:Just off the top of my head thinking here, but nobody thought to nominate Eric Sykes yesterday, whilst Americans are quick to nominate each and every person who drops dead. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 08:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:Just off the top of my head thinking here, but nobody thought to nominate Eric Sykes yesterday, whilst Americans are quick to nominate each and every person who drops dead. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 08:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' The comparison to Sykes is a good one. Griffith was well known in the US, but very little-known outside it. Sykes was well-known in the UK but very little-known outside it. ITN shouldn't include death notices of people whose notability is restricted to one country. [[Special:Contributions/188.28.107.107|188.28.107.107]] ([[User talk:188.28.107.107|talk]]) 10:32, 5 July 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.
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).
The Shard, the tallest building in Europe and the tallest habitable free-standing structure in the UK at 309.6 metres (1,016 ft), is officially opened. (LondonSEI)(Gulf Times)
MPs vote for a government proposal to establish a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the scandal, but an opposition motion for a judge-led inquiry is rejected. (BBC)
A high-ranking drug boss in the Mexican criminal group known as Gulf Cartel is apprehended in the country of Costa Rica. (Fox News)
Politics and elections
WikiLeaks begins publishing the Syria Files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies, dating from August 2006 to March 2012, which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims are embarrassing to Syria, but also to Syria’s opponents. (BBC News)(CNN)
A gunman, who was facing eviction from his apartment, is believed to have seized and killed four hostages in the German city of Karlsruhe before turning the gun on himself. (BBC)
Eleven people are killed in further unrest in Iraq, including eight people in a bombing of a Baghdad marketplace. (The Times of India)
Spain's national court opens a criminal investigation into last year's listing of Bankia SA on the stock market, with former chairman Rodrigo Rato and 32 others listed as suspects. (Wall Street Journal)
Politics and elections
Hundreds of protesters clash with police in the Ukrainian capital Kiev and the parliament speaker offers to resign over moves to boost the status of the Russian language in the country. (Al Jazeera)
The Chinese city of Shifang cancels the planned development of a copper plant after thousands of people demonstrated. (CBC)
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: I know its domestic, but it is far more important to the country than a health insurance court case we recently posted. Its a hugely controversial issue and, for a change, doesnt involve outside parties either. It could lead to a fall of government, as well make or break future domestic relations within the country's society. (which the court case wasnt going to do). See source above, that mentions criticism of the legislature itself ("skeptical Knesset cohort"). And this is hthe major national paper. Lihaas (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Despite the fact that I'm a football fan. This is a premature nom, for one thing. More importantly, I can't accept in good faith that there will be a reasonable update, because the article contains a negligible amount of prose on what happened in the first leg a week ago. —WFC— 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment going by faith in whichever Cabal put ITN/R together, it's sufficiently notable - however the article would still need to reach standards in order to be posted. impossible to judge this prior to the event, this is why I dislike these "future nominations". LukeSurltc15:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: (After result+Update) And I don't give a crap about Soccer/Football usually. This is a major tournament, watched by many in many different counties. If the UAFA champions league gets posted, so should this be. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You have got to be kidding. This yet another football article normally gets just over a third the number of hits of Andy Griffith. An entire league that can't pull the same weight as a mere TV star 20 years out of circulation? Shame! μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, talk about not being able to treat each case individually. Your revenge opposing based on your own personal bias. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose isn't serious. And talk about bias, you've got that and rudeness in spades. In any case, Griffith does outpoll the Copa, and you have no good reason for your opposition below other than the fact that the topic is, in fact, popular. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you commenting on my past actions with other, unrelated users? Shall I bring up yours? Lets see...blocked twice...once more than me! I can be just as petty as you then? You were being totally serious or you would of withdrawn your opposition. I wasn't being rude, I was being truthful, and my opposition wasn't based on his popularity at all! and I acknowledged his popularity & how his death had been well reported in my own country! And I admit I can be rude, but most of the time I am perfectly civil, which I wont be to you - you're a douche :P --Τασουλα (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Because it is ITN/R, it gets an automatic pass on notability and must be posted if it has a sufficient update and the article is up to par. ITN/R is a guideline. Although Medeis' point is valid, it belongs in an ITN/R removal discussion, not an ITN/C nomination. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though we often treat it as such, ITN/R is a guideline rather than policy. It's a shorthand for "consensus on this event has been previously achieved", and a way to prevent repetitive discussions, however consensus can change. I don't think we should treat it as a free pass as to notability for every occurrence. In fact, we should consider every nom of an ITN/R item to be an implicit discussion on the item's place on the ITN/R list. Should the occurrence of the event be widely considered non-notable it's listing should be under serious review. LukeSurltc07:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but consensus can only be changed for ITN/R if you have a discussion on the talk page and it is closed as such. Complaining that you don't like the current consensus doesn't change it. You must show that consensus has changed with discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[My points above are] all, however, a general point, and not specific to this nomination, upon which (knowing nothing about S. American football) I am neutral. LukeSurltc22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending appropriate update. This is arguably the most important footballing tournament for the whole of Latin America (and I mean that literally!) and football is, well, football, the most popular sport in the world, being particularly important in that region. Finally, this is on par with a Champions League final, the Libertadores being the Latin American equivalent, and there wasn't any such discussion there, so it seems like an very strong case for a support. Pending the update.User:Vertigo200—Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was an international competition from the most popular sport on the planet and the most popular cup in Latin America. In addition, this is the first time Corinthians wins a Libertadores championship, so that may be mentioned too. ComputerJA (talk)
Nominator's comments: Major scientific discovery. Could do with a check with someone with more expertise in particle physics (I'm a mathematician with a keen interest, but not expertise, in this field) before posting and updating the article, but assuming I've got this right, this should definitely be ITNable. --Sceptre(talk)07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about phrasing it as "a new particle with properties consistent with the Higgs boson"? It's a more accurate hedge, but it might be too wordy. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 08:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's more succinctly covered in "Higgs-like", but yeah, the wording is totally up for refinement. As I said, not an expert, but keenly interested. :). Sceptre(talk)08:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it seems like they are cautious about calling this new particle the Higgs. Would be correct to refer to it as a "boson" rather than simply a "particle" if we wanted to be more more specific. LukeSurltc08:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "CERN announce the discovery of a new boson with properties consistent with the Higgs boson of the Standard Model after experiments at the LHC."? Trade using the full name of the Large Hadron Collider for mentioning the consistency with the Standard Model. (I'm also not a physicist, but for what it's worth, obvious support for any version.) « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 08:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This wording is good, IMO. Ready to post when there is slightly more update to the Higgs boson article (in the timeline section and intro, I suppose). --Tone09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need two "boson"s in the blurb? Obvious support for posting provided we are careful not to over-egg the claims made. Crispmuncher (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"...a new boson..." is actually slightly more specific, because it sounds like the fact that it's a boson is just about the only piece of information they have about it other than its mass. But "particle" might be better because it avoids saying "boson" twice and because it's a bit clearer for a general audience. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 09:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to notability: Support (obviously) - a pretty huge deal for science, and very relevant to encyclopaedic content. LukeSurltc10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I think the formulation in the article now makes it clear what the discovery is about. As suggested, I'll use the word particle to avoid double use of boson - if the particle was not a boson, it would not be consistent with the Higgs. --Tone10:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's quite a long blurb. Is "of the Standard Model after experiments at the Large Hadron Collider" really necessary? There's no other Higgs Boson, after all. Formerip (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least 25 people are killed and 40 wounded in a truck bombing in the market place of the Iraqi city of Diwaniyah. (AP via Google News)
Business and economy
Bob Diamond resigns as the Chief Executive of British bank Barclays following a scandal in which the bank tried to manipulate the Libor and Euribor interest rates systems. (BBC)
Police search the home and offices of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy as part of a judicial investigation into financial relations between his political camp and L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt. (Reuters)
Hundreds of activists demonstrate in Ramallah to protest against the violent dispersal of two similar rallies at the weekend in a rare expression of public discontent with the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmud Abbas. (AFP)
Evidence for Discovery of a meteorite crater 3 bn years old, caused by a ~30 km meteorite, substantially larger than the Chixculub crater, twice the size of the previously largest Vredefort meteorite. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Maniitsoq crater is supposed to have been 500-600 km wide upon creation according to the linked article, but only the part originally >25 km deep remains, the rest has already eroded. So it's no longer the biggest asteroid crater today, but it was caused by the biggest impacting asteroid ever. (Reworded blurb for clarity.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Recognized television actor with an exceptionally long career, whom I feel is significantly well-known across the globe. I am looking for national sources to back this up, however. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - seems fairly big character in US TV, but unclear if any of his shows have had much traction outside the US. Also a natural death at age 86. LukeSurltc14:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he's been out of the public eye for nearly 20 years (since Matlock) and its been more than 40 since his eponymous show aired. Hot Stop16:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acting roles for the elderly are rather rare. At least those with any substance worth lending your name to. Given that he probably had enough money from his series in syndication, why would he work more?
