*'''Support''' Very big in evolutionary theory. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 18:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Very big in evolutionary theory. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 18:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''support alt blurb as nom''' but article still needs work. [[User:EdwardLane|EdwardLane]] ([[User talk:EdwardLane|talk]]) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''support alt blurb as nom''' but article still needs work. [[User:EdwardLane|EdwardLane]] ([[User talk:EdwardLane|talk]]) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' per FormerIP. Although I really do wish to note that the alt blurb is very badly stated; gears were discovered, but they definitely were not shown to be the ''only'' animals to have them. We simply found the first species. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 22:11, 13 September 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.
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).
Nominator's comments: Reports of the initial crime triggered widespread protests in India and drew attention to the social status of women in that country. Nominating now since the trial is over. --It Is Me Heret / c 09:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It was notable on September 10, and it's more notable now that there's a sentence. -LtNOWIS (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported posting the conviction, I support posting the sentencing. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but blurb is wrong It should read that the four adult defendants were sentenced to death. The fifth defendant, a juvenile, was sentenced to three years at a reform facility in a separate trial. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post Blurb Posting - Strong Support I had nominated the article way back in December 2011 for ITN. Considering the gravity of the crime committed, the widespread global media coverage the incident had received and the subsequent protests and public debate on rape laws made it an ITN blurb. Nirabhay (Delhi Braveheart) losing the fight with her life resulted in the rewordings to the blurb. I am posting my comment now as people may contest that the journey ain't over -> Supreme Court->President of India->Challenge to the President Order in the Supreme Court->Final Hanging....a long process. The article is not updated in many sense. Take for instance: the mother of braveheart receiving a presidential award for the extraordinary courage displayed by her daughter, Christiane Lagarde beginning her Davos speech by referring to the courage of the Malala of Pakistan and the Braveheart of India, President of India mentioning the incident twice in the television speeches- once during the Christmas eve address to the nation and later during the New Year eve, parents receiving an posthumous award from Hillary Clinton... and the list goes on. The article would receive global coverage as it marks an important event in the lifecycle of the journey. My comment is for those who may oppose its posting or ask for a pull request.Regards, theTigerKing 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can we remove the silly "2012" from the blurb. That's more for article title differentiation and looks silly there as its not a proper noun. Link to the page ocfcourse but don't show that.Lihaas (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally against including years. But when referring to a non-current event, it is not uncommon to include the year. This is particularly true when the event is as generic as "Delhi rape case". At least point them in the right temporal direction (ah... yes, I remember hearing about that case last year...). -- tariqabjotu 18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support this in principle, but the blurb needs work. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An interesting story, but nature is weird and wonderful. That's not really news. Formerip (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is huge news if you know anything about biology. No circular or gear structure has been discovered at a level above the flagellum or cilium prior to this. If it has, let's see the source, FIP. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Insects in Issus genus are discovered to have a biological form of mechanical gearing"? —rybec 14:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems much more of a DYK item to me. Abductive (reasoning) 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
could only be nominated there is someone can produce a fivefold expansion of the article - it's not a brand new article. EdwardLane (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support an entirely unexpected discovery among macroscopic animals. Like discovering vertebrates with wheels. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support alt blurb as nom but article still needs work. EdwardLane (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per FormerIP. Although I really do wish to note that the alt blurb is very badly stated; gears were discovered, but they definitely were not shown to be the only animals to have them. We simply found the first species. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Could be happy with a blurb but am putting this forward as an RD --doktorbwordsdeeds 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. He has received multiple awards, but the article could use a bit of expansion. SpencerT♦C 00:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD as totally top in his field. He was even set to receive a star on the Walk of Fame next year. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious once it's updated. Just one sentence now. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - Article is a bit thin, but there's not much question about the subject's notability. A true innovator. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support: household name —rybec 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For things like this the company is often far more familiar than the actual individual. Read the sources carefully: he invented Dolby NR: a system for reducing hiss on a pretty much obsolete audio format that was designed from the outset to be cheap and physically small as opposed to hi-fi. Surround sound, DTS etc may bear the Dolby name but that is credit by association rather than this man's accomplishments. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great story for soothing the popular psyche about the existence of "the American Dream" but it was never true. GE was formed by the merger of what were already megacorps. Where is the relevance in any case? Show me one thing that Edison the man did that Dolby the mandirectly built on and I might reconsider. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of our opinion of your bizarre conspiracy theory that there are no people behind corporations, just corporations all the way down, doesn't it strike you as sad you are reduced your very own self to trolling here under a single-purpose sockpuppet account? Something about the beam in your own eye. μηδείς (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Clearly notable in his field. Even if he didn't work on every aspect of the sound system or other technology, he still brought together and directed who did. Bill Gates did not program every line of code for every version of Windows but he still brought together people, directed them, and had ideas- no one would dispute he would be listed on RD(hopefully far in the future) Steve Jobs did not build circuit boards and program iPhones and iPods, either- but he was posted(and got a blurb) 331dot (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD per above. Oppose blurb though. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to Recent Deaths. It Is Me Heret / c 12:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this posted without an update? Pull, please. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pretty self explanatory... will provide reasoning if i see opposes (which i doubt). Article needs updating though. Post with the picture please. ---- Ashish-g55 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt blurb since leaving solar system doesnt necessarily say it entered interstellar space.. -- Ashish-g55 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment third nom is the charm? The article has a one-sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit the page This belongs here. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib) 19:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's an essay and not a policy, but per WP:Proseline, the #Heliopause section makes me want to run into a wall. Why are the dates bolded? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we already discuss this multiple times before in the past? I don't know if we posted it or not, but very few months or so the popular press picks up on some arbitrary milestone as "leaving the solar system"; Voyager 1 has already "left the solar system" multiple times in the past, depending on whatever fuzzy boundary you are defining as the edge of the solar system. It's has been, is now, and will be for the foreseeable future the farthest man-made object from earth. Unless that particular distinction changes, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about an object moving away from us getting farther away. That's what it does. All the time. Breaking its own record for distance will continue to happen every second of every day, and we don't need to report these arbitrary milestones merely because some it was a slow day at the science desk of some newspaper and so they felt the need to remind us of Voyager 1. --Jayron32 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Talk:Voyager 1, this was posted on June 15, 2012. Not sure why specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving solar system always meant entering interstellar space since there is nothing beyond that but next star. Yes there were milestones like entering/exiting heliopause, bow shock etc. but this particular milestone is FAR from arbitrary... -- Ashish-g55 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - As long as we have an update. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb - I have replaced the alt blurb with one that is factually indisputable. NASA did today announce, for the first time, that Voyager 1 has reached interstellar space, the first man-made object to do so. JehochmanTalk 19:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when this was posted last summer after the second time it was nominated the NYT source quoted NASA officials as saying this was the "moment" they had "been waiting for." Apparently we have the same moment a second time this year as well? How many times over the next decade will this happen? μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is actually confirmation that Voyager left the solar system last year, on 25 August 2012, so it's not applicable for ITN, it's stale news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
June 25th 2012 posting was false and NASA announced that it was in a newly discovered region of solar system called the magnetic highway.
