is the first ever active NBA player to come out.
Since he is the first active player in one of North America's big four leagues to come out, then he is by definition the first active NBA player to do so. As to that trainwreck of an article, it must be noted that the concept of "big four" is itself arbitrary as it limits to the top level league of NA's four most popular sports. But from a pure American perspective, NASCAR and perhaps even MLS might be ahead of the NHL. Resolute18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concept of a big four in most other places. THat's why I'm hoping we can refine the blurb. I'd opt for keeping it specific to the NBA, at least that way some of the global audience here will understand it. The "big four" thing is entirely arbitrary and therefore has no place here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "big four" concept is key from a North American perspective, but I see your point. FWIW, the BBC has him posted on their main page, noting he was the first from "one of North America's major leagues", which might be sufficient. Resolute18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the page is a complete disaster for newcomers, I couldn't really determine why the "big four" were called as such, this isn't North American Wikipedia, it's English language Wikipedia so we have billions of readers from outside North America, many more than from inside North America, so let's be accurate and "to the point" here. Stick with NBA, avoid this arbitrary "big four" silliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Figuring out how to word the blurb notwithstanding, Support. While a NA-centric event, it is still on the front page of the BBC, CBC, American outlets, and is currently the the top trending story on Twitter worldwide. Resolute18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But my BBC version says "the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so." so doesn't include Canada at all. We need to fix the blurb before we give it major support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose It's even ridiculous to me that someone was so bold to nominate such thing for the main page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to document every scandalous and embarrassing story that originates anywhere in the world and gets importance because the readers feel it's entertaining. Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world? Specifically, what is the impact on the LGBT movement? What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it? I'm pretty sure that you cannot provide suitable answers on these questions. Even a simple LGBT parade would make more impact than this one. He's not the first one and not the last who does it in the world. More important people are LGBT and were first in their fields as such, but we didn't post each of them even if they were more important than Collins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the news is celebrating this as being a groundbreaking barrier that will allow other gay team sport athletes to come out. CNN called it "he biggest move of his career and it's off the court."[1]. Former US President Bill Clinton supported the announcement, sponsor Nike said "We are a company committed to diversity and inclusion."[2]—Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world?"
Good question. I dunno the answer. I was busy researching on how Man Utd's title made an impact to people in Somalia. Is this in the ITN criteria?
"What is the impact on the LGBT movement?"
Probably more than an gay pride parade?
"What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it?"
I think you are underestimating the amount of idol worship that sports generates, and the impact of having someone come out - even a journeyman at the end of his career - can have on others. Agency France Presse is calling this a "landmark moment", and here would be the response from the White House and a former US president. Resolute19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril, this is neither "scandalous" nor an "embarrassing story", at least not in the modern world. Perhaps you need to reassess what is considered the norm these days before reacting in such an embarrassing manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's a gay, so what? It's nothing else than his own choice. I really don't like it but it's not up to me to say what is good or bad for someone else. Why to discriminate people in this manner? Or you think that we should simply solidarise with those living in a society like the one in the United States?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable because so few (a disproportionate amount of) professional sportspeople actively come out. Particularly in butch sports in butch leagues. This is "in the news" remember, not "what Kiril or TRM or whoever else likes to see". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as groundbreaking with strong reactions "Jason Collins has forever changed the face of sports," by Human Rights Campaign, Clinton, Obama, and so forth all reacting to the news. Not your ordinary tabloid story, but like the media said, as groundbreaking as Jackie Robinson statement. Secretaccount19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the support here for the actual news, I'd just like to make sure we do this properly and post a decent blurb that English-speaking people can get the most of. The "big four" thing concerns me as I've followed a tiny bit of NFL and NBA and never heard it before, so it would be better, in my mind, to make this blurb tighter and thus more effective. Let's not try to overblow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be foolish to restrict the blurb to the NBA. There has been plenty of discussion in the North American sports press about the absence of declared gay players in the major men's professional team sports. That's restated in numerous press accounts on Collins' announcement: Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, Reuters. IMO, the terminology should be "major men's professional team sports in North America". --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is perfect as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to avoid this pseudo "big four" element. Suggest you revise the blurb Orlady, if you'd be so kind? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support groundbreaking announcement. Claims that it has zero impact on the world as a whole are both wrong (as demonstrated by the reaction) and irrelevant (most stories we post have very little impact outside of their immediate area). If it is more clear to just say NBA, that is fine by me, as long is it is understood we won't be posting the first NFL player, first MLBer, etc. when they occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Milestone in breaking down homophobia and definition of "masculinity" in male team sports. In addition to BBC, news.com.au in Australia calls it "landmark for US sports".[3]—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but in the spirit of Wikipedia I'll accept every decision that will be made by the majority here. It will be really funny to see a blurb saying that a person is a gay on the main page of an encyclopedia. Some people clearly have an agenda to make Wikipedia a prominent place to promote discrimination of any sort. Lol.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a major milestone of societal change, including the "major sports" language I suggested in my comment above (which I finally posted after about 8 edit conflicts!). --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support; my support has everything to do with me being an LGBT ally and an NBA fan, along with the (more relevant to this nomination) fact that this is a landmark, and currently a hot topic on the BBC (Oh yes, THANK you for opening comments on this one BBC). --85.210.102.96 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) Support, but I think that do the issues raised with how to characterize what he's first in, it'd be best to say ... in the "Big Four" North American sports leagues ... The linked article addresses non-Big-Four leagues as well, including several that have openly gay athletes. As to arguments about the notability of a coming-out... it's on the front page of the New York Times website right now; it's clearly a major news story, whether we like it or not. (If anyone would like me to give them my little rant about the speciousness of the "who cares who you sleep with?" notion, they can stop by my talk page... but that's a matter of my personal beliefs, independent from assessment that this is an objectively newsworthy event.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, for what it's worth, I think the "Big Four" modification would work better on the second blurb than the first.... I also generally prefer the second, as it's more succinct, and I don't like how the first one links to his article twice. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pink&, just wanted to reiterate that this "big four" thing isn't something most people outside the US will get. I'd like to hope we could find a suitable blurb that people outside North America could appreciate, especially with such prominent news? