[[File:Paratype of Paedophryne amauensis (LSUMZ 95004).png|right|100px]]
[[File:Paratype of Paedophryne amauensis (LSUMZ 95004).png|right|100px]]
:'''Support''', moderately interesting story, timer's red, and the article is decent enough. There's even an image! The blurb needs to be 'scientists announce' or 'publish', since the discovery itself was in 2009 but we've quite rightly waited for the peer-reviewed paper. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:'''Support''', moderately interesting story, timer's red, and the article is decent enough. There's even an image! The blurb needs to be 'scientists announce' or 'publish', since the discovery itself was in 2009 but we've quite rightly waited for the peer-reviewed paper. [[User:Modest Genius|<font face="Times New Roman" color="maroon"><b>Modest Genius</b></font>]] [[User_talk:Modest Genius|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
:It's also interesting to note that the previous record holder for the smallest frog, [[:species:Paedophryne dekot|Paedophryne dekot]], had been described just a month ago. Plus, there have now been three papers on the genus, each describing two new species, and each being published in an Open Access journal under CC BY. --[[User:Mietchen|Mietchen]] ([[User talk:Mietchen|talk]]) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (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.
Freddie Freeman
An ancient Maya city, the second-largest in the Yucatán peninsula, dubbed Valeriana, is discovered in Campeche, Mexico.
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).
Support, moderately interesting story, timer's red, and the article is decent enough. There's even an image! The blurb needs to be 'scientists announce' or 'publish', since the discovery itself was in 2009 but we've quite rightly waited for the peer-reviewed paper. Modest Geniustalk10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting to note that the previous record holder for the smallest frog, Paedophryne dekot, had been described just a month ago. Plus, there have now been three papers on the genus, each describing two new species, and each being published in an Open Access journal under CC BY. --Mietchen (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's nothing new about this position - that has been the SNP plan since before they were elected. It's still a plan, nothing has been definitively decided, and no date has been set (though the SNP obviously prefers the Bannockburn anniversary). The current wrangling is just playing politics between the SNP and Westminster. Modest Geniustalk11:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Modest Genius points out, this is a proposal for a currently unscheduled future event. Additionally, it is the results of an election that are important. Suggest nominator try again in autumn 2014 if and when results become available. --Allen3talk11:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Bannockburn" !?! -> oh dearie me! Please do not swallow press work by certain political parties wishing to demean the referendum. The "Autumn 2014" date is new: it was only announced yesterday. The referendum, and its date, are big stories, worldwide. And if successful, it would be one of the biggest stories of the century. Even an unsucessful referendum will be a big media event, over a sustained period. You are doing Wikipedia a grave disservice by failing to report this on the front page. But I cannot say that I am remotely surprised. I have been around here long enough to know that we Scots ought to know our place. Mais oui! (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The referendum itself will certainly be posted, whatever the result. But the current announcement of intention is not the referendum. Politicians announce things all the time, that's neither as significant as the event itself, nor a guarantee they will even happen. (Oh and I didn't make the bit about the date up, it's been under discussion for ages. See Guardian) Modest Geniustalk13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - political declaration of intention to do something in two years is just that. If it happens, when it happens, it will certainly be a big news. Crnorizec (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that ABC News, and apparently most other agencies worldwide, have taken their info from their usual London/Westminster sources. This makes it virtually impossible to understand this story. I strongly recommend that you take a look at what Scottish newspapers (universally Unionist note) and Scottish journalists (almost universally Unionist) are saying on this topic. Then review the dud info you are being fed by ABC News. For example, here are the latest2 columns by veteran Tory columnist, novelist (and rugby union fanatic) Allan Massie, and here is a column by his son in the Tory The Spectator. Are you so sure now about there being "some doubts"? --Mais oui! (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but many of them don't have high death tolls. I normally only create articles for an incident when the number of casualties goes above 20 at least. This is the first major one after a long time (the last major one being in September 2011). Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Senseless killings that occur every couple of months, no matter how tragic they are, are not encyclopaedic material. They do not tell us anything beside the fact that religious fervor continues to be a danger in certain countries. JimSukwutput22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your comment seems to be speaking more about your dislike of this trend of our incredibly comprehensive coverage of articles on bombing attacks than on the actual ITN worthiness but this !vote won't do anything to stop that. I mean, we had three bombing items at one point earlier last week...so I mean...ehh, I can't conclude my point here. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably off-topic, but the bombing was said to have been due to more of a tribal dispute with a local warlord than by religiously-motivated militants. Mar4d (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We have this discussion every year, and every year we come to the same conclusion. Sports stories at the university level are not significant enough for ITN. We post sporting competitions which are at the very pinnacle of the professional game in significant/popular sports, because they are the ultimate test of competitors in those sports. University sport does not meet that threshold, regardless of how many people watch it. (oh and on top of all of that, the participants in the BCS National Championship Game are selected based on subjective rankings by journalists, not actual sporting results) Modest Geniustalk16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Modest Genius. Sports story at a university level doesn't even deal with a professionalization and is even far from the notability of a junior tournaments played in the most popular sports. Since this is college football, a variety of American football that I doubt that many people outside North America have even heard of it, it's clear that it doesn't meet the threshold. Even though you may consider it as an American football it simply doesn't meet the criteria. Posting only the Super Bowl is enough for these sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every argument here is drastically over interpreted as in favor of 'oppose'. We have this argument every year and every year we reach no consensus after much argument. The 'no precedent' argument barely holds water. Again, it's not that there's a consensus that this shouldn't be posted, it's that there's no consensus either way. The NCAA basketball championship was posted the last two years (over many strong objections similar to those above), so there is some precedent for posting a similar sporting event. Many sporting events are posted at ITN that nobody in North America cares about (handball, netball, snooker, etc). This is a major event in North America. In fact, opposing on the basis that nobody cares outside N America or any other region is specifically prohibited as an argument. Frankly a lot of people seem close minded on this issue (e.g. 'no mater how many people watch it'); to quote another ITN editor here, the 'the opposers won't listen to any arguments'. And btw, Modest Genius, the finalists are not chosen by journalists at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a journalist randomly drawing names from pots should be a better way of determining sporting matchups than however the BCS comes up with.
You can predict who are the people that'll oppose a U.S.-centric event and what their arguments will be, no matter how, to borrow HiLo's words, dumb it is. Frankly, I'm more surprised there aren't enough opposes on this nomination... or that an ITN n00b(?) nominated this. Perhaps some ITN regulars don't have the energy to go through this crap. –HTD18:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, you seem to have a very little of arguments to compare this with handball. For netball and snooker it makes more sense, but only on the base of its popularity. On the other hand, you apparently omit the fact that this is far from being a professional sports event and even if we consider it a variety of American football its popularity is limited to barely 50 countries with official federation, while for handball it counts more than 130. Only as a college football I doubt there is an independent governing body. For HTD, please calm down when blaming somebody for permanently opposing U.S.-centric stories. If I do it third year in a row, it does mean that the event is simply not sufficient, but surely not because it's a U.S. story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, you say "there's no consensus either way" at the time of your post. You must have misread. Not only is there strong consensus, there is unanimous opposition. What a strange post you have made. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be kidding me... the BCS National Champion doesn't get included in ITN? It should be ITNR. This is one of the biggest events in the US... We have room for every two-bit Rugby championship... soccer title... or cricket match. But probably the fourth or fifth biggest sporting event in the US doesn't merit inclusion? What a bias.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see Nergaal's post above? Do you realise it still hasn't been explained. Do you think non-Americans should ignore such mysteries and just accept this because you say it's important? How about trying to educate (this IS an encyclopaedia) rather than just foaming at the mouth? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw Negrall's post... meaningless. Billions of dollars are spent in America on College sports every year---and while college sports may not be "professional" elsewhere, they are pretty much so here. With the most rabid fans outside of a British soccer stadium---and intense bidding for the rights to carry the event. This is one of the big news stories of the day---over 24 millions people watched the game setting records for cable viewership. And every news source in the country covered it in great detail.
