:::::But we did when the election happened. UK was posted when the coalition was done and the previous australian one was posted (before Abbptt) multiple times (with whatshername aftert Rudd)[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::But we did when the election happened. UK was posted when the coalition was done and the previous australian one was posted (before Abbptt) multiple times (with whatshername aftert Rudd)[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::If no appelz and orangez going on then I see no problem with this going up...taking into consideration your points Lihaas...*hic* [[User:Somchai Sun|Somchai Sun]] ([[User talk:Somchai Sun|talk]]) 23:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
::::::If no appelz and orangez going on then I see no problem with this going up...taking into consideration your points Lihaas...*hic* [[User:Somchai Sun|Somchai Sun]] ([[User talk:Somchai Sun|talk]]) 23:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::::We're speaken here nein Deutsch, (i.e., Not zee Tscherman!)L)ihaas, uND Somchai. Pleasen to speaken yust dee Englsky wit dee porper splngk and ! punkshnuation...^)?
*'''Comment''' I don't think the section is well structured and updated. The first sentence for instance says "Amongst coalition possibilities, many SPD insiders do not want to work with The Left." Other examples: "Issues for the SPD in coalition would entail a national minimum wage and conflicts over dual citizenship, which the SPD supports but CDU fears would cost them votes"; "The Greens are "open" to coalition talks with the CDU/CSU". [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I don't think the section is well structured and updated. The first sentence for instance says "Amongst coalition possibilities, many SPD insiders do not want to work with The Left." Other examples: "Issues for the SPD in coalition would entail a national minimum wage and conflicts over dual citizenship, which the SPD supports but CDU fears would cost them votes"; "The Greens are "open" to coalition talks with the CDU/CSU". [[User:Iselilja|Iselilja]] ([[User talk:Iselilja|talk]]) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Tropical Storm Trami
Tropical Storm Trami(satellite image shown) leaves more than 120 people dead in the Philippines.
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).
A carjacking resulted in the death of a Hoboken lawyer who was murdered in front of his wife while returning to his vehicle after shopping. (NBC New York)
Nominator's comments: Not sure if we posted the election and under what terms the blurb went up, but the agreement of a grand coalition is important + we posted aus/can/uk more than once. --Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 331dot. We already posted the results from the election, so there is no reason to post the constitution of the new government coalition. Some may argue that the country has never seen more dramatic post-election period which ended in a coalition between the two "political rivals", but the political climate during this period did not receive much popularity in the media and was not followed with unpleasant events to consider this an end of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't witnessed that news related to one single election have been posted in multiple blurbs, but I'd oppose as well any news related to a peaceful constitution of a coalition following election that was already mentioned on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we did when the election happened. UK was posted when the coalition was done and the previous australian one was posted (before Abbptt) multiple times (with whatshername aftert Rudd)Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're speaken here nein Deutsch, (i.e., Not zee Tscherman!)L)ihaas, uND Somchai. Pleasen to speaken yust dee Englsky wit dee porper splngk and ! punkshnuation...^)?
Comment I don't think the section is well structured and updated. The first sentence for instance says "Amongst coalition possibilities, many SPD insiders do not want to work with The Left." Other examples: "Issues for the SPD in coalition would entail a national minimum wage and conflicts over dual citizenship, which the SPD supports but CDU fears would cost them votes"; "The Greens are "open" to coalition talks with the CDU/CSU". Iselilja (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — On Nov. 27, when negotiations between the SPD and Merkel's CDU/CSU ended with leadership agreement to form a "grand coalition," I and several others argued strongly in favor of posting, but were told by skeptics to wait until it happens — i.e., until the SPD membership approved the agreement. Well, IT'S HAPPENED, [1] boys & girls, and it's high time for the results of the Sept. 22 election to be posted in ITN, sofort, unverzüglich!Sca (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not an inauguration, it is the formation of a government - quite a different thing. The results of the election were known, but not who would govern the country - which is surely the most important thing. Let my give an analogy for Americans who may not be used to parliamentary systems: imagine if the the US Presidential election resulted in a tie in the electoral college. We would surely (and rightly) post that. But would anyone seriously argue that we should not post the election by the House of Representatives of the new President. Well, this is like that: the election has not produced a clear result and then the legislature is choosing the government (through parties with a majority in it negotiating an agreement to form a government). Neljack (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles updated 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.