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well doesn't the wikilink solve that, TRM? I mean, saying "a major (North) American sports league" is vague and leaves people wondering how we're defining "major", and just mentioning the N.B.A. seems like an understatement... we should mention the broadest way in which it's first, not a more narrow one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler)20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest major American team sport i.e. [[Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada|major American team sport]]. "Major American team sport" is multiply sourced and not some WP:OR, and the linked article, though in need of work, is the best we have unless some sources about Collins go into more detail about "major".—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to use wikilinked articles on the mainpage but this one linking to the big four needs substantial work before it should be exposed to the general public. Why can't we just we tighten this up and state the actual facts rather than use these dubious and nebulous terms? (I reiterate, I like the way the BBC have placed it: "Collins has come out as gay, the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so"), it's prominent and accurate and not parochial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: ONgoing protests in Iraq that we haven't covered. Took a turn for the worse today. And its more in light of the sectarian strife in next door Syria )(and Bahrain and Yemen) --Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I see a middling-length article from Al Jazeera cited in the article itself. Do you have any other links to other news sources so we can judge how significant this is? I'm not voting one way or the other until I can see how much this story is in the news... --Jayron3212:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than 200 deaths and its updated to today not just 5 days ago. There is more going on in this sectarian quagmire (and its more linked to Syria as well with the claimed air strike)Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is big news, because the clashes are bigger and sectarian in nature. They originate from the Sunni opposition movement dissatisfaction with the government. There have been several events that makes this more significant include: closing the Iraqi-Jordanian boarders, warning against sectarian civil war from Iraqi PM, suspending 10 T.V. channels by the government and of course the 2013 Hawija clashes. Mohamed CJ(talk)13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the leadership feels the need to use censorship in an effort to quell the growing tensions speaks volumes about how bad things have become there.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this mean that the government orders the TV stations to cease only broadcasting operations in the country or to use other means to ban these channels, such as blocking the websites where they can be watched on-line or to block all the websites of the media that publish their news? I cannot measure a very big impact of this story if the people are able to circumvent the use of the media by visiting alternative channels to watch them or read their news. Frankly, the rate of Internet users in Iraq is on a very low level, but if someone is able to use it to watch the news, as many people actually do it nowadays, then it's not so significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I support some sort of blurb pertaining to the 2012–13 Iraqi protests, as they've gained quite a bit of traction in recent times. However, I'm not 100% sure if Iraq's decision to close certain media outlets is the ideal blurb in this case. Maybe a more general item, like this for example: "At least x people are killed as anti-government protests in Iraq continue to escalate." Probably not the best of blurbs, but you get the picture. Kurtis(talk)09:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a double bold, or at least more informative, blurb? Just saying a bunch of people have died doesn't really capture the nature of the situation:
Comment. I don't think the blurb for this should state a reason, since that appears to be contentious. The Iraqi government has presented it as a public safety measure, that much is true, but... Formerip (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least three people die and fourteen are injured when an apartment building in the French city of Reims collapses after a suspected gas explosion, leaving people trapped under debris. (AFP via News24)[permanent dead link]
In Valley Springs, California (a rural town of about 2,500 people) authorities are searching for an intruder who fatally stabbed an 8-year-old girl, Leila Fowler, at her home. After her 12-year-old brother discovered him, the intruder fled. (NBC News)
Nominator's comments: At least three important events happened/happening in Libya and we din't post them. Seem to have all happened in the space of a week, so I thought we could post this together. Though I admit the blurb needs work.
Where is the news? Infighting and warnings of instability have been continuing ever since the deposition of Gaddafi. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban announces the start of their spring offensive, signaling plans to step up attacks as the weather warms across Afghanistan, making both travel and fighting easier. (AP via News24)
A plane crashes in Southern Afghanistan killing four military personnel. (BBC)
After release of a previous suspect without charge, an adversary of his, Everett Dutschke of Mississippi, has been arrested for mailing letters containing ricin to the President of the United States, a senator, and a federal judge. (BBC)
International relations
North Korea announces that it will place AmericanPae Jun-Ho on trial for unspecified "crimes aimed to topple the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". (al Jazeera)
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.
Article:2013 ricin letters (talk·history·tag) Blurb: After releasing a framed suspect, police arrest a Mississippi man for mailing ricin to a state judge, a US senator, and President Barack Obama. (Post) News source(s):BBC, Reuters Credits:
Nominator's comments: rare attack on US President, interesting twist in apparent framing, looks like they have physical evidence this time μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated The "second arrest" section has five referenced sentences. The Rambling Man has cleaned up some formatting. The article well exceeds the three paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2001 Anthrax mailings letters did get into the congressmen's personal offices. Millions of dollars was spent upgrading postal facilities and apparently the can detect certain substances during sorting now. The attempt may be amateur, but it's the first in over a decade, and making world news. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so this had no chance of any success at all, unlike the bombing attempt on the British PM that IP98 noted below. So as such, this is "non-news". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think explosives raining down on the house of the Prime Minister (with an unexploded shell actually landing in his back garden!) is a little different from a letter which goes through several levels of security checks before reaching the President, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - person tries (in a way any normal person would know is completely futile) to spread terror through the sending of letters, and even though there was no chance in hell for them to actually reach the people involved (Captiol and WH mail addresses actually never enter DC proper before at least 2 scans if it's the same as a few years ago), and just because they've arrested someone and foiled the attempt it's important? I don't buy that for now at least. gwickwiretalkediting16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no chance that this could have actually done anything to anyone "newsworthy", and nothing actually happened to anyone "newsworthy". Not ITN-worthy at all. (However, I tip my hat to User:Medeis whom I have long berated for not getting involved in updating such nominations for nominating and working on this.) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have never failed to update my own nominations and do work on other's nominations which interest me and which I have some ability in, such as the Catalonian protests. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not offended by, and appreciated your statement. I just wanted to clarify that I do contribute more than my share. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think such threats, maybe much more serious ones, are also sent to other heads of the states, but never mentioned. Egeymi (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I see this is doomed, but remember, this wasn't a "threat". Deadly poison was sent to a major head of state. --IP98 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was "sent to him" in that it was addressed to him(and Sen. Wicker, but the focus here is on Obama), but standard procedures designed to prevent it from reaching The White House, let alone President Obama, worked and kept him from being in any danger whatsoever. It would be like posting on ITN attempts to scale the fence around the White House or even just trespassing on the property. Now, if someone crashes a plane onto the WH grounds or shoots at someone resembling the President, that's a different ball game. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the President had been in more direct danger then I would of supported inclusion for ITN. Thankfully he was not, as were the Italians today...--85.210.102.96 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2013 (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.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Election result may also influence the Icelandic EU membership negotiations.