Nevertheless, he reprised the role of Matlock in 1997 on Diagnosis Murder, reprised the role of Andy Taylor in a political video by Ron Howard, and had eight roles between 2001 and 2009? Within the last decade, he appeared in the television specials CBS at 75 (2003), The Andy Griffith Show Reunion: Back to Mayberry (2003), CMT's American Revolutions: Country Comedy (2005), and two episodes of PBS series Pioneers of Television (2008). That in addition to appearing on Entertainment Tonight, Larry King Live, etc. Were you aware that his Grammy Award was in 1997, two years after Matlock ended?
Support One of the true giants of American television. The old age argument is trotted out every time but we've run countless items for elderly celebrities who were of roughly equal stature. Besides his own distinguished career, his eponymous show launched the careers of Don Knotts and Ron Howard, both quite noteworthy themselves. -OldManNeptune⚓16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, re: notability internationally. Of the 10 highest circulation newspapers in Canada, only French-language La Presse and Le Journal de Montreal didn't cover it. All others did, most on their front pages. (* means it appeared on the front page of the website for the newspaper, ** means his image appeared on the front page with the link.) The other 8 newspapers are: Globe and Mail* | The Province** |
Oh yes, that US colony is international as far as the US is concerned. Im sure something with the popultion of 2x NYC influenes worldopinionLihaas (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support He also starred in film, on broadway, had a platinum album and was the biggest living name in TV at the time of his passing, and, especially, we will probably get a lot of readership interest, which convinces me to support the nom. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I tend to do with deaths that make the Toronto talk radio news circuit. That to me is a good sign of the person's significance outside of the United States. Everyone recognizes the whistle-opening to his show, and he is a household name (at least in North America). On the United States gawking that many editors seem to bring to the table when it comes to deaths, what makes recognition by Britain, or Germany, or Australia or Japan so special that it suddenly overcomes the detriment that making national headlines in the US seems to bring to nominations. Pitiful anti-Americanism without any basis, except the false claim that we run more American-centric news. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢18:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FFS (and Oppose) Can we ever clarify 100% if someone dying of old age, no matter how famous but having done nothing of note for a very long time, belongs in In The News? Griffth's TV show was used as TV pap in Australia in the 1960s. It means that lots of older folk like me remember the name. Dunno if this makes him great outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "nothing of note for a very long time" argument doesn't hold water with me. e=mc2 was first published in 1905. Einstein died 50 years later. Matlock ended only 17 years ago. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot equate Einstein's accomplishments in the field of physics to Griffith's accomplishments in popular culture.--WaltCip (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not. But I'm just saying that the time frame between accomplishment and death shouldn't be a relevant measure for this sort of thing. The only measure should be the enduring nature of his creative works, the ripple effect of starting careers, his Tony nominations, his Emmy nomination, his Grammy Award, his 1960 Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (before the honour had been watered down), his Presidential Honour of Freedom, etc... -- Zanimum (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not a response to my basic point that the ONLY reason he's getting any coverage now is because he died OF OLD AGE. That is NOT a newsworthy achievement. And since a nomination I made here some time ago of the very premature death of an extremely meritorious Australian, very well known in at least one other country half a world away, was rejected, I reject an American with very little impact outside his own country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that death from suicide or mishap is somehow a newsworthy "achievement?" And by your own admission, it would appear that your rejection of this entry has less to do with whether or not it's ITN worthy and more to do with bitter retaliation. It's disappointing that so many have adopted ITN as a platform for a political agenda when the states purpose is to help visitors easily find articles they are most likely to be searching for. -OldManNeptune⚓21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political? What? And while I didn't mention suicide or mishap (please stop guessing), yes, the death of someone in the 30s or 40s is obviously far more newsworthy than death of old age. But not for a pensioned off American TV "star" apparently. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the death that is the notable aspect, it is the resulting coverage in terms of obits, memorials, tributes, and the like that is notable. --MASEM (t) 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the "suddenness" of a death, and its unexpectedness, make a death more newsworthy. I would contend that the death of George Harrison, only 58 but known to have cancer, was less newsworthy than the death of Kurt Cobain, who was 27 and committed suicide. Sadly Wikipedia doesn't go back to 1994 to show us page views for comparison. (I'm neutral but leaning towards oppose on Griffith, FTW.) – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fame and celebrity does not automatically equate to notability: it is an inevitable part of success in certain industries such as film, TV or popular music. Posting simply because of celebrity in those instances is setting the bar very low indeed. In this case the individual accomplishments most notable roles were decades ago and has been of comparatively little note of late. Notwithstanding the links posted above, this doesn't appear to be gaining significant coverage internationally - sure, he's being covered somewhere but well down the running order. The fact that someone appears in the obituary sections internationally does not raise the individual to the breakout notability needed for an ITN listing. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