You mean, Voyager has left the "solar system" 22 times?!! O rly? Lol. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time it has reached interstellar space. See [1]. Also, it took NASA a year to collect and study data proving that Voyager 1 had reached interstellar space. Science isn't always instantaneous. The news is the announcement. JehochmanTalk 20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the very least, the blurb should say it left entered interstellar space over a year ago. That's fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the submitters from the previous times, I know the issue came up of whether that point (entering the heliopause) was significant or not, and the issue at the time is that NASA had no idea of the distance across the heliopause, it could have been a few months, it could have been a few years. It was a point of contention, but I believe that it was resolved with the understanding that entering and exiting would be notable ITN events with a good time distance between them. Given that the only known next event that VoyI expects to see is it running out of power, I doubt we'll have anything else to update from now on, so this is not really a problem to post again. (Mind you, if we posted every 22 times that the xkcd jokes at, that would be an issue. We're talking here about an event separated by more than a year, and arguably sports events get more frequent updates.) --MASEM (t) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for current blurbs. The terms "leaving the solar system" and "reaching interstellar space" are both too vague for me. If NASA is saying something along the lines of "exiting the heliopause", it might be ITN worthy, but the article (and blurb) should reflect that. SPattalk 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand your oppose... how is "exiting the heliopause" itn worthy but not "reaching interstellar space". NASA specifically announced it in those words because that is what happened. How is it vague? -- Ashish-g55 20:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is this exact same item's third nomination. It has been posted once and rejected once due to the inherent obscurity in the definition of "solar system" and the moment an object crosses its border. This still holds, and one ITN mention for one and the same event is enough. Would obviously support this if it was April 1, though. --hydrox (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate blurb. It is factually correct and a very notable event. --Philpill691 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close this is stale. As TRM's Nat Geo source mentions above this is simply confirmation of the news we posted last summer when it was first released. This has become a joke, see Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link? I think you are confusing two different things. This is the first time that scientific confirmation has been published. It's like a crime that happened a year ago, and the court just declared the verdict. It's news. JehochmanTalk 22:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like that analogy, and I wholeheartedly agree. Girona7 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A link to what? To the article's talk page where it says this was listed on ITN last summer, which I supported? Or a link to The Rmabling Man's post above in this very same thread where he links to the Nat Geo article explaining that today's announcement by NASA is confirmation of last August's story? Why should I provide links to links that have already been provided? μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Even though this is confirmation of an earlier report, this is how science works. Many people did not comment on the event last year because it was as yet not confirmed. Many outlets around the world are already covering this news today, and it will be news over the next few days. I think Wikipedia should cover it, too. Lastly, there are many people who do not check Wikipedia every day. For those who may have missed it -- and even for those who may have caught it -- I think this is important enough to repeat, with the clear update about the confirmation. Girona7 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is about the tenth time it has been announced - the problem is that nobody really knows where the edge of the Solar system is, and new regions have been discovered after it has been announced. This might actually be the "real" one, but it's already been announced far too many times. --W.D.Graham 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell I was going to suggest this when I got home from work, I'm glad I didn't now. Support if it makes any difference. FacepalmBlack Kite (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without mention of the metric used to verify it has left the Solar System; per Phil Plait, "I'll note there is some argument over what constitutes the boundary of the solar system.". Sceptre(talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted when this left the heliosphere, and it seems at this point each further announcement is another arbitrary measurement, similar to other nominations about the price of gold reaching $500, then $1000, then €1000 and so forth. The whole accomplishment is that it's been further than anything else, and we've posted that already. SpencerT♦C 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose votes include original research or other irrelevant logic. What matters is hat this event is currently in the news. JehochmanTalk 00:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, Jehochman, the Nat Geo source has been provided to you above by TRM, please read it. It says today's formal paper confirms the announcement Voyager left the solar system last August 25th, which we posted at that time. The current blurbs are stale and falsely imply this is happening now, not a year ago. Have you read that source or not? μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you refer to. Can you post a link to our prior blurb. I think you have confused different things. JehochmanTalk 01:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is significant enough (and subtly different enough from the previous story) to justify posting, and it's undoubtedly in the news. Last year's news seemed to be that it had merely reached the border of the Solar System, while the latest news is that it has crossed the border into interstellar space, which is a bit more complex and noteworthy than crossing the border into Wyoming. The distinction might not be enough for some, but it's plenty for me. That being said, this should probably be the very last Voyager 1 update that we post until it loses power (or achieves sentience). Because the event actually happened last August (but not last June, when the previous update was posted) the preferred wording should be "NASA confirms" or "NASA announces" or something similar. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those interested in previous nominations regarding Voyager 1 reaching certain areas on the edge of the solar system:
Thank you very much for that list! Reaching the heliosphere (June 2012) is clearly different from what is being reported now, reaching interstellar space. The unposted items are irrelevant; they were correctly not posted. The May 2005 ITN about the Heliopause relates to an inner layer, not the same either. The solar system has layers. It is newsworthy, very much so, each time Voyager's instruments detect a new layer. This is experimental confirmation of what otherwise is just theory, very exciting stuff for scientists. We need to avoid hyped, imprecise language like "leaving the solar system". We can post the current news about reaching interstellar space (exiting the heliosphere), and then some time between now and 2025 +/- 5 years we will probably post that Voyager 1 has ceased communicating, whenever that happens. If Voyager 1 happens to stumble upon something really interesting and unanticipated in the meanwhile, I am sure we will figure out what to do. Okay? JehochmanTalk 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters this March, also about the data from 25 August 2012. The New York Times story in the nomination mentions a Sciencearticle from yesterday; the Science abstract says that on 9 April 2013 there was the first observation of a phenomenon indicating Voyager had crossed the heliopause. Support if the new Science article, which NASA waited for, is mentioned along with the NASA announcement. —rybec 03:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. What's notable here is really that Voyager 1 has entered interstellar space, so that should be the focus of the blurb. Entering interstellar space is not "arbitrary" as if saying it reached a certain distance is; there are certain qualities about interstellar space that don't exist within the System. And lastly, whether it was posted a year ago or not, this is "in the news" and this item is in the news now. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support alt blurb my initial concerns have been alleviated by other supports that have explained the significance of this event. --Jayron32 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question to opposers: do you guys realize that scientific discoveries are made well in advance before their report? For example the DNA of lemurs is studied months before news of new lemur species are published in the literature, and we usually wait for the peer review part to put stuff on ITN. Support. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously didnt think there will be any opposes to this, since last time this was nominated it was not NASA that announced it. And decision was to wait. Not sure why people are calling it stale news or that this happened long ago... it took a year for them to verify and release the information. Before NASA officially verifies anything, its all speculation hence previous noms were not posted. Every news media out there still has this or atleast had it on front page. IMO its a pretty big accomplishment to reach interstellar space and should be posted -- Ashish-g55 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Why don't we make it "NASA confirms..." instead of "NASA announces..."? That is what is particularly newsworthy, and it answers any questions as to why Wikipedia would mention it again after initial reports that it had happened... Girona7 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Supportiff we use "NASA confirms...". This is big news this time for this specific reason, and there's no higher authority than NASA in this regard. --LukeSurltc 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the changes in the blurb and subsequent discussion of the objections have produced a consensus to post this. Could an uninvolved administrator take a look? JehochmanTalk 16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but the blurb is still a little misleading, it would need to say that Voyager 1 did this at least a year ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Personally I'd prefer to be slight less precise "...in August 2012...", but I won't quibble :) --LukeSurltc 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support along similar lines to the second half of Bongwarrior's argument. I question why we posted last year, but beyond the technicality TRM raises I see no good reason not to post this one (and it is a technicality, because we're either damned for prematurely nominating what we think has happened, or we are damned because verification took too long). The only grounds for a future nomination in our lifetimes would be permanent loss of power/communication, or if our current understanding of what lies beyond the solar system is show to be way off.
As an aside, it's nice to strike a perennial topic off of the list. Now we just need to sort out Gibraltar, Lionel Messi, transatlantic race rows, and deaths.—WFC— FL wishlist 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Major milestone, regardless of how 'obscure' you think it is, this is the first time mankind has left the Solar System. Even the previous naysayers now agree that Voyager 1 has passed all the boundaries, regardless of which definition is used. It's also passed the peer reviewed paper threshold - this isn't just a press release. Major coverage in all serious media outlets. Modest Geniustalk 17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. The revised blurb is no better; just the same (nonspecific, almost impossible to precisely define) event described in different words. Evanh2008(talk|contribs) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is clearly a significant achievement, and this seems like it's the real deal this time. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have been mulling this over, seeing as we have had some opposition, but in the end I am convinced that this is a news item that is truly worthy of ITN... international in scope, astonishing in content, and an inspiring tribute to those responsible for this 40 year mission. By the way, the coverage has been strong in the media, and is on the front page of my LA Times today. The concerns expressed are noted but it is time to give this item an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 22:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian chemical weapons deal
Article:2013 Ghouta attacks (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in an interview with Russian TV, agrees to a Russian-sponsored plan to place his country's chemical weapons under international control. (Post) News source(s): BBC [2], Guardian [3], London Times [4], Die Welt (in German) [5] Credits:
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: If implemented in conjunction with the major international players — Russia, the U.S., UK and France — the plan would avert a threatened U.S. military strike against Syrian government forces, leading to de-escalation of the Syrian crisis spawned by chemical-weapons attacks on civilians at Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013 Sca (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If this is implemented, it's an obvious support. But there are some things in the Russian proposal that the U.S. does not agree with, so at this point it's anyone's guess as to whether or not this will be implemented. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought these latest developments would have a new article, rather than 2013_Ghouta_attacks (which is, unsurprisingly, NPOV tagged). --LukeSurltc 16:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Russian-sponsored plan probably should have its own article.