The article is in a very good state, has been considerably expanded and updated. I think it is ready to be posted. Now, that we know that the Independence Party is slightly ahead of the Progressive Party, we should name it as the winner. --RJFF (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready - the result section consists only of a table. Prose is capable of capturing the information in a way a mere tabel cannot and thus is a requirement for an update to be sufficient. (Mentioning the results in the lead only is insufficient.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. The Independence Party did win a plurality of votes, but not a plurality of seats - since the Progressive Party won the same number of seats. It seems to me that seats is the more relevant metric here - that is what determines who forms the governments and who can pass laws. We wouldn't have put up a blurb saying that the Democrats won a plurality in the US House of Representatives election last year, even though they did win a plurality of votes. Similarly it would have been silly to say that the Labour Party won a plurality in the 1978 and 1981 New Zealand elections, when they did get the most votes but the National Party won a majority of seats and formed the government on both occasions. I would suggest changing the blurb to something like: "The Independence Party and the Progressive Party win the most seats in the Icelandic parliamentary election." Neljack (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Doesn't anyone actually read the results or even the infobox? Two parties emerged with the highest number of seats. The blurb is wrong. –HTD03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The central bank of Mexico announces that it is holding its benchmark interest rate at 4%, where it has been since a half-point cut announced in March, despite recent reports of inflating consumer prices. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: This rebel group had its roots in Sudan's long and bitter civil war. Since South Sudan's independence the government of Sudan had been accused of supporting it and letting it operate across the border. In return for an amnesty all 3,000 SSLA members have apparently agreed to surrender their arms and be integrated into the South Sudanese army. - Dumelow (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The BBC story says that they actually have started to turn them in, so this is a notable development in the conflict. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PKK had merely made an announcement, without actually doing anything yet; this group has actually taken action on their pledge, according to the BBC: "Some 3,000 fighters from one of South Sudan's biggest rebels groups, the SSLA, have handed in their weapons". 331dot (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is one of the main news in the region which receives decent media coverage worldwide. Nikolić is the first President of Serbia to send apology for Srebrenica massacre and this could lead to improvement of the relations between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and make an impact on stabilising the relations among the other countries in the Balkans as well. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, whether or not covered by media outlets, since it is significant historically, therefore, just for encyclopedic news.Egeymi (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - What exactly is the weight behind an apology? If no reparations or tangible attempts at reconciliation are made, it can't be that much.--WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The apology is the news for now. It's impossible at this stage to measure or predict what will be the relations among the countries in the future and we have never been working on it in the past. The massacre by itself is considered the largest one since the World War II and any news of apology relating to it is significant in principle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I too would like to see something more tangible than an apology; also the President declined to call it a genocide which might reduce the impact of the apology. It is still a significant admission, which is why I won't outright oppose this, however. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant historically. It doesn't really matter if there is any tangible outcome. Our focus is as an encyclopaedia, ITN items are merely hook items into our content. This is a good story for that. --RA (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposealthough the act has been accepted as a genocide by his predecessor Boris Tadić.. Political ass-covering, not historic. Last guy acknowledged genocide and handed over perpetrators to the Hague. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you cannot simply compare one apology with another, especially when the one is related to an event in which more than 8,000 people were massively killed and is thus considered the worst such case after the World War II.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the point I was making (and I think that HiLo48 was too) was that it is possible for apologies to be made on behalf of others. This is an example of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support - this is the man that generations of country singers have measured themselves against, "legend" is an understatement. --Khajidha (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we usually (?) wait until after the event has taken place. Will it be in the news again then or is this the main item? --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is ITN worthy if it actually happens, but I don't think it's done yet. Turkey wants them to walk away without weapons and threatens to take action if they do, on the other hand they want to take their weapons with them. This might just break all the talks. Source: BBC Radio. Mohamed CJ(talk)21:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until they actually do, as they could still change their mind, but this is notable enough for ITN once they do. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a re-read of WP:ITN would be helpful for some editors: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective..." i.e. there is no "five-sentence three-source" requirement. So stop pretending there is. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government wins an early round in its litigation against The Bank of New York Mellon over the latter's allegedly fraudulent practices in the trading of currencies. (Reuters)
Support when updated. Major damage to an important building on a world heritage site. Editors beaware: there is a mosque of the same name in Damascus, regarded as one of the most holiest places in Islam and one of the most important buildings in all of Middle East. This mosque in Damascus has not been damaged. --hydrox (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who actually call that the Great Mosque of Damascus? Interesting. Either way, I'd be surprised if someone got the two mixed up. -- tariqabjotu02:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Some people, like the author of the BBC article, refer to the mosque in Aleppo as the Umayyad Mosque (of Aleppo). Yeah, that's confusing, and also a bit strange. -- tariqabjotu14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, which article are we nominating? The news is clearly significant and supported (per above) but the Great Mosque article has no update, what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks. Well let's get this posted as soon as possible, marking as ready to go (despite the myths of "sentence/citation" requirements, this is all we have, not reason not to post it)...The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment: thank you so much, LukeSurl, for your help here. The minaret is e.g. pictured here: [8], [9]. There was only one large minaret at the Great Mosque of Aleppo, so all pictures of the minaret seen here [10] is it. (Yes, I saw it before it was destroyed; in 2001). We have, of course, no image post-destruction. This is the worst destruction of a cultural heritage so far in the Syrian war, IMO, and, IMO, on level with the Bamian statues destruction (Afghanistan) and the Mostar bridge (Bosnia.). Sad greetings, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support But neither of the two articles targeted by the nominator has both a five-sentence and a three-source update. (Although, frankly, only one article should need to meet a full-update requirement.) μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to support this, but there is a POV statement that needs a cleanup and I'm not sure how to do it. Contrary to claims by the state media of Jabhat al-Nusra's involvement, activists asserted that it was rebels from the Tawhid Brigades who were fighting government forces around the mosque. "Contrary to claims" has to go, but I don't know, does Jabhat al-Nusra == activist? What? It's also unsourced... --IP98 (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know we dual posted the installation of Chinese dictator after the sham parliamentary "election", but when did we dual post Canada, Australia and the UK? --IP98 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we posted the UK twice. First the election, then either Brown resigning and/or Cameron being appointed. All in a span of a week; this one's different though as this took much longer (not as long as the Dutch though). –HTD16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only made my comment to point out that the head of state changing is an ITNR item and not the head of government, not to express concerns about double posting. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember how previous discussions on this matter have gone, but I highly doubt when the relavent section of ITNR was spelled out the intention was to exclude the commonly recognized leader of Italy. If the Italian PM isn't ITNR it certainly should be. I think the problem is we can't come up with a straightforward wording regarding PMs but really I think common sense should apply.