Comment Needs some updates, then ready to post (we've already reached a consensus about it when the mission launched). --Tone15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, consensus seems to be that a major space first for a country is ITN-worthy. Can it wait until the Jade Rabbit actually rolls onto the surface in a couple hours? Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready both articles are updated, and support is overwhelming. No reason to wait for further developments, since readers are looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to hold a merger discussion, but I beg to disagree; Yutu is about the rover specifically, while Chang'e 3 is the mission as a whole and the base station - compare the precedent with Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity (rover). They are similar at the moment because the rover has not yet detatched from the rest of the probe, this is expected to happen in the next few hours. --W.D.Graham20:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I've added a detailed description of the last mission and corrected a typo in its launch date - it had been incorrectly listed as occurring in 1975. --W.D.Graham22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I was not sure what exactly to name the new article which is why I did not create one. If anyone has a good idea for a title for the new article, please feel free to create the article with a good title. Andise1 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Q. What longstanding principle of physics was overturned by this discovery? A. None. Q. Was there a hypothesis that led the discoverers to look for noble gas molecules in supernova remnants? A. No, there were some odd emission lines, and they came up with candidate molecules to explain them. Q. What lasting impact will this have on astronomy? A. None given by the sources, and likely none whatsoever. Don't believe the hype.Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because this doesn't seem to be getting coverage in mainstream media(just science outlets). If it did, I would support as molecules with noble elements have not been seen outside of a laboratory, and certainly not in space up til now. People are certainly entitled to believe something like this is not important or just "hype", or that we should only post earth-shattering discoveries covered in the media, but that doesn't change the fact this hasn't been seen before. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very interesting scientific first. And if we seriously need to violate a law of physics to qualify for ITN now (I can just see the headlines--CNN: "Wikipedia Bans News that Doesn't Violate Laws of Nature")--we can just shut down ITN and go home. μηδείς (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see a link to the 'Noble gas' article. Tempted to support this but the blurb needs tweaking. The other issues, like a new article, complicate this one a bit. Abductive's objections are noted but this is a somewhat interesting "first" in my view. Jusdafax12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyoncé unexpectedly releases her fifth self-titled album without any prior announcement or promotion, ultimately changing the global release date of all future albums to Friday.[1]
The storm spreads to Egypt with some Cairo suburbs seeing snowfall. Local news reports claimed it was the capital's first snowfall in 112 years. Night temperatures are expected to drop as low as 2°C / 36°F. (The Daily Star)(Huffington Post)(Al-Ahram)
China's mission begins the descent phase to the moon that will likely make it one of only three countries to reach it. The landing is estimated to occur at 8:40 a.m. EST, December 14. (CNN)(Universe Today)
An air strike intended to target an al Qaeda convoy in Al-Bayda province in central Yemen mistakenly attacks a wedding procession, killing 15 civilians. (Reuters)
Four former Icelandic bank bosses are jailed over concealing illegal activities within the bank Kaupthing. (BBC)
Mexico's Congress passes a bill that will allow foreign investment in its state-run oil company, Pemex. The measure still requires the approval of a majority of the country's federal entities. [citation needed]
Disasters and accidents
An ammonia cooling pump on the International Space Station malfunctions, requiring suspension of some non-critical systems. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: That North Korean dude who was dismissed (the uncle of the Dear Leader, or whatever hes called) was executed shortly after the dismissal. Pretty high ranking dude to be executed in a short time.S ome strange stuff going on there. I think its notable for RD for sure, possibly a full blurb. Please indicate if support is for blurb or RD Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - notable enough for inclusion. And quite interesting/funny that a man who has helped to create this system falls victim too it himself.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Seems to fall under WP:ITND#1, and it's definitely in the news, but in the end he was "just" the vice-chairman National Defence Commission. Speculations that this was actually "the second in command" position within the Pyongyang government are, well, speculations. Promotion to blurb would require clearer evidence of the person's significance (i.e. I oppose blurb). --hydrox (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)ed: After reading WFC's comment below, I no longer oppose posting the blurb.[reply]