His death did not appear in the "obituary sections", of the eight largest Canadian newspapers, all published his death in the Entertainment news section. And most included an image on their front page, as of my checking earlier today. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just browsing the article here, it would appear that he certainly had not dropped off the radar as some commenters are suggesting. In 2007 he was inducted into the Christian Music Hall of Fame, for example. Indeed, it would appear that from 2000-2010 he received quite a few awards and recognitions, released seven albums, was in five movies, and a music video. Just because he didn't do much television worked doesn't mean he didn't do anything. For that matter, I am not convinced that notability, even per ITN, hinges on recent activity. A significant body of work and major contributions to both television and music is no small thing. -OldManNeptune⚓19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An 86 yr old who dies not out of the ordinary and is FAR less GLOBALLY noteworthy than Yitzakh Shamir. STRONG oppose in the itnerestsof consistency...we really need a policyLihaas (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, albeit weakly: Yeah well known, and this was a fairly big story over here in the UK as he was fairly well known here as well. However, treating ITN as an obituary for every "famous in their day" old-age death needs to stop. Also enough of the "big in America, Oh what nowhere else? LOL screw you guys this is Americapedia! USA USA USA!"... No I kid ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concerning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Though a rare and prestigious honor, it seems that his receiving of the award is amplified by his field. If you look at the list of other recipients, it does not seem like a majority of them (save heads of state) would have a chance of even being proposed for ITN. Actors and other popular culture figures will always be the most well known, but not necessarily the most important deaths. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-known, and good article. Considering some of the deaths added to ITN this year, I think this one is more than noteworthy enough. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib)20:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Orange tagged I disagree with the above editor about the status of the article. I noticed numerous successive unreferenced paragraphs, so I went ahead and added {{ref improve}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that this argument that someone's living into old age makes his accomplishments less notable is, frankly, bizarre. An unexpected death does not itself make someone notable who isn't. An unsurprising death itself does not make a notable person unnoteworthy. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but as I suggested up the thread, a surprising death is more newsworthy than an unsurprising death, regardless of how notable the person is. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally no fan of Andy Griffith's. But that is taste. And to argue that his death's not being surprising is relevant here is still quite odd. One might as well argue in response that given he was a redhead he was more notable than 99.9% of the people on earth. Both statements are non sequiturs. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
Comment:CTV News Channel interviewed the co-founder of the The Andy Griffith Rerun Watchers Club. They have 1375 chapters worldwide. I notice Austria, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Ireland, Thailand, Grenada, Mexico, Canada, Crete, UAE, Italy, England, Germany, France, and Israel. That, and the USS Simon Lake, before it was decommissioned. (Now note, the list is out of date... there's one in West Germany, but that speaks to this organization being around before the internet, and thus more than just hitting "Like".) -- Zanimum (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After much deliberation, I suprise myself by supporting this, mainly due to the first listed purpose of ITN, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" be so relevant to this item, I mean over 600k people more than normal viewed his entry today. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think an entry here will help readers find an article? I suspect they will search for Andy Griffith. Helping people to find an article is an appalling argument in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, that is one of the main purposes of ITN, I'll quote again for you, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Perhaps you should read up at Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose if you are unaware of ITN's purpose. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm aware of that purpose for ITN. Please read what I post, and think before you post next time. Don't treat me like an idiot. It may make me think you are. It's an appalling argument in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say that he's more than noteworthy enough. Also, as pointed out by Unique Ubiquitous, a lot of people are going to be looking for the article. Herr Beethoven (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think an entry here will help them? I suspect they will search for Andy Griffith. Helping people to find an article is an appalling argument in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the basis of the arguments in this nomination, there's not a convincing enough argument to prove he was notable enough for front page inclusion. Important to a generation of Americans, I have no doubt, but not enough outside that doktorbwordsdeeds10:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can we stop posting the deaths of so little known Hollywood celebrities??? Somebody said that this guys is more relevant to the word than 99.9% of the people in the world, but being one among the millions that have some celebrity should not make them ITNR worthy. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"So little known?" I've seen some hyperbole in arguments before, but this has to take the cake for ITN. Please, if you're going to oppose this, at least attempt an argument that isn't so obviously knee-jerk. -OldManNeptune⚓21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize that even though we have a very good and comprehensive encyclopedic article on the subject and that there is huge reader interest, Obama is only an American. Not Kenyan or Indonesian. Especially not Indonesian. He may not even be an editor. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just off the top of my head thinking here, but nobody thought to nominate Eric Sykes yesterday, whilst Americans are quick to nominate each and every person who drops dead. doktorbwordsdeeds08:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The comparison to Sykes is a good one. Griffith was well known in the US, but very little-known outside it. Sykes was well-known in the UK but very little-known outside it. ITN shouldn't include death notices of people whose notability is restricted to one country. 188.28.107.107 (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Four foreign aid workers held hostage inside Somalia are rescued by Somali forces after they were kidnapped from a Kenyan refugee camp on June 29. (BBC)(Reuters via Yahoo! News)
Children in Jaʿār, Yemen, accidentally set off a shell, killing one and wounding seven others. (AP)
Finland says it will block the euro zone's permanent bailout fund (ESM) from buying government bonds in the open market, while The Netherlands also indicates opposition to the bond-buying idea. (Reuters)
The British government announces a parliamentary investigation into the BarclaysLibor scandal, with reports hoped to be filed by the end of the year. (Reuters)
Some, but not all, of Chicago's taxi drivers go on strike during the morning rush hour to protest a new set of city regulations that took effect. (NBC Chicago)
Disasters
At least 79 people are killed and 2.2 million rendered homeless as torrential monsoon rains trigger floods in Northeast India. (Sky News)
Four officials from the International Criminal Court, including Melinda Taylor, are released after they were held in the Libyan city of Zintan for four weeks on suspicion of spying. (BBC)
A year ago, CERN also reported that they had discovered faster-than-light neutrinos. Hold off on making any postings until the evidence is corroborated by other sources.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the sources tells me two things: One, there is more coming Weds (July 4), so I would definitely say any posting of this needs to wait to then (This is sorta a prelim announcement they have found something, the full details probably are out July 4). Secondly, reading the articles that reporting on this, it suggests this is an affirmation after third-party review of the data, putting the confidence level of something being there at 99.99+% (4 nines) that it wasn't an instrument glitch or the like. So technically they got corroboration. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we will just wait until they build another accelerator of LHC's size, at a cost of 7.5 billion euros, to get independent confirmation. On a more serious note, the Higgs experiment was split in two independent teams for exactly this independent confirmation. Thue (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for some definite announcement. CERN have released a number of "teaser" announcements in the last few years on this issue but have always stopped short of announcing definite conclusions. Until that point this is simply another evolution in a long-running story. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Wait until Wednesday and post then. It seems pretty clear that they will announce their results in a couple of days so wait until then. The peer-reviewed papers will probably come later, but I think this is a sufficiently big of a deal to not wait until then. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as per above - let's see if it's five-sigma. Also, cut mention of "god particle", it's an unnecessary piece of journo-speak. LukeSurltc19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize it as a nice meaty media sound bite but at the same time, I would bet that our average reader is going to understand the importance of "god particle" over "higgs boson". I'm not married to the idea of keeping the "god particle" in there, but I think it feels bare and lacking "why does this mean anything" without it. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "a key theoretical sub-atomic particle of the Standard Model of particle physics" bit should suffice for that. I really dislike "god particle" as it does nothing to explain what the particle is, and sorta invokes irrelevant theological connotations. LukeSurltc23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I agree completely, the "god particle" term is hugely non-scientific, non-explanatory, and unnecessary. Thue (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: At $3billion, it's the largest health fraud fine in US history, I think that is reason enough. I do notice the company has a very long criminal record and that several other fines have been posted recently on ITN, but I think it is still notable. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to nominate it based on this article in the independent and I was going to suggest having "for illegally marketing the depression drug Paxil" in the suggested blurb.