If this isn't included, then it is proof that ITN has a definitive anti-American bias. This is one of the biggest sporting events in the country. But the fact that it is not included, is a clear message to just about everybody that this bias exists. The fact that it isn't ITNR is a complete joke.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon02:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the second biggest sporting event in Canada was rejected just last week, so I don't see much value in your hyperbole. Those "two-bit championships" you insult are usually fully professional, almost always the highest level of their particular sport and often the most important competitions in their countries... not the fourth or fifth. Such is life. Resolute02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so @Balloonman is the lead in the article wrong when it says The game had the lowest TV rating, 13.8, in the 14-year history of the BCS National Championship game. ? Sorry but this is just not very significant, two hand picked teams play one game to decided who is the national uni champ. Mtking (edits) 02:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mking, that tv rating will still make it one of the most watched sporting events in the world for the year. I don't know off hand but I"d speculate it'd be in the top 5.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're kidding, surely. Checked the cricket ratings in India lately? And Balloonman, it's really hard to say something polite if you truly think nergaal's post was meaningless. It was a question. WTF is BCS? Nobody has explained the abbreviation. The lnked article doesn't. This really does seem like one of those appalling cases of "I know what it means. You must be stupid if you don't." But nobody outside the USA could reasonably be expected to. So again, what is BCS? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really explained what the hell the Khyber Agency is (it's actually a place, not some "agency") but nobody's bitching about that... The cricket ratings are probably true, though. Chinese ratings in games involving Yi Jianlian shouldn't be that far behind, right? –HTD03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, misread the post re Negraal---I read the anti-american diatribe above it and missed the signature. So my response was really towards Kiril Simeonovski whose post was pure anti-american bias.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I dunno if there's any US-centric ITN nomination that he had not opposed. Heck he'd probably support KHL and oppose the NHL lol –HTD05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the opposition is that people outside of the United States don't want collegiate sports to be major news events. This, however, does not mean that these are not major news events. Not wanting them to be major events, and them actually not being major events, are completely different things. The fact remains that this is the national championship game of a very popular sport in the United States. The incidental facts of the sport, regarding where it is played, etc. is completely irrelevent to its importance. Expressing incredulity that the sport is popular doesn't instantly make it unpopular. Why do we not let the news sources speak for the newsworthiness of the event? That seems to me to be the most important argument, not whether or not we want college sports in America to be a big deal. Remember, not wanting Americans to care so much about college football doesn't make them not care. --Jayron3203:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's OK if this really is a big event, but so far too many of the American posts have just said "This is big. Stuff you if you don't understand." Surely hoping there's at least one American somewhere who is capable of actually explaining the less obvious aspects is reasonable. So, once more, WTF is BCS?HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BCS=Bowl Championship Series---it is the governing body which determines the national championship. Sorry about my comment re Negraal's post... I misread it... I thought he wrote the diatribe above his post relative to college sports/professionalism... and thought that is what you were referring to. As for it's rating... the BCS just redid it's contract. ESPN outbid the major networks and agreed to a half billion dollar deal to carry the event. So while it used to be available on the major networks, ESPN outbid them. While this is the second lowest rating championship; it is still the second most watched cable show ever---second only to last years BCS game in viewership. But ratings were down because of how dominant Alabama was---it was a boring game---yet 24 million people watched it[2]+ 500K online.[3][4] Last years NBA, which was "more popular with viewers than any of pro basketball's ultimate series since 2004" averaged 15.34 million viewers or a Nielsen rating of 8.0.[5] The final NBA game garnering 24 million and best viewership in 10 years[6]. So the lowest BCS championship had more viewers than the best NBA title in 10 years. How about Major League Baseball? With the exception of 2004 only two game seven's in the past decade have had a higher viewership than the lowest rating BCS championship.[7] What about Stanley Cup? Not even close 10 fold difference![8]. The Rugby World Cup? 6 Million viewers[9] Sorry, but this is one of the premier sporting competitions in the world... and if Wikipedia refuses to put it on the front page, then it shows a clear anti-America bias---simple as that. This year may have had the lowest viewership ever, but that is more relative to the medium (ESPN) and poor game (21-0 blowout) than the popularity of the event. Even with its lowest viewership ever, it still had more than most NBA/MLB/Stanley Cup etc championships. And more than most non-US based sports---which are included on ITNR.