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It is special in this case, because the appointment of the PM did not follow the parliamentary election directly. Actually, the PM was not chosen by the parliament, but nominated by the president. Therefore, it is independent from the election, and should be posted separately. I think the global media attention is obvious. --RJFF (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The deal hasn't happened yet. He's been invited to form a coalition, and the other parties have been making the right noises. But nothing has been finalised, and it could still fall through (this being Italian politics, it's quite a real possibility). All the news reports I've seen are careful to say he isn't PM yet e.g. The Guardian says 'nominated' and 'appeared to be on the verge'. Modest Geniustalk17:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The negotiations might still collapse, as MG already pointed out above, and as they have collapsed already multiple times. BBC too is just hopeful he might become the next PM, but I would hold my breath up until official inauguration. --hydrox (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cabinet has now been appointed. Because there was such unusually long delay between the election and appointing the cabinet, and because Italy is one of the EU's "core" countries, this should be posted. --hydrox (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: More ethnic violence in the world and in this powder keg. Seems to have a high-enough toll for a day's violence in a region that doesn't have it with this frequency (same as 3 in Boston). Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs update. ethnic clashes occurred between social workers and police between social workers and police? wtf? --IP98 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now just on the length of the article. It needs expansion to be worthwhile to put on the main page. Once it reaches a reasonable length, this is clearly a significant story that many news outlets are following and as such, demonstrates the significance required for ITN. --Jayron3213:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks like to meet the five-sentence minimum as a decisive criterion that you and your fellow colleagues have introduced. Moreover, all the information available are already in the article and it seems impossible at this stage to improve the article when nothing else has been released.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a decisive criterion that you and your fellow colleagues have introduced" Excuse me, I thought this criterion has been at the ITN for the longest timesince 2008? –HTD14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the article should be updated, but why a five-sentence metric? I didn't know about it until recently. Isn't it arbitrary? What if there is much more said in less than a five-sentence long prose?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you, and probably the hardliners who are insisting on the full 5 sentences, still don't know about this "guideline". Read it again. –HTD14:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't set it as a minimum criterion. There may be a five-sentence update that duplicates the information, while some two-sentence updates may be longer and contain much more information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I guess it means that if the update and the blurb tell exactly the same thing (or, the update doesn't expand what the hook says), it's not enough; if the update tells us something more than the blurb tells us, it should be OK. Whatever happens, we'd still some sort of update to the article that expands upon the blurb. –HTD14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32, what's actually relevant here is the current ITN guidelines: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs." Does this article not meet that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always learned that a complete, well-formed paragraph should be ~5 sentences. That would make the article about 2 paragraphs, one of which is the lead, so there's really only 7 sentences of non-lead material. RyanVesey15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where all these numbers come from (our own article says a paragraph is one or more sentence!). And why isn't the lead counted? The instructions don't rule out lead prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. It makes no sense to count it twice. That being said, the lead isn't currently doing that. RyanVesey16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the "instructions" should be updated to reflect that lead paras don't count. In most cases, if an article has only three paras, it doesn't even have a lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we're going to throw numbers into the ring each and every time someone makes an effort here, we should define the numbers, so if you're saying a "well-formed paragraph" must have approximately five sentences, I suggest that is reflected in the instructions, otherwise it's unfair to other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Similar disasters with high number of deaths and injures are pretty rare and this one really shadows the news in the world as one of the most tragic disasters of its sort in recent times.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but apart of these two I don't remember any other similar disaster that happened. That's why I refer to it as "one of the most tragic disasters" and not absolutely "the most tragic" even if the latter can be assumed as true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[11] attempts to list them. Not sure how complete it is, but suggests there were no "major" collapes in 2011 and only one in 2012, yet we've had four already this year with at least 25 deaths. Hard to know what the minimum severity benchmark would be for ITN given such a varied statistic... — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support After full update. Information on relief efforts exists and that should easily get the article up to snuff. On another note, where do we have our death figures from? Everything I'm seeing, like this says at least 87 and 600, not 700, injured. RyanVesey15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I give up. I've updated the article as best I can, if it's not up to "snuff" for you given the limited information (it's now night-time there) then I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm using the BBC's figures. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - kudos to The Rambling Man for getting together a reasonable short article with limited information. I think it's a major enough incident. — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An Israeli military intelligence analyst states that Syria has used chemical weapons repeatedly over the past month. He also criticizes the international community for not responding to the use of the weapons. (The New York Times)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Never done this before, so will probably be shot down, but the subject appears sufficiently important even though the article isn't perfect. The BBC is calling her an "Indian singing legend" and she was a recipient of the Padma Bhushan. --Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems like a minority topic that's not going to draw much comment. But it certainly meets the update and importance criteria. I am going to mark it ready on the assumption that Spencer and Espresso's comments are implicit supports. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was one tagged sentence which I have referenced and there are eight references now covering every point in the update. The article tag complains there are disambig links that should be fixed, but I don't have a tool for that and it doesn't disqualify the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a "tool", you just need to click the "check" option in the "article tag". There are 16 dabs that should be resolved before this goes to main page. No point in quality control (or a "five-sentence/three-ref" mythical rule) if most of the wikilinks point at the wrong page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hoped "on the assumption", "implicit" and using a ? in the [Ready (?)] tag made it clear I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth. μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose based on the fact that the quality of wikilinks is demonstrably weak, per the comments above. 16 dabs need to be fixed before this hits main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:ADE 651 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Multimillion pound fraudster convicted for sales of thousands of fake bomb detectors to Iraq (Post) Alternative blurb: British businessman James McCormick is convicted of fraud for selling fake bomb detectors to military and police forces in several countries News source(s):independentbbc Credits:
Nominator's comments: I can't believe this didn't permit many killings, and I gather some people still think it works - so it feels like it might be sensible to post it. EdwardLane (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's certainly big news in the UK where this idiot is being convicted, and I agree (along with the experts) that dozens, if not hundreds of people have been killed as a result of this fraud, but sadly that's speculative and I don't think this will make it globally. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, there is this old 2009 article in theNewYork Times if you're looking for global, though if it had been nominated then as 'fraudster sells 50 million pounds worth of devices that are only as effective as a dowsing rod to governments for bomb detection' the result would have been wait for conviction. EdwardLane (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per TRM. Also, whilst a noteworthy event, this is just news rather than adding than encyclopedic value to our readers. Pedro : Chat 19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'this just news'? so don't list it under articles 'in the news'? encyclopedic value is 'what s this thing the ade 651 and how does it supposedly work' you could replace the particular article with dowsing rod and that might also be interesting to some people. I'm not sure that makes a good quality oppose. EdwardLane (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm unclear. Wikinews is a good place for news (obviously!). Adding this to in the news is an opportuniuty to show good enyclopedia content which happens to be relevant to current news. ITN should, IMHO, be about showcasing quality content not just adding every topic that's "in the news". Pedro : Chat 22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