Support That's a HUGE fine - it's almost half of their net income (per the article). It's also a British company fined by the US government, so there's a definite international impact. I wouldn't add the Paxil blurb though, since Avandia and Wellbutrin are also included. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support size of fine makes this obviously notable. We have had one or two other stories of late, most notably the Barclays one which is still one the template. However, assessed on an individual basis this is surely notable enough and if posted this would naturally bump the Barclays story from the template in any case. Update is currently a little on the thin side, for story as multi-faceted and widely reported as this there isn't really any excuse for a thin update. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Syrian opposition groups reject a UN-brokered peace plan accepted yesterday in Geneva for a political transition in Syria, arguing that it is ambiguous and a waste of time, and vowing not to negotiate with President Bashar Assad or members of his regime. (AP)
Turkey scrambles a total of six F-16 fighters jets near its border with Syria in response to three cases of Syrian military helicopters approaching the Turkish border, although there is no border violation. (BBC)
At least 17 people are killed and 45 injured in an attack on two churches in the eastern Kenyan town of Garissa. (BBC)(MSNBC)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Obvious support once updated and results are official, both as a presidential election in a large country, and because the PRI is returning to power. Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not confirmed yet, but only likely + remove Nieto page as not updates and by pre cedence wont be adequately upated.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I think something like "returning the PRI to power" is important, but not sure how to word it.Wait till it's official. It's not crystal clear yet, and it's not our place to pretend that it is.Xavexgoem (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Xavexgoem (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Noteworthy, and especially because the old PRI party (which ruled for 71 years) returns after a 12-year struggle. I'd recommend to check for neutrality, however. I haven't checked the veracity of some citations either. ComputerJA (talk)
Wait. Let's be patience and wait for more info to come. ComputerJA (talk)
Comment: Still not official, also it appears as if the "runner-up" candidate is going to challenge the result, so we should keep an eye on the developments. Tombo7791 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just read that Obrador is demanding a recount, this story could be a while yet. Shall we move it up the page to 3 July? LukeSurltc20:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending final conclusion; significant change in political balance in Mexico and in light of the ongoing anti-drug war. -PopularMax (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has the Mexican press mention anything about this picture? I've seen similar videos on YouTube about alleged "vote-buyings," but I've never seen any formal or legal action against them. ComputerJA (talk)
No, they haven't, in neither public or private TV, and the error still there (Mexico / 5614), and this is one of multiple errors. López Obrador said that he has 3,000 incidents registered-only at polling stations, there will be also added incidents recorded by political parties and observations registered at the PREP (What is the PREP?) In Spanish. About buying votes, there are excessive evidences that some political parties (if not all) were buying votes for months, but the IFE and the FEPADE "don't see, don't talk, don't hear", and in fact the FEPADE said that these investigations will take them "weeks or months" to check them. There were presented legal protests, but to date nothing has been done. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions.01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to remember in this discussion that the PRI essentially bought Televisa and TV Azteca. I don't believe that this is disputed, and it's been covered extensively by The Guardian. How this affects source reliability I don't know, but given their influence and the gray area this creates, I think we should give some more weight to the international outlets.
I can tell you that my FB feed and my left-leaning news sources are full to the brim of Mexican discontent at the results, and not just one or two or three photos show fraud or suspicions of fraud, but rather what I'd call a "bevy" (documenting this stuff is part of the objective of YoSoy132). Point in my saying this is that it seems likely that there may be more to come (beyond the already large demonstrations at the Zócalo and other places). I could be wrong, but Mexico gets more and more interesting each day.Xavexgoem (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I apologize for slightly soap-boxing there, but context, context, context. Also, Tbhotch: the idiom is "see you no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" ;-)[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.