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That helps a lot. It's obviously big in the USA. Just be careful with global comparisons on numbers of viewers. As already mentioned, cricket in India and Basketball in China obviously have huge audiences. And a BTW, I know what it is, but I reckon 99.9% of people in my country will have no idea what the Stanley Cup is. I suspect the same applies in India. The world's like that. Vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Stanley Cup Finals were watched in numerous countries. In Canada alone, the final game averaged 8.5 million viewers, and over 18 million watched it at least in part. That, I would mention, is greater than half the population of the country. [10] The Rugby World Cup also has a far greater worldwide draw. Is the BCS championship one of the premier competitions in the world? No. Not even remotely close. It is doubtful that many outside of the US gives a damn. One of the premier in the United States? Absolutely. But there is no "anti-American" bias involved in the concept that single-nation sporting events that are not at the highest level of their sport is not worthy of ITN. As I said, the second most important tournament in Canada - the World Junior Hockey Championship (which obliterated attendance records at over 570,000 tickets sold) wasn't listed. It wasn't anti-Canadian (or anti-Swedish, since they won the gold) bias that led to that result. Balloonman - if you wish to initiate a discussion on changing the criteria for such things, feel free. But drop the invective. It is hard to take you seriously when you are playing the victim. Resolute04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Stanley Cup has a better viewership in Canada than it does in the US. The viewership is still greater for the BCS championship... that 24.3 million is the average viewership. So 2 million US viewership + 8.5 million in Canada + 2 million elsewhere---still half the viewership of the BCS Championship.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making up numbers isn't helping your cause any. That said, looking at the "home country" alone - Over 50% of Canada's population watched that game 7 in part, and a little under one-third watched it in its entirety. 24 million viewers in the US is well below 10% of your population. As a percentage of the nation watching, this game was comparable to the Gold Medal game of the World Junior Hockey Championship, which saw 600,000 Swedes watch that game despite the fact it was played in the middle of the night where they are rather than prime time. Resolute04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it is still the second most popular sporting event in the US... and it is the highest level of amateur (or jokingly semi-pro) football out there. The second most popular sport to almost half of EN.WIKIPEDIA? Per the link provided below, EN.WIKIPEDIA has almost half of the users from the US. And this is the second most popular sporting event to that half of users. Even those who don't watch the sport (ala my wife) are interested in this event. So, let's just assume that only the Americans are interested---that still means almost half the readers here would care. What about the World Junior Hockey Championship? Let's assume that 100% of Canadians and 100% of Swedes care, that's just 6.9%. I don't mean to be disparaging against Canada/Sweden, but from a baseline of interest for the readers of EN.WIKIPEDIA, it is obvious this should be included.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, that this is arguable one of the 2 or 3 biggest sporting events in the US---which is where about 40% of EN Wikipedia's users come from. Basketball may be huge in China, but what percentage of readers use EN.Wikipedia? How about India? Cricket may be huge there, but again, not as many users come to EN.wikipedia come from India. The fact that such a major news story from the American perspective could be omitted due to "it not being important enough" is simply laughable. Sorry, it is---and yet we get a news story about a hot air balloon ride that killed 11 ITN? I watch these pages, but I don't contribute here often---but failure to include this ITNR does nothing more than prove the notion that ITN has an anti-America bias.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argumentum ad nauseum is not an effective debate technique. You keep complaining about "anti-American bias" as repeating it over and over and over again makes it true. I'm sorry that something you are truly passionate about wont get posted, but that's life. It's happened to me more than once. Resolute04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so I under estimated the percentage of US involvement in EN.Wikipedia. 46% not 40%. So the second most popular sporting event to almost half of en wikipedia doesn't deserve mention?---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon04:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this truly is the US' 2nd largest sporting event, it's a grave injustice that it's excluded while Ireland's 2 largestsporting events are included... and that includes all 0.7% of Wikipedia's audience. If we'd include 2 Irish events there should be like ~90 US events there lol –HTD05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting philosophical question. Should the USA have half the items on ITN because it has half the readership? Being just one country vs dozens of others would seem to render that inappropriate, but I'm not presenting a case here. Just thinking out loud. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of similar questions are: Should the U.S. have the same proportion of ITNR items as Ireland, the smallest country that manages to have at least one domestic event on it? Should other countries that don't have listings in ITNR that have a larger audience than Ireland be given at least one? –HTD05:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I would argue against it, because there are events that are notable that would be missed and not covered. But one of the principles of writing/editing is to know the audience. The audience of en.wikipedia is largely American---and this is one of those stories that appears on the cover of just about ever newspaper/magazine/news show etc in the US. It is one of those things that would be virtually impossible to be in America and not encounter. For Wikipedia not to include this in its ITN section, shows an utter misunderstanding/bias/or whatever you want to call it towards 46% of the people who are involved here.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, the consequence of that logic is that the USA SHOULD have half the items on ITN because it has half the readership. Maybe it should. It would save you a lot of effort. But let's make it official policy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT what I said. But the argument that something is solely of interest to the US is countered by this fact. The challenge comes in identifying those stories whose omission would be glaring. Omitting the winner of the BCS Championship is a glaring omission. I think that if you talked to non-sports fans in the US, they would be surprised that BCS Champion is not mentioned and yet a number of other events are.