Support blurb. Speculation that, contrary to all the evidence, he was some sort of minor dogsbody is, well, speculation. Very clearly a singularly important figure within the NK administration and an extremely dramatic and newsworthy death. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a blurb. I'm not sure that the "Toryism" template on the "Counter-revolutionary" article is quite right for the front page, though. Formerip (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "minor dogsbody" of course, but there are also other figures in Pyongyang ousiders deem "important" in addition to Kim and the now executed Jang. Article on O Kuk-ryol, who co-held the same position as the late Jang, also cites sources naming him second in power from the Supreme Leader, while Kim Yong-chun, who too co-held Jang's position, is obviously not a nobody either. Meanwhile, the "official" version would be that Kim Yong-nam holds a nominally superior position to any of these other figures, but outsider sources actually consider him less of a "big player". Do all them also warrant a blurb if executed? --hydrox (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb only (oppose RD) – very surprising turn of events in the context of a family dynasty, doubly so given how influential Sung-taek was in the transition from Kim Jong-il's reign to cementing Kim Jong-un's. On my opposition to RD, surely a prerequisite for posting under RD is that the person meets the standard death criteria? This person would have no serious prospect of being posted had he had a heart attack a fortnight ago. Under my reading rules that out criteria 1 and 2, as previous notability is independent from current circumstances. To argue #3 you would need to demonstrate that this has changed the national or international status quo. Consensus to post trumps those criteria, but if it is not obvious why someone is being posted, a blurb is absolutely necessary to explain the context of the posting. —WFC— FL wishlist01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment Shouldn't the posted name reflect the current article title? Redirects are cheap, but they're not free, and this would be high-traffic. Are there ENGVAR issues that I'm not aware of? —WFC— FL wishlist01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a comment about the blurb: rather than presenting the news as an absolute fact, it might be better to explicitly attribute the execution announcement to North Korean media or something, as many of the news sources seem to be doing. Just because North Korea says something happened doesn't mean it actually happened: last year, the very same news agency reported the discovery of a unicorn lair in Pyongyang. I would guess that it's probable that he has been executed, but it's at least possible that he has not. I'm not at all saying that this shouldn't be posted, but grain of salt and all that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be slightly more accurate, Western media reported that North Korean media reported the discovery of a unicorn lair in Pyongyang. Formerip (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support & Comment on Blurb: I say a better blurb might be "North Korean media announce the execution of senior government official Jang Song Thaek." I'd remove the 'counter-revolutionary' - it's not really necessary. Article needs updating. Colipon+(Talk) 05:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
attention by an admin, who should use her discretion in choosing a blurb is needed. There's no need to postpone this further. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted altblurb. Consensus is clearly in favour of a blurb, but no obvious consensus in favour of "counter-revolutionary" which of course can be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A solid agreement is signed ending the conflict (for now anyways), this is the stuff we usually wait for in outcome. A lot happenedin the world around us today Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solid support for this. This is a long-running conflict that has filtered through into international affairs in all sorts of ways and very good news if it is coming to an end. GoldenRing (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because we posted the end of this conflict a month ago and we don't need to chronicle each step towards relative normality that comes after. Formerip (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three journalists are killed and one wounded in the Philippines within the span of two weeks raising concerns regarding the security situation in the country. (Al Jazeera)
The U.S. National Security Agency is secretly piggybacking on the tools that enable internet advertisers to track consumers, such tools are known as cookies; specifically, Google cookies are being tracked in order to determine targets for hacking. (The Washington Post)
A revenge porn website is shutdown in San Diego after the owner, Kevin Christopher Bollaert, is accused of extorting money from one of its victims. (Los Angeles Times)
But oppose as its nothing news. It was illegal 150 years ago and this is just an upholding of the statute. Overturned a regional court ruling, so it it not even redeclaring illegality across the country as most of the country never legalised it in the first place.
Theres only one known instance of marriage...and i dont even even the know the official status of it. Clearly its not recognised, but merely some off-sect religious show piece.Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That claim is disingenuous bordering on the obtuse. The 150 year old British statue was declared invalid 4 years ago by the Delhi high court since when Indians have enjoyed full sexual rights, backed by a court ruling. Those rights are now being taken from them in a time in which sexual rights is a top political issue across the globe. The fact that this is news, is of course made obvious by the prominent feature of the piece in world wide media. As for your second statement I have no idea what you are talking about as the ruling has nothing to do with marriage, but is about sexual relations, which I can inform you do frequently take place out of wedlock in most of the world. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, AGF first. Theres the jurisidcion space (which i quried on the page). The ruling has not yielded any difference in India (please point to one instance of chane?), neither is this an issue anywhere in Induia (or outside western dominion).