showcasing quality content - fair enough, the article looks to be in decent shape, no tags on it that I can see, a decent amount of recent expansion about the conviction. What am I missing? EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well fair enough :) Not meaning to sound grumpy, but just trying to figure out where the line to 'up to standard' falls - would it only be good enough if there were more confirmed deaths because of failed detection? I concede that perhaps this should have been nominated in feb 2011 when the iraqi general responsible for their purchase order was convicted and imprisoned, rather than the chap responsible for selling it? EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to really delineate exactly what is "up to standards", Edward — sometimes I even call it wrong. Just recently I proposed a blurb that got unanimously declined due to an overall lack of information and coverage. In this particular case, McCormick's actions arguably led to hundreds of deaths and he should face justice for fraud, but he is not a particularly high profile figure. In other words, not many people know his name. That's the primary reason why I don't feel this story should be featured on the main page. Kurtis(talk)03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi 331dot, are you complaining about not being in the international news (it affected lots of nation's security - admittedly not the USA/UK but might that be a developed world bias)? not encyclopedic (in what way is that exactly)? not quite significant enough (possible but a bunch of deaths is usually enough to warrant a posting)? or not quite good enough quality article (it seems pretty reasonable to me - as a non contributer to that article)? EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "complaining" about anything; but I do agree with the reasons that have been mentioned. This might be a better item for Did You Know. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean "complaining" in a perjorative sense, I meant which of the "complaints" (reasons above that were given as a reason to be opposed to the nomination) was/were the one(s) that you were espousing as your own. And yes if this article was smaller then a sufficient expansion might be possible to make it a DYK nomination, though I don't think there is any chance of expanding it 5 times over just on the basis of the conviction, so I think that's not possible. EdwardLane (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Nom - forgot to do that bit, the conviction of the criminal responsible is usually the time for the article to go up I think. Might be that you want to wait for the company to get convicted of corporate manslaughter but that probably won't make any headlines EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whilst this might not be the most Earth-shattering news, it's interesting enough and the article is good. The threshold for inclusion can be lower when the encyclopaedic content is of a high standard. Modest Geniustalk13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought that getting support would have been so tricky, I was expecting someone to have a better blurb suggestion straight from the get go. I couldn't think of how to phrase it myselfEdwardLane (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We recently didn't post the same thing happening in New Zealand, although there was enough support. Notable for the strength of public feeling on the issue in France and the size of pro and anti demonstrations. Article should probably be page-moved. Formerip (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is now endorsed and violent protests and celebration followed it. So it should be posted with a different blurb. Egeymi (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that it should go up when signed as the signing doesn't seem like a formality from my reading of the BBC article. RyanVesey17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding the issue of signing. Technically, the law can and probably will be challenged as unconstitutional, but it is widely recognised that there is no chance of a successful challenge. The chair of the Constitutional Council, which decides these things, has already publicly ruled it out. The likely grounds for a challenge are in this article, but they're ridiculously shaky, as the last sentence points out. Formerip (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These stories have ceased to present any meaningful threshold. It is a minor, and no longer novel, change in internal legislation that is gradually rolling out across the world. There is no merit in spotlighting every step in the journey. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Why should we post every law that gets passed somewhere? Just because something is covered by the controversy-gawking media of the world doesn't mean that it's significant enough for an ITN. We posted the first few nations to legalize it as "spearheading" for lack of a better word, but I have yet to hear a good argument for why this is so In the News that we have to put it on our front page and knock something else off. gwickwiretalkediting22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just because it is a very big deal for the country where it is happening and of a high level of interest to the international media. I don't know what there is beyond that, but the idea of only posting things that are unique and new in every respect is a poor one, and one that we don't normally practice. How is there any consistency in posting the pretty routine fact of Man Utd winning the Premiership title yet again while rejecting a major event in the political history of a major country on the grounds that its not very original of them? Formerip (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's a major sporting event. This is the umpteenth time that a country has legalized same-sex marriage, and it's not news anymore. I honestly don't care about it, as I assume others are just like "oh, they got with the program". What would be news is if Saudi Arabia or another country similar, opposed to gays/women/etc. did something of this sort. It's not news anymore. Give me a reason this is more special than the other 10+ countries that did it (which I would've opposed after the first 2/3). gwickwiretalkediting23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shouldn't we wait until the voting concludes? It may pass; it may fail; shouldn't we wait to find out? This news is premature since there's nothing really to report yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the law need to be signed in order to go into effect? Sorry, I don't know how French law works, so I will say this. If the legalization of gay marriage has gone into effect, it should be mentioned. But if there are additional steps that have not yet been completed, it should not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
Support once the law is signed or otherwise formally adopted. This isn't the "umpteenth time" a nation has done this; it's only the 14th if I'm not mistaken(not even 10 percent of sovereign states) so pro-gay marriage is still a minority position, especially where homosexuality is a death penalty offense in some places. We're also not dealing with relatively small New Zealand, but a nation of 65 million people, and still a largely Catholic nation. There has also been violent riots due to the passing of this law. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's post when "some places" where "homosexuality is a death penalty offense" legalize it, because then it's important. Umpteenth by definition is something 10-20 that is unremembered by me :) Also, riots are news then. But the law isn't. I highly doubt our readers care about the 14th country to do something in the world, it's far from a first in any method of looking at it. gwickwiretalkediting03:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would submit that it is important when a nation of 65 million which has some level of influence in the world does something that is a minority position in the world, even if they weren't the first to do it. New Zealand might be too small to be noteworthy, but France isn't. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I would submit that it's not important every time a large country has a minority opinion. The USA uses the customary system for measurements, and that's not an ITN sticky for being a minority opinion (although we'd probably post it if they changed their mind). But what this is is just a notch on the stick, gay rights isn't really a minority opinion anymore on the global scale, it's almost 50/50, so we don't need to post when every country gives in if you want to put it that way. gwickwiretalkediting03:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US using imperial measurements is not in the news currently that I am aware of, as we have used them for quite some time. We're also not talking about a sticky. This is "in the news", not "things the US does that the rest of the world doesn't", and this law is currently in the news globally. It would be quite different if we were talking about simply posting that gay marriage is legal in, say, Canada, where it has been for a few years. That's not in the news. Gay marriage is a minority opinion globally in terms of nations where it is legal. Even if the people are 50/50, that means nothing until it results in laws being passed, which is difficult in many countries. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much more in favor of getting a bigger country into such a blurb than something like New Zealand (no offense; I love my Kiwi friends, haha). I simply did not want to see this turn into a blurb frenzy, as I seem to have rightfully pointed out in the last nom. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)06:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose 1. New Zealand was a precedent as the first in the region and this is no big achievement cause its neither first nor a landmark. 2. there was clear consensus in New Zealand and it was still not posted.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The vast majority of votes came from the ruling party, so the bill is largely biased. The votes have not been distributed more evenly among the National Assembly parties. Brandmeistertalk21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where else are the votes supposed to come from? The majority party in any legislative body gets to decide what happens there. This isn't any different. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong, 331Dot. You might want to look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act which got overwhelming support among the minority Republicans and would not have passed or even got 40% of the vote without it. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and as none of the opposes provides a good argument against. This is global news, with major implication on civil rights in a country with tens of millions of inhabitants, concluding an intense and prolonged public debate. --ELEKHHT21:07, 25 April 2013 (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.