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon06:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's back to simply opinion. Your "numbers of readers" theory is fact. But if those facts are relevant here, logic says it should always apply. You ARE saying that numbers of readers prevail over countries here. You have to believe that it should always apply, otherwise you're just an obsessed football fan. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You're once again ascribing reasoning that I've rejected and projecting motives without foundation. Should readership be taken into consideration? Yes. Should they rule? No. There is a difference between being a controlling factor and an influencing one. As for your hypothesis/projection... in order for me to be an "obsessed football fan" you would think that I would have made more than 100 edits on football articles in 5+ years. No, I'm here because this is an event where the ommission of the BCS Championship in the ITN section is a glaring omission---a joke.---BalloonmanPoppa Balloon06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I've been told before that there are too many people who don't really comprehend logic beyond its most simple form for me to expect it to always apply in a debate. That seems true here. I surrender. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (but willing to be swayed) — I'm not convinced we need to be putting it up every time the clock changes. This is about the fourth or fifth time it's moved in the last year or so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Back when this was a serious attempt to measure the danger of nuclear war by actual "Atomic Scientists", I would possibly consider supporting such a nomination. Today, the Doomsday Clock is maintained by non-scientists (including activists) and is no more than populist, sensationalist nonsense, much of which is completely opposite to scientific consensus (such as the hogwash about the danger of nuclear energy, rants about the "exploitation" of nuclear workers by free markets, and unsubstantiated diatribes against the supposed dangers of "GM foods".) JimSukwutput18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a death of a current office holder is ITNR. The article would benefit of some more update, though. --Tone16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
its not ITNR, i tried something about a death criteria at talk there but it was rejected.
Also theres not a chance in hell of this going up with the update that there is. Currently reading that he died today with a source that just quotes a headline.
UPDATE article is lookingmuch better now, but only relis on 1 source for the section on death (Excluding illness). Another source or 2 would make it ready for posting i think)Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle on significance grounds, but I would rather see more than just the one reference in the updated material. Surely there are multiple news sources covering this? Modest Geniustalk16:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more references. I checked a little, the ones used in the first place were apparently the most detailed. Posting. --Tone19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posting it here a few hours early to see if we can have something ready to go when the verdict is handed down. I think it will be ITN-worthy whichever way it goes. There's already international coverage in anticipation of today's events. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support I'm comfortable presuming that there will be an update, although given that it is a political story I'd have expected to see more about this than I have to date in my part of the world. Nonetheless, given the historical back-story I'm confident coverage will come when the verdict does. I support the nominator in putting this up for discussion early, in light of how long it has taken recent stories to get from nomination to Main Page. —WFC— 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I'd say that I weakly support in light of the acquittal; the coverage is still pretty international. I do however note that the update is pretty skimpy given the information that's out there. —WFC— 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a massive story in southeast Asia and certainly if this were in any major Western or even Arab power (opposition leader cleared of politically-motivated sex charges) it would receive much more attention that it currently is doing on ITNC. Article seems decent. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ready to post. However, I feel the blurb could be better, any suggestions? Also, do you think that sodomy should be linked? --Tone13:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think sodomy is a well-enough understood word that we don't need to link to it. But I don't care much either way. I think its time this went up... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: On January 1, 2011, we posted the opening of the Changping, Fangshan, and Yizhuang lines of the Beijing Subway on ITN. This year saw another significant expansion of the system on New Year's Day: Line 9, Line 15, and Line 8. This amounts to 36 km more tracks, and 19 brand new Subway stations in operation. In addition, although this milestone is not mentioned in English-language media, the new addition of tracks now makes Beijing Subway the third-longest system in the world, surpassing the New York City Subway for the first time. Last year during the ITN post, we discussed the dearth of infrastructure coverage on WP's ITN. With that in mind I submit this blurb. --Colipon+(Talk) 15:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Leaning towards oppose. The last time, the 3 new lines represented a 50% increase of the track length while this time it is significantly less. Would support if the expansion made it the largest system in the World, but I guess it won't catch the Shanghai metro at this rate. --Tone16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support in principle. I thought about this for a while, and was concerned that if there was a similar extension to the underground systems in e.g. London, Paris or New York, we would post that. But the new line is (currently) fairly short, and as the nominator noted these sorts of expansion are happening every year in Beijing. Then again it IS a minority topic. But unfortunately the event happened on 1 Jan, so this is now stale and couldn't go on the template anyway. Modest Geniustalk19:21, 10 January 2012 (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.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.png)