And as you say it is frequently taking palce anywhere, so what does this do? In the few years since if was "legalised" there has been nothing in that direction, and there will be nothing in this direction.Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not real easy to AGF with this level of argumentation. Since 2009 Indians have had a courts word that they had aconstitutional right to have private consensual sex with eachother regardless of the sex of their partner. They don't have that any longer. That is a change. A homosexual person is now liable for prosecution and punishment. Yesterday they weren't. That is a change. I haven't a clue as to what you mean by "no change in that direction".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a rather run of the mill ruling. The Supreme Court did not come out of nowhere and create a law outlawing homosexual sex. According to CNN: "On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the penal code was constitutionally [emphasis mine] valid. It was up to parliament, the court said, to decide whether or not to keep the law in the statute books." Courts normally rule on constitutional mandates, not abstract morality without regard to the constitution. There's no indication the court would even consider overturning a repeal of this law. The ball is in the legislature's court. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was their Supreme Court overturning a lower court ruling that it was not illegal, thus reinforcing the status quo. The BBC's headline "India top court reinstates gay sex ban" says it all. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Not really a news of global attention. Also, SC has simply said that HC calling section 377 as unconstitutional is wrong. SC has simply asked to get HC's thought straight (pun) and has also shown that its through a legislature that such clause can be revoked. Also, even with the precedent of Delhi HC of 2009 of "legalising" homosexuality, homosexuality was still a crime. Only that the case did not have much stand in lower courts which would heed to HC's decision. It could very well have been challenged at another HC or in front of a daring judge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this doesn't quite amount to making homosexual acts illegal, which I'd have supported posting. In the US, overturning a lower court ruling does not establish precedent. Is the ruling a dismissal with prejudice against further cases? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised if that's not the case in the US. In most Common Law countries, the ratio decidendi of any supreme court decision creates a binding precedent for all lower courts, and I'm pretty sure that's how it will be in India. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not comparable. The Australian High Court struck down a gay marriage law as unconstitutionally conflicting with the federal law that controls marriage. It means that gay marriage can only be permitted in Australia by a federal law, which is likely to happen in time. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are legal throughout Australia and this has not changed. The issue before the High Court was a technical one about conflicting laws from different levels of government; the case had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of gay marriage. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other ruling also called on the legislature to make a decision. Technically it made no judgement calls, just saying teh change# was invalid in reinstating and taht the government should be concerete in maiking the change. What this useless regime has been inept at doingLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The status quo argument is fallacious, though I suspect it reflects a general cognitive bias in humans. There is no reason to regard a decision to maintain the status quo as less significant than a decision to change it. They are two sides of the same coin. But for the decision to change the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual where the status quo is maintained. Equally, but for the decision to maintain the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual when the status quo is changed). The impact of the decision is the same either way. We certainly do post items that just involve the status quo being maintained - we don't, for instance, refuse to post the re-election of Barack Obama because it just maintains the status quo of him being President. That's even true of court cases - we posted the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare. I'm sure that if Bowers v. Hardwick, which involved exactly the same scenario of a lower court striking down a law against gay sex and then the Supreme Court upholding it on appeal, was decided today we would post it. India is a country of more than a billion people, far more than the United States, yet we post fewer stories from it. If we are serious about combating systemic bias, we need to post stories like this that get widespread media attention not just in India but internationally too. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose posting Bowers or a similar US story too, the location is irrelevant to me. Posting re-elections (such as Obama) is not done on the basis of any particular individual being re-elected, but on the event itself(the election). While certainly not representative of the whole, the one Indian to post here opposes this too. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Neljack that maintaining status quo or going the other way round are equals. But, i guess i did not stress much in my initial opinion, that what is important is the gravity of news. The billion count of Indians doesn't matter. If that was the parameter we would have to have a separate China-India news section. Although, i would suggest that the nomination remain open. If the protests or other activities gain more strength, we can reconsider this topic, with some other blurb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Whatever way you look at it, sex between men was allowed in India and now its not. How can that not be considered significant news? It's all very well individual users saying they would oppose a similar story from the US (as if!), but not long ago we posted a blurb about a SCOTUS ruling which was something to so with the interstate recognition of pension rights for a tiny number of gay couples. It doesn't stack up. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasnt, and nothing has changed on the ground either in Delhi#s regional court or by this. What could create change is marriage and thats not touched either wayLihaas (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Supreme court (unfortunately) took a black letter approach and 'upheld' the law, IMO if the court had overturned the penal code (like the High Court) then legally speaking it would be highly significant (a judicial review of 150 year old section of the penal code, which in India is quite rare), but court 'upholding' the law seems to be insignificant (atleast from a legal standpoint). LegalEagle (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Other than pot heads and civil libertarians, this is kinda a "meh" story for me. Not sure there's a widespread interest in this one way or the other. Cannabis laws in many countries are either unenforced or liberal enough to be "essentially legal" (see Legality of cannabis by country, especially places like Iran and Netherlands). Good for Uruguay, a positive move in the right direction, but this really isn't a big deal, news-wise. --Jayron3202:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Jayron32, although I have to differ on your comment regarding its importance in the news. The content of this event is crucial, considering that Uruguay is a Latin American country and drug-related violence has been on the rise this year. If this legalization "works" in reducing violence, it is likely that other countries might follow a similar path, especially those torn by the drug war (Mexico and Colombia, for example). Thanks for your input anyhow. Regards, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, are there any more steps before this becomes law? Signing by the President? And when does it take effect? Any chance it will be overturned by a court? Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the bill was proposed by the President, I don't think he need concern us. As for a court overturning it, I doubt any of us are qualified to opine on Uruguayan constitutional law. Presumably it is possible, but it's hard to see that this could be argued to violate any constitutional rights and that possibility would exist with any bill. I don't think we usually refrain from posting them based on the speculative possibility that they might be struck down (we posted Obamacare when it was passed, for instance, notwithstanding the potential for it be struck down as unconstitutional - as it very nearly was). Neljack (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from the Constitution of Uruguay that if the President has no objection to a bill he must "immediately" promulgate it (Article 143). If he does have objections (which clearly isn't the case here), he must exercise his power of veto within 10 days of receiving the bill (Article 137).[5] As for when it will take effect, this article says that the drug control agency will have 120 days to draft regulations on marijuana and suggests that the law could take effect by mid-2014.[6]Neljack (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When criminalization leads to the arrests and incarceration of thousands of people, not to mention jobs lost and lives ruined due to those arrests, and to the violence associated with such arrests, and to the robberies and extortion of dealers and users, then yes, it is a human rights issue. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting first that is getting lots of international media attention. Is being watched closely by other Latin American countries to see if it will be effective in weakening the power of the drug gangs. Neljack (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about is whether the blurb should use "cannabis" instead of "marijuana". I note that our article is titled Cannabis (drug), with Marijuana being a redirect. Here in New Zealand both terms are in common usage - marijuana perhaps being a bit more common - and I believe the same is true in the United States. But I understand "marijuana" is less common in Britain ("hashish" is often used instead, from what I've read), so perhaps we should opt for "cannabis" per WP:ENGVAR. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb that I've just added based on Neljack's above comment. My reasoning is that the bolded article uses "cannabis" and so the blurb should to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support by the way. News sources are certainly carrying this from the look of it, and the article is in decent shape. --Jayron3200:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about North Korea? It's been completely legal (and even recommended as a healthier alternative to tobacco) for some time there. PWNGWN (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed. Marijuana prohibition isn't something that started in the murky mists of prehistory. It was legal in every country up until a certain point. And, as pointed out, in North Korea still. Blurb is inaccurate. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannabis is not considered a drug in North Korea. [7] The fact that the whole chain of cultivation, sell, and consumption went from illegal to legal in Uruguay makes it a first time event, I think. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to write about bhang, until I realized that it has been legal throughout the modern and ancient history in India, so it was probably never actually legalized (one simply does not legalize something that was never illegal to start with). --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready? Really? The bolded article is still written in the present tense, with some paragraphs implying he is still alive, as his execution has been stayed for another 6 or so hours. Also, the first link in the proposed blurb is a disambiguation page, to 5 different Jamaat-e-Islamis. Stephen22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an actual oppose, a wait, or just another opportunity for you to demonstrate a lack of maturity? I ask because sincere oppose votes aren't normally begun with the mention of another editor. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is significant, particularly given the potential to cause unrest and the international concern about the fairness of the trials. Though it's not true that this is the first execution for war crimes - various Nazi leaders were executed for war crimes, among other things, at the Nuremberg Trials. Neljack (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting and has international implications. Article reasonably well-written with work continuing, and is updated. Jusdafax05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update. Law was changed after 2013 Shahbag protests and rarely do we see hangings (at least in recent decades) for warcrimes in democracies, but the article needs to be updated a bit. Lot of media coverage which seems to satisfy the derivative test of significance. LegalEagle (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, you certainly work hard to improve Wikipedia, rather than just sneak around the chat boards. You do look good in that respect! "Please delete this after reading"... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when generally accepted. Lowest temperature recorded on Earth is a very big deal and an important record. The discovery has also received a wide media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThis article suggests that the temperature is a preliminary one which is highly likely to be refined to an even lower value. In fact, this article has the temperature at -94.7C. It also happened three and a half years ago, is that worth noting? And a minor point, it may be a "world record" but it won't be a "Guinness World Record" as it was calculated by satellite, not experienced by a thermometer. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the blurb should say that it was indeed measured remotely, not at ground level, to avoid possible inaccuracy. I've changed the altblurb. Brandmeistertalk12:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose as moot apparently this temperature was recorded in 2012.# [UNSIGNED]