The case is still rapidly updating and the investigation is in the preliminary stages, especially now that the suspect is alive and talking. This is obviously a candidate for a sticky. Secretaccount15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel as an ITN story it's now finished. The last item of real significance for ITN was the manhunt last Friday. A lot of the stories I read on the BBC are starting to discuss the finer points of law rather than give anything fundamentally new and ground-breaking. This is not a series of conflict-related stories, it's a single event and it's mostly over now. I'd happily support a new ITN when a guilty/non-guilty verdict is delivered by a court of law. CaptRik (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Manhunt completed very quickly. Details now will trickle out over weeks and months. The TV keeps talking because that's its' job, but there is nothing to say. --IP98 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stickies are for events with major ongoing impact, not routine updates on a resultant investigation or legal proceedings. —David Levy20:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Barring anything else, the next time I suspect the event would be ITN-worthy is on arraignment of the surviving suspect in trial proceedings. Certainly not a sticky for that. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - this item has run its course already and is no longer going on. It would only be a sticky if there were more bombings currently happening. Simply south......eating shoes for just 7 years20:41, 23 April 2013 (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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak oppose. It seems like he is mainly famous for being the opening act at Woodstock. Which does mean he made a bit of musical history in his own way. But will we also be posting the death of the guy who made the announcement about brown acid? Or Jimi Hendrix's guitar technician? Formerip (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might could support this if, as with the Divinyl's singer, there were a full five-sentence three source minimum update showing comment on their importance at their passing. Something is better than nothing. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Made up "rules" again Meds, made up "rules". Do you really believe that a "five sentence, three source" charade is actually correct? What if someone posted a "four sentence, four source" update? Or a "six sentence, two source" update? What a crock! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis didn't even oppose - he posted a way for the nominator to garner a support vote. Update quality is part of the ITN criteria no matter how badly some people want it not to be. Item can (should) be judged both on importance and update quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Havens was already a legendary figure - perhaps not at a Bob Dylan level, but still legendary - who got the ball rolling by playing 3 hours at Woodstock, the concert that was arguably the high-water mark of the counter-culture 60's. I call that notable enough for ITN. The article is adequate, and I submit this is a good candidate for RD. Jusdafax04:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed the "update needed" bit, as the information on his death and impact has been significantly expanded over the past day. There have been many editors in this area, but I've also added the names of the three most significant updaters. --Jayron3213:13, 24 April 2013 (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.
Nominator's comments: RCMP arrest two men in plot to derail a train. Plot is notable for two reasons 1) Canada is not often a direct target of terror plots like this and 2) Plot is linked to an Al-Qaeda group in Iran, a country not known for harboring Al-Qaeda, which could represent a new development. Being covered by many news sources, besides the few noted above, this was the top-of-the-hour story on the radio tonight on the BBC World Service. --Jayron3203:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing actually happened. CSIS and the RCMP have been planning the arrest for several months now, and basically acted on it solely because of what happened in Boston. They had everything under control the entire time, and while that is admirable, it isn't really notable. Note: I am Canadian. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)05:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the suspects began to act "strangely" and the RCMP was tipped off. They were arrested accordingly. The media is speculating a political motive to Boston, perhaps to lead the public into believing that the government is actually doing something about terrorism, but yeah, it's just speculation. [23] Everything else I said is perfectly ground in fact, [24] and I encourage you to look at sources pertaining to the country in question instead of solely American sources. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)05:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not that notable, and I'm even more cynical about the timing. Some politicians are trying to rush some tougher anti-terror legislation through parliament. How convenient that this arrest happens just now... HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 'Event doesn't happen' isn't significant in encyclopaedia terms. I'm sure there are dozens of these sorts of events per year, they just mostly don't make it to the newspapers. Modest Geniustalk11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we have no idea how many of these so-called terrorist attacks are foiled well before they actually happen. Just so happens the Canadians wanted to brag about something for a change. This sort of thing has been going on for decades. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? I think the TV is only talking about this because of what happened in Boston, but on what grounds do you make the statement the Canadians wanted to brag about something for a change. --IP98 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2013 (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.
11 people are kidnapped in Afghanistan after the helicopter they were in was forced to land. The Taliban takes responsibility for the abductions. (Los Angeles Times)
The NigerianRed Cross claims that 185 people have been killed in Borno State in the north of country over the past few days as a result of fighting between militants and government state forces. The local military claim the numbers are inflated. (Voice of America)
The European Union lifts all sanctions and trade embargoes on Myanmar excluding arms trade and other trade of equipment that could be used for internal repression, citing the improvement of political freedoms. (AP via Fox News)
Law and crime
Clothing retailer Ralph Lauren agrees to pay $1.6 million for claims of bribery to public officials in Argentina from 2005 to 2009. (Bloomberg)
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Question can someone please explain to me what the "top of sport" is for association football. Is the the Premier League, or the UEFA European Football Championship, the UEFA Champions League, the FIFA World Cup, what? --IP98 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy task to say what is the "top of sport" in football, because many players are eligible to play in each of the competitions you mention. Each of them is explained in turn:
Premier League - the top football club competition in the English football, specifically consisting of football clubs from England and Wales;
UEFA Champions League - the top football club competition in Europe, consisting of clubs from many different European countries based on the UEFA coefficient assigned to each league;
UEFA European Football Championship - the top football competition for national teams in Europe, in which only national teams representing the European countries are eligible to play;
FIFA World Cup - the top football competition for national teams in the world, in which, similarly to the UEFA Euro, national teams representing countries from different parts of the world are eligible to play.