Nominator's comments: (Nomination From ITN/FE) ITN/R, major international football tournament with significant media and social attention. UEFA European Football Championship has been getting fast and furious updates: I watched the article get updated within seconds of each of the Mario Balotelli goals last Thursday, so more than likely the article/blurb should be ready not long after the match is over. I figure lets gets the consensus out of the way now, so the focus can be on updating the articles and posting it when the match is over(pending the consensus is to post). I will work on prose updates as the game goes on. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 07:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*NOTE This nomination has been posted under June 30th because as of this posting, AnomieBOT has yet to add the section for July 1st (I'm assuming due to server lag [3]). For fear of screwing up this page when AnomieBOT gets going again, I've posted it here, under July 30th. I will move it, along with the entire discussion, to July 1st when the section has been added. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to avoid any differences in the style, but the use of the British English is much more familiar for those living in the European countries rather than the use of American English. If we really have to opt for what to use, then "... X defeat Y ..." would surely better fit within the preferences of most of our readers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (obviously) as per ITN/R, but can we not choose the blurb after the match has finished? Depending on what happens we might want to mention things such the score, or whether the match went to extra time or penalties. LukeSurltc10:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to mention something about the best player on the championship or even about the top scorer instead of revealing information from the final. We still need to focus on the whole championship that ends with this final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a conclusion of a major sports event. Predictions for the final estimate a number of more than 250 million spectators to watch the game live, while the attendance on the stadia has already reached record 1.3 million spectators.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. To add on Simeonovski's comment, the championships have been the most-watched programme in several countries this year, including England, Germany and Spain (even surpassing the figure set in the 2010 World Cup final). Lemonade51 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agree more work is still needed. Right now the coverage of the background is out of all proportion to the coverage of the match itself: 12 paragraphs (admitted a couple of them quite short), but only one covering the match itself. There are a few edits needed elsewhere in the article too - "If Spain were to win the final" in the lede for example. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Since this has now been posted I'd say pull: the update is still insufficient in the wider context of the article. This is the version approved by Tone. A rough word count gives me 1822 words of prose of other information and a 246 word match report. How can an article be considered balanced when less than 12% of it deals with the nominal subject? That's not ITN worthy, in fact it's eligible for an issues template. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added enough prose to UEFA Euro 2012. I'm working on both articles heavily as we speak. The articles will be 100% ready soon. I believe that they are ITN-ready as of now, however. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) I think this was a bit rushed. For one thing, I'm a bit surprised you didn't notice the numerous complaints about the American English in the original suggested blurb. I also have to agree that the content of the article is excessively lopsided toward the background. I mean, the article is okay, and it probably meets our minimum standard, but there was no pressing need to get this up so quickly in the passable shape the article was in. -- tariqabjotu21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the complaints about the American English, and commented on it early this morning prior to the match. The admin who posted it originally posted it with my wording, then another changed it afterwards, so I have no idea what happened there. I thought my way was fine, and no one else made any other suggestions at that time. Whoever edited the blurb the second time actually made the blurb better, so I have no issues with it. The edits to both articles have been given more than a sufficient update regarding the final match. Anything more than this would be a straight play-by-play analysis, which is a lot more than needed. The article is on par, if not exceeding with UEFA Euro 2008 Final, in terms of information. Another point: take a look at the last ITN/R sports event, the 2012 NBA Finals. The update regarding the final game is the same size and contains similar summaries. This was posted without much issue (except for someone forgetting to post the final score on the article). I don't see the update given to UEFA Euro 2012 Final being of any less quality than that one. I'm still working on improving both articles. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was in response to Tone, not you. And I'm the one who reworded the blurb. This new formulation isn't particularly novel; it's our standard approach to avoiding English-variant issues. That being said, I've been trying to think of a way to work into the blurb that it's Spain's second consecutive victory, as that seems to be a big part of the story. -- tariqabjotu21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about posted blurb I think that the fact that Spain has one three major international titles (Euro 2008, 2010 World Cup, Euro 2012) is a bigger deal than them winning two straight Euros. Any thoughts on changing it? (Yes, I know the blurb has been changed several times already).-- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think European Football Championship needs to be spelled out somewhere, and so mentioning their third consecutive international win would require us to expand "UEFA Euro 2012", in additional to adding the lengthy "third consecutive major international title". -- tariqabjotu22:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was too fast. When there's an obviously item that will happen at (nearly) fixed time, such as a sporting event, it's common but counter-productive for the nomination to occur before the event actually occurs. While this may be OK for confirming the notability of the event, it's not useful for the other criteria, i.e. the blurb and article readiness. We've got the obviously notable ITN/R of Wimbledon next weekend - for that it would be good to be less hasty, more thorough. No-one expects ITN to be an up-to-the-minute news ticker. LukeSurltc23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would think that nominating a sporting event prior to it's completion would be counter-productive, especially for ITN/R events of extreme popularity (I.E. Euro 2012, World Cup, Super Bowl, etc.). If it's nominated prior to the start of the event, we can get the necessary consensus needed ahead of time to post, so everyone gets their votes out of the way, and the focus can be on getting the article(s) updated once the match is over. Otherwise, as soon as the match ends, we have people focusing on putting their simple Support/Opposes here, rather than actually contributing to the articles. With this nomination, only 1 vote was added after the game was over, the rest of the comments were about fixing the article, which is exactly what I hoped for, and why I nominated it when I did. The only time this way won't work is for events like the NBA finals, the World Series, etc., where there is no set date as to the end of the series (unless it reaches Game 7). I do agree that it got posted too early, because it was posted prior to me even adding sources to the prose updates I typed up. The articles were in more than adequate shape about 30-45 minutes after the initial posting, but it could have waited until then. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not ready 45 minutes after posting, it still isn't. The sheer quantity of pre-match analysis added before the match requires correspondingly well developed match report and reaction sections to balance it. It is still the case that the vast majority of the article is not about the subject. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict)That's a poor example, the article we led on did not cover a single match but a series. An article covering a single match needs to cover that match. As it is most of the coverage is preamble: how the teams arrived at the final, the football used, the broadcasting rights - these are issues affecting the competition as a whole, not this match. It is all background that informs the article but it is out of all proportion to the coverage of the match itself to reach proper balance. To get that either the article on the final needs a savage pruning or the actual match coverage and reaction to it expanding significantly. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Euro 2012, 2010 World Cup, 2012 Super Bowl, 2011 World Series, 2012 NBA Finals are all major championships in sport, and they all include extensive background information, and said information often rivals that of the match and post-match information, like what you've described. This information is interesting for a championship match, which is why you see it in almost every major sport championship article. Alternatively, you wouldn't want to see that info for an article about an exhibition match. Since every update must contain sources, it's hard to expand something beyond what you can find a source for. Word-for-word summaries from other sources have to be avoided at the same time. If you break down the "Road to the Finals" sections in UEFA Euro 2012 Final, each section about a game played by each team is about the same length, and has the same content, as the final match summary. Naturally, these sections will be larger because they span 5 games (plus qualifying), not just one final game.What I would consider to be a good match summary for an association football championship match would include final score, championship facts (IE Spain successfully defending their Euro 2008 title), goals, and key moments (including plays or fouls and cards). The final match article covers my expectations. I don't know what else is missing that would improve the article(s) any from here, that wouldn't result in the summary sounding stretched, like adding in sentences like "The Italians looked very tired as the match when on, while playing a man down". I always put forth my best effort in any article that I spend an extensive amount of time in updating, and I would assume the other editors that worked on those articles feel the same way. Thoughts? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 05:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes ITN can't do anything right. A major source of complaint is that ITN is slow to post news particularly of events that are scheduled in advance. IMO, well done to ITN for a timely post. ITN is not necessarily for FAs or GAs; if the update met ITN criteria that should be fine.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles do have to meet minimum standards: being about their nominal subject and not something else is one of them. I notice the article on the final has been re-linked to today's featured list but if it isn't improved soon I'll be nominating it for deletion. The central aspect of the defence of the article is that all that can be said has been said. If that is the case it doesn't warrant its own article. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb wasn't linked to TFL because there was something wrong with the article but as an attempt to promote TFL (not my decision, David Levy's). It'll automatically be relinked back to the article at 00:00 (UTC). The bigger problem with the article isn't that it doesn't have enough information about the match itself (although it would be nice if it had more); it's that it has way too much background information (considering we do have a UEFA Euro 2012 article for that kind of information). That should be easy and quick to fix. Deleting the article is obviously not necessary; it's clearly notable on its own (regardless of how good the current article is). Doing so would just be to prove a point or force action, which, without linking the you-know-what guideline, is inappropriate and disruptive. -- tariqabjotu19:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about TFL. After you called me "a jerk" and reverted my good faith attempt to explain how TFL (and the blurbs etc) work, I realised there was no way back with you. What a shame. Hopefully discussions with David will be more fruitful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Your argument confuses me. Anyhow, I've listed Wimbledon as a future event, experimenting to see if that might be a better way to construct an ITC/C for an ITN/R sporting event. LukeSurltc21:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the slightest idea what your comment means or why you inserted yourself into this conversation. You seemed to make it very clear that you weren't interested in hearing from me, and I likewise have made it clear I have no interest in engaging with you. That you have decided to bring this here, even after I reaffirmed my disinterest in talking to you, while providing nothing useful to the issue actually presented here is a new low. I don't know what you want from me, but, whatever it is, you're not going to get it, no matter where you decide to bring this fight. So go away. -- tariqabjotu22:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