As to waiting, I think the fact that Assad reportedly has publicly agreed to international control is itself significant; in his interview with Charlie Rose on Sept. 9 he refused to even confirm that Syria had chemical weapons. Sca (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the opinions on others, regarding whether this is sufficient to post or if we should wait for a formal agreement. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Assad agreeing to it isn't news. The UNSC agreeing to it will be, though. Formerip (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a UN Security Council resolution. JehochmanTalk 19:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote: Syria applies to U.N. to join the international ban on chemical weapons (Reuters). [6]Sca (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, wait for them to actually join, as an alternative to the UNSC resolution. JehochmanTalk 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So, whose weapons will they find? Saddam's? When they are actually found and destroyed we will have verifiable news. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a UNSC Resolution or the actual seizure of weapons. I might support posting Syria's joining the Chemical Weapons Convention but I haven't seen a great deal of coverage on that yet(if Syria has even formally done it yet). 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – if this happens, it actually happening will be huge news. If it doesn't happen, the fallout will almost certainly be huge news. —WFC— FL wishlist 16:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Sca, Syria acknowledged in July 2012 that it had chemical weapons [7]. —rybec 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The UN accuses both the Syrian government and, to a lesser extent, the rebels of war crimes. Out of 9 massacres they investigated, 8 were attributed to the Syrian Army. The remaining massacre was attributed to insurgents. (The New York Times)
Fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group kill 12 members of the minority Alawite sect in central Syria after seizing their village, opposition activists say. (Reuters)
UN investigators in Syria say Syrian army forces continue to bomb hospitals and massacre civilians. (NBC News)
France drafts a resolution forcing the Syrian government to hand over its stockpiles of chemical weapons in 15 days (The Independent)
Two suicide bombers ram a car with explosives. Egyptian military says one hit the local branch of military intelligence, while the other struck an army checkpoint in Rafah killing nine soldiers and wounding 17 others. (Houston Chronicle)
Oppose given this is an impairment of contract Contract Clause, it is forbidden by the US Constitution, and would likely be stayed, appealed, and overturned were it actually put into effect. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although a Wikipedia user's legal opinion is not relevant to its newsworthiness, I oppose this as there is no guarantee this will happen, as it states they don't have the votes to seize mortgages even though they did to approve the program. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm pretty sure this was approved a while ago by (a town in?) another state. Also, of marginal interest in the US, let alone anywhere else. Abductive (reasoning) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not an illegitimate nomination. If the news item actually were to succeed it would be huge news in the US, again see Contract Clause. I oppose the nom since I don't think it would get beyond the local council vote. Local councils vote all the time for rather bizarre Biblical and anti-science or anti-state/federal constitution stuff. That being said, if this is to be closed it should be done using the {{archive top|reason}} {{archivebottom}} template or the {{hat|reason}} {{hab}} template if it's closed with prejudice. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this story in the San Francisco Bay Guardian says there was another vote during the same meeting, in which five councillors were "against a resolution to rescind the city's offer to purchase 624 underwater mortgages and halt any effort by the city to seize those mortgages through eminent domain." In response to Abductive, I've added additional news sources. I had assumed that the AP story and the sources in the article would show wide coverage. The AP story calls it a "first-in-the-nation plan" and other stories make the same claim. Whether it's been done in other countries, I don't know. The blurb could say "first in the U.S." —rybec 04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reopened the nomination for time for more consideration. SpencerT♦C 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed - really, per WP:SNOW. This doesn't have any chance of passing, 0% chance. The nomination clearly states why this does not meet the ITN criteria. Preliminary movements towards something that might or might not happen are not suitable for ITN. JehochmanTalk 12:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Anna Lindh assassination
fix awkward closure, can still be hatted entirely μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 12 September 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.