Very important to mention is that a footballer can play in each of these competitions. For example, Manchester United's striker Wayne Rooney has played in the Premier League and the UEFA Champions League representing his club, and at the UEFA Euro and FIFA World Cup as part of the England national team.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the EPL isn't the top competition in football in any way. It's on ITNR for other reasons, namely it's popularity and its interest among English speakers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kiril. It almost seems like the same group of footballers are eligible to play in 3 different championships a year? Is any one considered "highest"? Per WP:NCAA we only post top level competitions, regardless of attendance, media coverage, revenue, etc, and I'm just trying to figure out what the one ruling association football championship would be. So now Man-U (but certainly not Liverpool) will represent GB in the UEFA Champions League? In that case, isn't the Premier League, though the top of English football, just a qualifier for European football? --IP98 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP98 It's a bit more nuanced than that. You're correct of course, the EPL isn't the 'top competition' of its sport. But it isn't just a 'qualifier' though by winning the EPL Manchester United will represent England (minor note, England, not GB) in the Champions League. Actually, the top 4 English clubs will all qualify for the Champions League, not just Manchester United. However, the Premier League title still has a great deal of significance--and as many posters have noted, is very widely followed around the world. including in New York where I currently live (note to self--need to update User page), not unlike how the NBA is followed around the world. The Premier League is a title that carries a fair bit of prestige in and of itself. This 'top competition' criterion is really a straw man. It's not an official ITN criterion--that was dropped a while ago. The real reason the NCAA is usually not posted is because of the perception that it isn't an 'internationally followed' tournament. The EPL is most certainly followed widely around the world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason NCAA is (sometimes) not posted is b/c enough people who don't like sports and Europeans have a preconceived notion about amateur sports and cannot comprehend how important they are in the United States. Every year it is proven beyond doubt that NCAA basketball (and probably also football) is covered in almost every 1st world country around the world and yet people say "the fact that it wasn't covered in Uganda proves it is of little interest internally" to justify their biases about the amateur nature of the competition/sport in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really is impressive how people selectively use the "top level of the sport" criterion. It boggles the mind. –HTD06:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Premier League says: "The Premier League is the most-watched football league in the world, broadcast in 212 territories to 643 million homes and a TV audience of 4.7 billion people." [26] The source is the official site and I don't know whether the numbers are inflated but I do believe it's the most watched football league. It's a national league but has lots of foreign elite players. The "top of sport" is international non-league tournaments with fewer matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean there are 7.3 people watching, on average, in each of the 643 million homes. Possible, but I reckon Wikipedia hasn't really thought about what it is saying. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The TV audience of 4.7 billion is the estimated total viewers for all matches together. Manchester United alone gets around half of that.[27] The article should probably clarify the meaning. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since people watching in pubs and bars would be counted towards the viewers, but not the homes, it might not be that unbelievable MChesterMC (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R. The Premier League is more than important football league for inclusion with decent media coverage in many countries in the world during the whole season.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of substantial prose update, and as too early. There has not been a substantial prose summary of the entire season in the article 2012–13 Premier League, which is the bolded article, and it should be noted, though Man. U. has clinched the Premiership, the season has not yet concluded. Seems like jumping the gun a bit, to me. That's less of a problem, however, then the paltry lack of prose in the article. It's a brief lead section and a bunch of tables. How about a week-by-week prose summary? Some general overview of key events of the season? I'm not as concerned about the fact that the season isn't over yet (though it is a concern) as to the fact that I would not feel comfortable promoting the currently bolded article to main page with the lack of prose that it has. If and when the prose in the article significantly summarizes the season, you can consider this to be a support. But what I see now is not main-page worthy, even if it is ITNR, which is only about significance and does not excuse problems with the article. Or, if you want another article to be the focus article of the blurb, do that so we can review that one. --Jayron3200:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The news is that Manchester United have clinched the title before the conclusion of the football league; it won't be a news after the conclusion of the final week, as it will be something that is already known. As for the lack of update, the sentence in the introduction is enough and clearly indicates who, when and in what way has won the league. Unlike many other sport events that are posted on the main page the Premier League doesn't end with a final game, so it's not necessary to use more prose and the idea to provide summary for the games played every weak is overly. More importantly, the same story is posted every year with the same structure of the article and I don't see a reason why to do it in a different way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mistakes made in the past do not excuse continuing to make them. If articles of substandard quality were posted before, we can't fix that now, but what we can do is make this one better before we post it on the main page as a focus article for a blurb. I'm not at all opposed to posting this based on significance, the EPL is clearly one of the premier sporting leagues in the world, and its winner should bear mention on ITN, but I cannot support highlighting an article in a state that I consider poor quality. And if ITN posted similarly poor quality articles in the past, I can't correct that. But we should make this one better. --Jayron3204:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the update is important indeed, but we really don't need to consider our users morons that will not understand the introduction and the tables with the statistics in the article. Summarizing the games from every week is equal as to demand summaries for each game played in the NBA league, which has never been requested and the conclusion has always been posted. Sorry if there is no league-system in your country to understand better how does it work. Manchester United have won the title because of the scores in 34 games up to date and not by playing only one or series of games in a final, so to document each of these 34 games is silly and a dumb idea.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if we bolded 2012–13 NBA season. The bolded article should be free from any glaring omissions. If you want to suggest another article to bold which is relatively well updated, feel free to do so. For example, if the blurb bolded a link 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season, that would be acceptable based on the level of updates, as the entirety of the season is summarized there. Sadly, that section is almost entirely unreferenced, but if one could add references to the season summary from the 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season then we have a good, relatively complete and well updated article to bold, and then we could get this on the main page immediately. Or spend your energy arguing why it is better to not improve Wikipedia articles. Your choice. --Jayron3212:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The shape of the article you're referring to is not relevant as it is not mentioned in the blurb. It needs better update as well, but not as mandatory for posting on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article would be a better target for the pointer, as it is reasonably complete and only needs a few citations to bring it up to snuff. The one that's there now is not sufficiently updated. Again, it is clear that you are more interested in arguing than in making Wikipedia articles which you have an interested in a higher quality. I can't fathom why it is better to have any article be of lower quality than it is possible to be, but hey, if it makes you happy to insist that articles remain shitty, I really don't know what to say about that. --Jayron3219:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "tournament format to determine a champion" is the, in North American English, "regular season" per se. –HTD03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a minor league compared to anything, and any claims as such demonstrates your own lack of understanding of how professional soccer works to a level which completely discredits whatever you might have to say on the matter. --Jayron3204:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Premier League article needs expansion before it can be posted. There's no update there. The Manchester United article is pretty long, but also needs prose about the win over Aston Villa. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready There is a whole paragraph in the intro about this, which seems to be more than enough for its immediate inclusion. I cannot see what else should be done with the article. If you think that the numbers from the tables should be reworded into prose text, it's definitely a very dumb idea that will surely not make any help for the reader.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOT READY. Update is 2 sentences. Also, in several places that article isn't up to date (e.g. it still states Manchester CIty ARE the defending champions).--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Wait until the season is over. Man-U may have clinched it, but with the attention 2012–13 Premier League will get from ITN, the season should be complete so reader see the standings for the other teams. --IP98 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You really believe that the end of the season will be a "ho-hum" event that no one pays attention to? Aston Villa may still be relegated to the Football League, LFC might still top Everton. If you genuinely believe that now, not at the end of the season, is the time to post the "conclusion of the 2012-13 Premier League" then fine, but a pre-strongest possible oppose for posting the end of the season when the standings for the 19 other teams is known. --IP98 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb will say the league concludes with Manchester United winning. It won't care who gets relegated and it certainly won't care whether Liverpool or Everton finish higher. The news item is that Manchester United have won the league, not that the league has concluded for the season. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post now (once the article is sufficiently updated). This is when the news story is, and it avoids having all our football items within a week or two of each other at the end of the season. Normally we use a 'concludes with' phrasing to avoid the win/wins ENGVAR issue, but that doesn't apply here and I can't think of a good alternative. Modest Geniustalk11:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to post, but the question is should I remove either the Boston Marathon one (still in the news as subject is talking) or the Albania relations one which is stale. Secretaccount12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You simply don't need to waste your time with the "trolls" who cannot find a strong argument to oppose this and are willing to advertise something that is not true. The paragraph consisted of five sentences and four references even before the first comment after posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly did not Kiril. It was a mere two sentences at time of posting. And posters who are concerned about the update quality are not 'trolls'. Interesting that the Super Bowl always gets blocked until it's update is pristine though...--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in the intro of the article consisted of more than two sentences as of 14:45 which is even before posting, concluding that the admin posted it because of the longer update provided. For the Super Bowl it's the same story as well, with some users having a "trollish" behaviour to halt its posting. You have my full support in it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is now trolling to be concerned for the quality of articles. Interesting. I thought what we were here to do was to make encyclopedia articles better. What do you propose is the reason for being here? --Jayron3222:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin you should stop to be so arrogant. The problem is not to be concerned for the quality of articles, but to advertise the problem again after it has been already solved. Please check my comment and then come here to argue with me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After it's been solved? The five-sentence metric is a minimum, not something that automatically constitutes a sufficient update. An article that has prose about the outcome of the season but no prose about the season itself is not sufficient. -- tariqabjotu22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where did you read that a five-sentence metric is a minimum? I couldn't find it in any rule. Else, we have another admin who doesn't know the rules on Wikipedia and tries to use a non-existing one to illustrate his point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't know the rules on Wikipedia"? Like WP:BURO? As I'm sure you're aware, I very frequently update ITN; I think I have some idea of the "rules" around here. The point of the update requirement is to ensure that the article contains information about the subject advertised. Sure, it's got five sentences about Man U winning, but they're in the lead and followed by an entire "article" of just tables. We don't need FA-level here, but you've got to be kidding if you think that's sufficient information about the topic. The article needs something about what happened during the 2012-13 season, you know, the topic of the article. The article was (and still is) incredibly woeful given the apparent popularity of the league. I can count at least two other experienced editors and contributors to this project who feel the same way, countered only by your snide attacks. -- tariqabjotu23:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to count people who share the same opinion with you, as Wikipedia hopefully is not a prominent place for lobbying whether you're right or not. My comments or "snide attacks" as you call them are not against particular users here, but addressed to everyone who drastically violates the rules or tries to illustrate a point with no arguments or fake arguments that are eventually attributed to the arbitrary interpretation of the bureaucracy on Wikipedia. Now it's too late to continue a discussion for something that has already appeared on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tariq is correct - the real "rules" are that the article and update both be of sufficient quality. Five sentences is a guideline to give an about what usually qualifies as sufficient - it is neither a minimum or a guarantee of quality. We wouldn't post a new article with only 5 sentences in it, nor should we post an existing article that has a mere 1.5 paragraphs of text even if most of that text is an update which like would be sufficient in an already well developed article. Finally, it is shameful that the "world's most popular league" doesn't attract enough attention to have an actual (prose) article written about it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with ThaddeusB and Tariq; this was prematurely posted given the overall quality of the article at the time of posting. Thank you Jayron for your article expansion. SpencerT♦C08:41, 24 April 2013 (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.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose - I'm not very familiar with this person, so I could be swayed, but I don't think she qualifies as top of her field. Her band had success, but not enough for its individual members to be ITN material. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could might support this if it were fully updated and the reason for her death explained. Something is better than nothing. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2013 (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.
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support per ITN/R but 'election' was, as I understand it, simply confirmation in parliament as election was unopposed. Election article not a viable target for blurb (scarcely viable as an article), as no real election to report on. Suggest that Hamid's own article be expanded on official inauguration tomorrow, and that that be the bolded article. It is a notable event, but not that much to say about it: minimal update is all there is to say. Kevin McE (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sowas Yemen's which we posted. Granted it was popular election but unopposed.Lihaas (talk) 12
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.
Oppose. The death toll of less than 10 is surpassed by many other recent tragedies listed at Portal:Current events. Thus, I think an ITN listing would require some additional extraordinary circumstances, which I don't directly see here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article quality: Needs a massive expansion. If article is improved to standards, I would change my vote to Weak support based on news coverage: major sources are covering it, but what I find is fairly cursory, except perhaps Russian sources, which I don't read, but based on length do seem likel to be giving a very in-depth coverage of it. --Jayron3217:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support once updated; this is not an area that often sees such incidents. And can someone fix the missing templates for this and other proposals, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to smh, five died in a shooting incident in Seattle yesterday. It's clear from all this that gun violence is becoming increasingly common. YuMaNuMaContrib05:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Russia is more prone to such violence as indicated by its homicide rate, hence making such incidents more common. Also, I cannot see the relevance of the legal context of either nations to whether this is ITN worthy; social context - maybe. YuMaNuMaContrib07:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle isn't a place known for violence also compared to other major cities here in the United States, so I put it in the same category as this, neither of them deserves an article. Secretaccount12:23, 23 April 2013 (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.
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, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aleppo-Great-mosque-Alp.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_mosque_minaret_Aleppo.jpg){kind=link}