Feeble support The information has only been published, so the fact the observation was made in 2012 (wasn't it 2010?) is irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to oppose because it isn't peer-reviewed, that is your prerogative, but the news coverage was quite open about the fact that this was a satellite analysis and not actual measurements. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the source worse than primary. I would oppose this displacing the Vostok base record in the article on lowest temperatures. I don't want to look there, but I suppose I must now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi Jewish artifacts that were rescued from Saddam Hussein's palace by a Jewish-American scholar and brought to the United States are scheduled to be returned to Iraq by the end of the summer in 2014, despite objections from American Jews citing instability in Iraq. (Los Angeles Times)
Could you post a news source in the nomination template? That would help establish that this is indeed "in the news" and is in the posting instructions above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting lots of international media attention.[10][11][12][13] Appears to be part of Putin's attempt to increase his control over the media. I suggest that the blurb should reflect that radio broadcaster Voice of Russia is also being closed and that a new state-owned media agency called "Russia Today" is being created. Neljack (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot - that looks good. My only caveat is that I haven't seen anything saying that it will be smaller. In fact, I would have thought it would be larger given that two organisations are being merged. But perhaps you've seen something in an article I haven't read? Neljack (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "the smaller" from the blurb; I think I put that because some articles referenced being more efficient and affects on employees(such as layoffs) but it wasn't clearly said. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with altblurb and possible slight tweaks to it. The abolition process will take some time, perhaps that's why RIAN's website is still functioning. Brandmeistertalk21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems like the agency is being rebranded and re-organised, which may technically entail its abolition, but I don't see any reason why this is a very significant event in the context that government agencies everywhere get restructured all the time. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment/proceduralRT was not created now, its been around for awhile. Clearly I made the same mistake as the page's hat note, that should be clarified when posted.
Comment The alternative blurb looks more complete to me, but should be reworded to reflect it in a simpler way that the two agencies are merged into a new one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree but I am reading what seems to be contradictory information on that point; some articles talk about this as a restructuring/merge and some also state that the two prior agencies were "abolished" and a new one created(which is technically different than a restructuring). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 331dot. While there were some references to a "merger", there were also statements that appeared to indicate that it was not really a merger. My impression after reading various sources is that probably it's effectively a merger, but it may not formally be one. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in chief Svetlana Mironyuk conducted an official farewell meeting with the RIA staff: [14]. From what I see, Russia Today will not be in continuous succession to RIA, but merely an agency to fill the empty spot and publish "the right information", so to speak. Brandmeistertalk08:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that an event be "globally significant", just that it receive wide media coverage(typically worldwide) which this has. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this would be huge news in any other country, and it has been covered as such. I am not sure how the fact that it's only russia disqualifies the nom. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting lots of coverage,[15] not just in the US but also internationally, which is not surprising given that it creates the world's largest airline and is big even by corporate M & A standards. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The item is getting lots of coverage...on the back pages of business sections, not front pages or even front pages of business sections. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from web sources. I suspect it will be on quite a few front pages of business sections. And sports events that we post often are only in the sport section, not the front page of the newspaper. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Medeis I had to look hard to find it "in the news", the nomination lacked a source. This is trivial in the big scheme of things, just wait for the biggest bankruptcy in the world I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. The merger is also not something that was totally unexpected as American Airlines announced bankruptcy two years ago and the plans for this merger were discussed earlier this year. I also find the statement "world's largest airline" blown up in the blurb because all of the media deliver some kind of a canard with no supporting evidence on what merits the new airline will be the largest in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to lean oppose on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? 331dot (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are many people who will note that something should be posted on a later date, hence why they ask to "wait". As for this particular case, though, it seems that the discussion was more inclined toward general opposition, so we probably shouldn't be deciding based on it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We usually post announcements as they unfold information that one could have not anticipated from earlier. Future dates that are known from earlier are only matter of technicalities unless it's a very important event of wide interest. Another notable exception to this rule are some legislations or regulations who may be worth posting both at the time of their signing and the date when they are expected to come into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 9 December 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.