Oppose I opposed the anniversary of the coining of Stockholm syndrome and see no reason to support this. It's not "in the news". I'd also oppose someone trying to nominate today as the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, btw. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only an american can link 9/11 attacks to the assassination of Anna Lindh.. btw. Other things happens in the world..even if America was the victim of that tragedy.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ this American bashing is ridiculous. Check your calendar. The connection is the anniversary, and I was opposing any "anniversaries". – Muboshgu (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want another non-9/11 reason for an oppose? The update is one sentence, the article is barely sourced, and it's appropriately orange tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only one having an "American agenda" here seems to be you.. geez relax.. I am not going to respond to your erratics anymore.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the editor who nominated the Stockholm Syndrome anniversary right? I guess you're Swedish and nominating from that perspective, which is fine. My opposition was straight against any post having to do with an anniversary, and given that I can see One World Trade Center out of my living room window, the fact that today is September 11 is not lost on me. After all of the cries of "American bias!!!111!" I've seen on this page, I don't like seeing my nationality brought up here, as it isn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see La Moneda Palace on this anniversary? Then Sept 11 will not be lost on you...terrorism works in cleansing a democratic sovereign regime ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BabbaQ, Lord knows I agree that ITN overall is too U.S-centric, but this behaviour of yours is silly. Of course an anniversary like this won't be put up, and it's not because it isn't an American story either. What is notable about the anniversary in of itself? Nothing. It's just 10 years. An arbitrary number. Anniversaries like could only be appropriate for OTD. Furthermore, whilst I absolutely won't tell you what you can and can't nominate, if you're going to put up anniversaries like this and that Stockholm Syndrome stuff - that you really should know by now aren't going to get put up - only to follow up with a round of America bashing, I think you need to rethink your priorities here. And no, once again, I'm not an American, so you can't accuse me of defending an agenda. Redverton (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redverton, your accusations are kind of silly and definitly unfounded. I only nominated news here and instantly got this "American agenda"-comment by Mubosghu, why would I otherwise mention America at all if Mubosghu had not brought it up again. Mubosghu has to move on from our previous Stockholm Syndrom/Norrmalmstorg robbery discussion which he still seems to think about for whatever reason and not bring it up everytime I nominate something, simple and clear. Also I have never said that Anna Lindh wont be on ITN just because it isnt an american story so do not put words in my mouth thank you. To respond to your actual vote I say you are ofcourse entitled to that and I think it is disrespectful of you to insinuate that I was going to attack you for it..--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I will no respond and totally ignore any similar kind of nonsense accusations. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It didn't occur to me earlier, but this assassination might be well suited for "On This Day". – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could try, but I think they prepare that in advance and only normally update for errors. Formerip (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is possible this year atleast. But good suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTD/SA requires, among other things, highlighted articles to be properly sourced. The {{refimprove}} on top of the Anna Lindh will need to be dealt with properly before the assasination can appear on OTD. As part of the normal ITN update process, Howcheng is fairly good about checking previously suggested articles to see if they have had any deficiencies corrected (ineligible and unused suggestions are kept in the "staging area" of the days OTD page). Anyone truly interested in seeing Lindh mentioned on the Main page thus has just under a year to correct problems with her current article. --Allen3talk 14:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anniversaries are for OTD. --LukeSurltc 15:16, 11 September 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.
Support. An event covering 400km of land seems remarkable enough. Catalan interior ministry calculated that at least 1.6 million people participated in this demonstration. (1, in catalan), (2, general info in English)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ESM (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same reasons mentioned--Kippelboy (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2 million people in a 7 million country.--Arnaugir (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the sources provided by ESM and this article of The Washington Post, I've changed the blurb from "Hundreds of thousands of Catalans" to "More than one million Catalans". --Davidpar (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is being covered in dozens of newspapers and media outlets in many, many countries all over the world, indicating high interest. See [11] in Catalan, but with links to articles in original languages.--lizcastro (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PostedStephen 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and pull You just had to fall for this Catalan nationalist gibberish. Look at these votes; User:ESM is Catalan, User:Kippelboy is Catalan, User:Arnaugir is Catalan, and User:Lizcastro is Catalan. "Hey lets form a big human chain so people start caring about our meaningless problems." And they fucking succeeded. Th4n3r (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to point out that all the comments were from Catalans, and, given the nature of the subject, it might be better to get more geographically diverse participants in this discussion. However, the rest of your comment is unnecessarily offensive and shouldn't be taken into account. -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and pull per Th4n3r. I may change my decision once recurrent voters post their opinions. As of now, I oppose.ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to weak support per reasons below. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pulling I thought posting this was highly premature. I also would probably still vote support. But I am a pro-Catalan partisan. The issue I see is verifying the number of participants. I won't call for pulling, and if we do pull I would want the option of a very swift reposting. Past procedure has been not to post a nomination so swiftly unless it has at least four supports on top of the nominator and no opposes. This had three when it went up. We still have majority support, so a pull seems premature. But I can't objectively add myself to the supports yet. BTW, I have strongly supported and participated in updating prior pro-independence Catalonian nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support continued posting unless it is revealed that the number in the chain has been vastly overstated. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose pulling unless someone can prove human chains this long are common. politics aside the blurb is about an unusually long human chain. this doesnt happen often as far as i know -- Ashish-g55 05:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pulling - This is a major demonstration. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: the logistical magnitude of the event, the sheer number of people involved and the ample coverage in media all over the world make it a shoe-in for ITN.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and oppose pulling The demonstration seems to address a very important sign towards the independence of Catalonia. It's also very unusual to see such a mass demonstration involving almost one quarter of the country's total population.