You should hide that statement. There are no field goals in hockey.
Anyhoo, its no a record field goal. there was about 67 yards in a high school game in washington a couple of years ago. so on that grounds oppose, but a record i would support as in the posting we did for sachin i blieve.Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. ITN is not for documenting sports records. Further, the game was in Denver(which would make the ball travel farther). 331dot (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support actually, if we list sports at all, this is quite a bit more relevant encyclopedically than the utterly banal ITN/R "X beats Y" pablum we usually post. How long ago was the previous record set? μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funniest support I've ever seen at ITN, remarkable and almost made me change my mind. Oops, no, perhaps not. I don't suppose many US readers are aware that rugby union "kickers" do this sort of distance every week. Big dog deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SNOW. It's an amusing news indeed but unfortunately of very low value to go on the main page. I wonder if we have to consider next time when a quarterback grabs the ball and runs over the whole field to score a touchdown.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 9 December 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.
Thailand update
Just called a new election as a result of the protests, thats a pretty big step, IMO. Though the protests are still ongoing its a massive culmination. (oxymoronic, i klnow, but you know what i mean (i hope)). Thai general election, 2014Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are these commentaries intended to be nominations? Please use the ITN template like everyone else, add sources, and type carefully so people can understand what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Lihaas is proposing an update to the blurb rather than a new blurb. As such, I don't think he is required to comply with all the formalities for an nomination. Certainly updates have often been proposed like this, without being formatted as a formal nomination, and I don't recall there being objections to them on that basis. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, there seems to be (a) a requirement for a source and (b) a blurb so (c) please improve the quality of the nomination (and the quality of the English used to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support updating the blurb and bumping to the top The calling of new elections as a result of the protests is of obvious significance. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During the third Sunday of mass protests, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government for refusing a deal on closer ties with the European Union. BBC News
Anti-government protesters topple the last surviving statue of Communist leader Vladimir Lenin in central Kiev. (CNN)
The protests today are the largest yet, per BBC and an AP wire report. Both sources speak of several 100,000s of people. The demonstrators seem to have topled and destroyed a statue of Lenin, a strong symbol of the Soviet era. The protesters also seem to have given the government 48 hours to resign. I have no opinion whether these warrant re-posting right now, but would definitely support posting if the government resigns. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion — Seems to me this — "Protesters fell Lenin statue, tell Ukraine's president 'you're next'" — would make a good hook for an updated blurb. [16] (IMO, it's high time for Old Baldy to go ... he's been dead for 90 years, and the state he founded has been dead for more than 20 years.) Sca (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC someone used a hack where they specified the third blurb with <br> in altblurb=. If there is a serious need for specifying more than two blurbs, it can be added of course. --hydrox (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing story — Dec. 11 — "Ukraine protests: outrage as police attack Kiev barricades" (Includes video of police attack.) However, "Police Pull Out of Kiev Square After Move on Demonstrators" [17]Sca (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every aspect of action/reaction is in the news, but thats notable enough to update here. More notable is the Thai protests which yielded somethingLihaas (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems to be growing and is top of the news this morning. The nomination is unclear. Which article has been updated? μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I fixed that + I made 2nd alt. blur that I consider the best one yet (it is NPOV and true).