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kiril. Also, we should probably have some standard wording for pull/don't pull. Skimming this discussion, it's easy to misead "Oppose and Pull" as "Oppose pull" and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MChesterMC (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Think this was posted too hastily - a short series of users who don't normally post here promptly turning up to support a story about a nationalist publicity stunt ought to have led to alarm bells, not posting within a few hours of the nomination. Support purely on the basis of numbers, but the story should be pulled if it turns out the numbers are exaggerated. Formerip (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers are, undoubtedly, taken indirectly from a press release put out by the organisers. Formerip (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers were relesed by the Catalan interior ministry and the present journalists gave it validity. Here is aerial video of some parts of the 400km human chain. --Davidpar (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pull/support Okay let's think about this for a second: even if the numbers are inflated and say, only half the size, it is still a notable event. And c'mon - ignore the nationality of the nominator and just look at the sources. COI is not handled on ITN/C (My comments are aimed at no one in particular). --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post facto support and keep Massive event, international coverage, why wouldn't we cover this? BTW, love the arguments about the initial supporters, when do we ever hear that when some minor and unworthy US item gets posted straight away with solely US support....? 131.251.133.27 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't hear about it because that doesn't actually happen.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support continued posting It is indeed a notable event. We all are aware of how evil demonstration numbers can be, but I'd like to stress the historical value of this event. Inspired in the Baltic Way, it is one of the most (if not the most) participative demonstration for a democratic right in Catalan history. That, imho, makes it remarkable enough. Now please excuse me while I make some edits in English wikipedia so as to be taken seriously. --ESM (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there were 1 million participants covering 250 miles that means one person per every 16 inches of the distance. That's an entirely incredible (i.e., unbelievable) number. One person every four feet would mean about 300,000 participants. Given there's no visual poof the line was actually complete the number is much likely much smaller. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the general, 400km picture is sewn, we'll share the link and you'll be able to check whether the line was complete and otoh notice that, in some parts of its route, there was more than one line of people. In the meantime, some pictures here. Cheers. --ESM (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for Catalan independence, I shepherded last year's protest through the nomination process here. But I am also old enough to remember the farce the was Hands Across America. This will also be the third year in a row we will have had a Biggest Catalan Independence Protest Ever on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well list this at ITNR? (lol) –HTD 05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clashes erupt across the country after the funeral of a 22-year-old student activist and security forces respond by teargas and water cannons. (Russia Today)
Arts and culture
Miley Cyrus breaks the record for the greatest number of views in 24 hours with her latest video Wrecking Ball. The video, uploaded on Monday, has 19.3 million views after a single day, and many people complain about this video. This has been her second record, and the third Vevo record video to become a frequent target for negative comments, the others being Stupid Hoe by Nicki Minaj and We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus, the latter record set earlier this year.(E online)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Death from cancer at age 88 of one of the most prolific of all Australian writers and the author of more than 25 books. --HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support recent death listing. JehochmanTalk 12:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article quality alone. I could support since he's Order of Australia, if the article is expanded and improved. Also, this is not sufficiently updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD per HiLo and Jehochman but Muboshgu is quite right, the article is not in great shape to say the least, and has been tagged for sourcing for a long time. It will take a bit of work. Wish I could help but I am crunched for time. Jusdafax 04:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Steve Dodd wins Jimmy Little Lifetime Achievement Award at the 19th Deadlys
per Jehochman's "closed" tag μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 11 September 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.
I know this isn't exactly life shattering but Steve Dodd is a featured article and the award is a significant one in Indigenous Australian culture.
Nominator's comments: Highly regarded award within Indigenous Australia awarded to pioneer of Indigenous arts. Roisterer (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dodd seems to be an old, (perhaps beloved?) character actor. His article alone doesn't show him to be highly influential or the top of his field. An award limited to an ethnicity is problematic. I certainly would oppose any such ethnic award I could think of in the united states meriting an ITN blurb. Perhaps there is some proof of significance I am missing? μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an award limited to a (disadvantaged) ethnicity problematic? That just seems to be your political POV, which is not relevant to our decisions here. Neljack (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis asks a valid question; unless someone can point them out I don't see the giving of specific awards like this posted often, if at all- especially those of particular ethnic groups. I don't believe we post any awards from the BET Awards, , NAACP Image Awards, Latin Grammys, etc. Why should we post this one? 331dot (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because our system bias has meant nothing like this has been posted before. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure an affirmative action program for awards given by ethnicity/racial based groups would set a good precedent, regardless of the racial/ethnic group. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How often have they been nominated? Neljack (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ticks all the boxes. Good, well established article, properly updated. A leader in his field which, to reply to Medies, has been a somewhat narrow one all his life, black Australians, but that's hardly Dodd's fault. Given what he is, he is right up the top. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And here I thought his field was actor, HiLo. μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a joke too? HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, frankly I find your racial patronizing highly offensive, and your implication that not sharing your identity politics is bias personally insulting. If Dodd has accomplished anything it was by his individual effort as an actor, for which he deserves all due praise, and not by the effortless accident of his birth. His chosen field is "actor", not "black Australian". What an insult to other Aboriginals to pretend he is somehow their superior in the field of Aboriginalizing. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured article, significant though not famous awards. Sort of content we want to showcase on the Main Page and that people are unlikely to have heard of, but likely to find interesting. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. Because there is no article for the award and the article for the ceremony is a stub. That doesn't indicate that someone being given the award is a major event, in the scheme of things. To put it another way, if the bolded article has to be the bio, that's a red flag. Formerip (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose award is of insufficient notability and newsworthiness. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An award recognizing accomplishments by members of a small minority of Australia's population smells too much like a big fish in a small pond. --Allen3talk 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, I'm not seeing where this is in the news (the source given is from the group giving the award) Further, this is an award for a small subset of a nation's population. Lastly, I don't see this sort of award posted often, if at all (even from groups with more general criteria). 331dot (talk) 18:45, 11 September 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.