Oppose. Although it's an interesting story, there doesn't appear to be anything extremely newsworthy about it. Exoplanets are discovered regularly and biggest orbit doesn't seem to be particularly important as a record, in itself. It seems like a challenging discovery for people working in the field, but ITN isn't meant to be a current awareness bulletin for astronomers. Searching Google news, this doesn't seems like it's even the biggest talking point to do with exoplanets this week (the Hubble telescope discovered water on some a few days ago, which has generated broader coverage). I think whether something gets covered by the science section of BBC news is a good indication of how important it is, and this hadn't been, yet. Formerip (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is being covered in the UK, though. What is notable here aside from the orbital distance is that no one can figure out how it got there, making it very unusual. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention the BBC because it is British, but because I know it has good science journalists who will have some sort of clue when scrutinising a press release, and will sort the wheat from the chaff. And, yes, I understand why it is interesting, but interesting things are discovered all the time in scientific research and they are not always epoch-making or ITN-worthy. Planet formation is a developing area of study, so it not surprising (or unusual, I suspect) that new discoveries will throw up new challenges. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly must rely on whatever sources you wish for whatever reason (as we all do, no problem there) but IMO this appears in enough sources around the world (Googling I even saw a Czech story) to justify an appearance. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This appears to be a significant story resulting in a discovery which was previously unknown and lays down an important milestone in further research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support/comment no need to mention UAz as its too long and the important bit is just the dis covery...ldetails can go on the page.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That's a pretty arbitrary and meaningless record, which will inevitably be beaten as exoplanet surveys go on for longer (thus giving a longer baseline for orbit discovery). Better to stick to genuinely scientifically interesting exoplanet discoveries. Modest Geniustalk17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is "scientifically interesting" is a matter of opinion; the worldwide media would seem to disagree with you. Most records will inevitably be beaten,(WP:CRYSTAL) that hasn't stopped us from posting them before. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm giving my own opinion. That's true of most !votes on this page. I do consider myself qualified to assess the significance of astronomical discoveries. My point was also that the record will doubtless be passed soon i.e. within a few years. Modest Geniustalk20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the discovery upends current theories on planet and star formation, so it's not just a bare fact, but an outlier in our knowledge of the universe. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Upends" does not appear to be correct. We are not talking about settled science here, but about models that are at a stage of revision and debate. This discovery just provides a new talking-point. Furthermore, unless you know something that none of the sources are reporting, no-one has yet come up with a proper proposal as to what effect it might have on current models. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am reporting what I have read from the sources; "This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see" [19]; and am not prepared to offer my OR on the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ITN has run blurbs like this before: not huge headlines, but in the news withan advance in human knowledge of goodly scientific note. This article is decently written and evokes a sense of wonder, due to the very great distance it is from it's sun. From what I understand, this record will not be surpassed soon. The comment about the planet not being on the list appears correct, and that should be fixed prior to posting. Jusdafax20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arbitrary. Also, most supports seem to be "seems like an important discovery" while opposers seem to present good suggestions as to why this is purely arbitrary and of no widespread interest. Not ready, as assessing quality of opinion rather than pure vote-counting is what's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello, this is the original creator of the article in question. I should point out that that blurb should be changed, as the planet of DT Virginis has the greatest orbit still. I would suggest there being a mention of the ratio in mass differentiation between the two parts of the binary star, which accounts for the possibility of the orbit being maintained. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remarked Ready the blurb issue of the secondary link has been taken care of, the article is well updated, and there's still strong consensus in favor of the posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb2 "Astronomers at the University of Arizona discover HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star" as it uses the active voice, not the passive. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, with content like "As it turned out, whovians found it a lot alike the home-planet of the Doctor himself – Gallifrey", and comments above regarding what the news "seems" to be about, this isn't suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had the same concern when I saw that. The blurb should specify why it is significant, per article's lead. Otherwise it's indeed a "so what?", as was noted above. Brandmeistertalk16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess it wouldn't be ITN if we didn't post stupid cruft from time to time. However, the planet isn't further from the star than it had been thought possible for a star to be, it is that appears to be a mis-match and the structure of the planet and the size of its orbit. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try explaining your objection clearly, FIP, rather than wasting everybody's time calling names? We can adjust the blurb, you know. Or was this just venting? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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