Syria Sticky
With all the talk about Syria lately, I think a Syria sticky would be a good idea. Thoughts? Andise1 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which article would be linked? Syrian civil war is very long and, unsurprisingly, is orange-tagged for neutrality. --LukeSurltc 07:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can wait. If indeed there is a concrete step in the U.N. process, that will be posted I'm sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Highly significant position within world sports has been newly elected. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but this could be included into the existing blurp about Tokyo having been awarded the 2020 games, to something like
definately notably, came here to nominae it too. I too support Foxy Orange. Needs an update though. Perhaps some more on his election and who he ran against, etcLihaas (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is one thing which I don't understand. Tokyo and Thomas Bach have been both elected using the same eliminatory voting process (with each round the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated). So why use the verb selected for Tokyo and the verb elected for Thomas Bach ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined. I made the proposal on Saturday for the 2020 Olympics. Hektor (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we could also fold in the wrestling perhaps. --LukeSurltc 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb, perhaps using "awards" for Tokyo and "elects" for Bach. -- Mike(Kicking222) 18:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb including wrestling. -Zanhe (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - combined blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as a combined blurb. Feel free to suggest improvements or edit. I put the new blurb at the top, and put the election to the front of the blurb. JehochmanTalk 15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted aboveLihaas (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The top story in Indian news, and currently a top story on BBC (2nd highest), Al Jazeera, and in the New York Times. This case led to national and international protests and vigils in response earlier in the year, and now appears to have come to resolution. --Khazar2 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Receiving wide coverage; resolution of a notable legal case in India. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant case, significant news coverage of said case. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came here to nominate this myself. Mohamed CJ(talk) 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - normally I'd oppose but this is an international story as noted, and in the news all over. Jusdafax 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the article says sentencing (perhaps to death) begins tomorrow, so this could either go up with the understanding that it will be updated or we can just wait. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentencing hearings begin tomorrow, but that doesn't necessarily mean the sentence will come tomorrow. The juvenile's sentencing phase took months. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do normally wait for sentencing, though. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am of no huge opinion one way or the other, but it would be odd to have it come off ITN next Tuesday and then have sentences of death passed on Weds. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems better to Wait for the sentencing. Did we have an ITN when the original crime and subsequent protests occurred? JehochmanTalk 23:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus has developed over the last year or so that ITN should wait until sentencing to post. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait for sentencing. I agree with the others, the sentence will be a key part of this aspect of the story. Resolute 01:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For info, sentencing is set for Friday, according to the BBC. Formerip (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, FormerIP. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:SNOW'ball close. ITN/C is srs business. Pedro : Chat 09:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] 1 user likes this.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating. Stephen 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the extended alt blurb better, but could perhaps 'self-immolates' be changed to 'sets herself on fire'? 203.206.185.55 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Suggest we speedily close and remove, or hat. Jusdafax 04:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Judasfax. Humor or sexual elements to a story do not represent a reason to post. 3142 (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close The video was a hoax created by Jimmy Kimmel.[15]. In any case, I understand the video was posted about a week ago and it is obviously not ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support But only if she set fire to the Van Gogh at the same time. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure this is somehow American-centric. Somehow. --PlasmaTwa2 06:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this a joke? — -dainomite 07:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - obvious hoax. Can we close this now, please? Oh, and next time, try 'girl' or 'woman' instead of 'female'. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support clearly news of international importance. Sticky asap plz thnk of teh lil gurlz. --Somchai Sun (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Surely ITN hasn't become a complete joke, has it? SNOW close. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
News sources please? 331dot (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. No source, no vote. Formerip (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when results are in.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per BabbaQ. --Simone 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added BBC source. -- [[axg//✉ ]] 21:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, but it would be nice if the nominator (a regular here) learned to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps read the article itself. Which is what ought to happen before "votin"Lihaas (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do read the article; that is not the issue. This being "in the news" we need some evidence that a story is indeed "in the news". We have a 'sources' line in the nom template for a reason- to make it easy to determine that. Do you think it's there just to take up space and not be used? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to defend Lihaas on this one, at least to some extent. Sure, Lihaas sometimes nominates ITNR events before we have a clue of the outcome or whether the article is going to be developed – in fairness the outcome is irrelevant for an ITNR event's eligibility, and from the looks of the article so far it seems highly likely that the work will be done. But Lihaas's habit would actually be a big net positive (drawing editors' attention towards upcoming items) if it wasn't for the fact that other regulars vote (yes, "vote", not "!vote") for stories without even reading the article. —WFC— FL wishlist 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If people giving their opinions here aren't looking at the articles, then they should be called out on it and their opinion weighed appropriately; the sources line in the nom template helps to establish that an item is in the news- one can update an article that isn't in the news or only covered in a small area. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post once results are known and put in article. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that Labour, not the Conservative Party, has won a plurality [16]. However, the centre-right parties look set to win the majority of seats and Stoltenberg (the PM and Labour leader) has already conceded defeat. Given that, I think it would be a bit misleading to say "Labour win a plurality" in the blurb. I'm not sure what we should say instead. Maybe either "Centre-right parties win a majority of seats in the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013" or "Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg concedes defeat after his government loses the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013. Neljack (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm,. there is no precedent for this. We could [ppost the result and the governmen formation? We did that for usa, uk, aus and (i believe) canada.Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and ready to post...just as soon as we figue a blurb.Lihaas (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I've used IP88's as the altblurb, ommitting the word "loose" as unnecessary. This is updated and the blurb can be changed if there's further discussion. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with the change; it was only a draft and I was unsure about whether "loose" was neccessary myself. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Using "loose" would only be essential if indeed it were expected to fall apart imminently. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i think saying the centre-right coalition is deceptive as no government has been formed and there is no coalition yet, in the interests of actual facts (and constitutionally the Labour party should get the first chance to form a government (never mind it will fail) so it should read the Labour wins a pluralitylyLihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting, rare, and encyclopaedic. I've expanded this beyond stub class. --LukeSurltc 13:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare and interesting event("new" paintings from deceased famous artists); receiving wide coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — "The first full-size canvas by Van Gogh discovered since 1928" (BBC) seems a major arts find — but should it be in ITN or TFP? Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article would also qualify for DYK as well at the moment, but I think the system basically gives ITN "first dibs" :) Featured picture status takes a while to obtain, and I don't think there's any reason a ITN picture couldn't later be a TFP. --LukeSurltc 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing against an image being POTD after being ITN; only DYK disallows former ITN articles (speaking as someone who has experience in both areas). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Saw this pass twitter feed, beaten to the punch in the ITN/C, glad to see the article already for it. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1) It's Van Gogh 2) Rare event 3) My cats name is Mittens. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready article is updated and support is universal. I think there is a reason why, 10,000 years from now in the Dune universe, one of, if not the only artifact still existing from Earth, is a Van Gogh painting. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: waiting for men's singles --Gfosankar (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nadal as male winner as per second source. Article appears updated. 203.206.185.55 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I think this should be featured. Nergaal (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I understand it, wrestling will be included both in 2020 and 2024, but it is still not a core sport and will have to again be subjected to another vote (in four years, I think) to be included after that. Not sure if the blurb should reflect that this decision is not just for 2020 or not. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose effectively wrestling has not been dropped, which is much less of a story. --LukeSurltc 20:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could fold this in to the general Olympic blurb perhaps. --LukeSurltc 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If posted this seems the way to go. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wrestling has an iconic place in the Olympic Games. It's been part of the Games since the ancient Games in Greece, from 708 BC. Some may think little of the sport (personally I think basketball stinks), but no matter what you think of it, for it to be removed would be a major disconnection with the past. So, minor sport, major part of the tradition of the Games. Whether it's there or not matters a lot to those of us to whom tradition is important. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wrestling was dropped as a core sport and put back as a non-core sport; not exactly the same thing as reinstating it as core. Further, it's not like the dropping of it was at the same meeting or even recently; it was a few months ago and thus was in the news again. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose it was never really removed from any fgames, at any rate if need be can add it to the combi-blurb per the new presidentLihaas (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Wrestling will be held at the 2016, 2020 and 2024 Games. If there had been a gap I would support. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At the false heading Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2013#IOC drops Wrestling we rightly decided to wait and see what happened at the actual decision. Now we have another false heading. Wrestling was never dropped so it cannot be "re-added" or "reinstated". Roughly put, IOC thought about wrestling for a while and decided to keep it. The distinction between "core" and "non-core" Olympic sports in IOC terminology is not ITN material. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Army deployed, curfew imposed, shoot on sight order issued --Gfosankar (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is a communal riot? What are these riots about? μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "communal riot" is a riot between members of different ethnic or religious groups (in this case, Hindus and Muslims). It's a common term. As for what the riots are about, have a look at the article. Neljack (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Communal riot is not a term Americans are used to hearing--ethnic or intertribal would be much clearer. Blurbs are meant to be informative and transparent, not challenging. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. While not a top story, it does seem to be getting some coverage around the world. Deployment of a army to quell civil unrest is unusual. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "communal riot" is a term that should not be encouraged. "Clashes" is better. Abductive (reasoning) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Total blackout from the Indian media due to unknown reasons, for the first two weeks of clashes. Their coverage started only after one of their reporters were killed in the clash. Not yet full-fledged riot, but also cannot be clashes due to sporadic happening of events. I think "riots" might be correct. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Of both alteration to read "clashes", and of posting. Additionally, Medeis, this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Colloquial Wikipedia. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unusual violence, and response is strong, including a ban on political campaigning in the area (!). We haven't had an Indian story recently either. Simone 20:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Substantial death toll and plenty of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "communal riots" is being widely used in the media to describe this violence. I think we should go with this media usage, and therefore I oppose the suggestion of changing the blurb. Neljack (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So are "clashes" and "Sectarian violence", just by clicking on the sources provided above. Why is it a good idea to confuse people with 14 letters when 7 work just fine? 71.178.184.73 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not meet the update standard: we have a one-sentence lead, a one-paragraph body, and then a list of bullet points. Three actual paragraphs is the standard. The lead sentence itself was ungrammatical as of my last edit there. The article needs cleanup by someone who is familiar with the material. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a happening event, I kept the article as bulletined timeline. Once investigations on the riot starts, we would get a clear picture and then those points can be condensed into seperate paragraphs. But even then, a news is a news. - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a technical objection. Much more problematic is prose like this: "Jat community organised a panchayat seeking justice for death of their two youth on August 27". I understand your efforts here, Vatsan. Hopefully others can help bring the article up to standards. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the article needs a few tweaks to make it ready for posting. Editors may be able to help provide a few citations and clarify some abbreviations and Hindi terms for non-Indians unfamiliar with the subject. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues clarified. Gfosankar (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready this has been updated with deaths as recent as the 11th,so it should be posted as of the 11th. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Dabajuro (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A bus en route to a sporting event in Dabajuro, Venezuela crashes, injuring 40 - including 26 children - and leaving one dead. (Post) News source(s):Laverdad.com (in Spanish) Credits:
Nominator's comments: It seems notable, considering the victims of the crash (children) and the number of victims. --Alex (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. If we posted every traffic accident that killed one person we would (regrettably) be posting thousands every day. This is a story for the local newspaper, not ITN. Modest Geniustalk 15:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Random traffic accident, not the type of news WP should be including at all. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this a Mexican bus crash? -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course this is a very traumatic incident - I say this as someone who has been in a major car crash before - but it simply isn't ITN worthy news, let alone not being notable enough for an article of its own.--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close. While some levels of casualties in accidents (of any kind) are debatable as to their significance, only one death is clearly not significant enough for ITN. Also not seeing evidence of international coverage of this crash. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I don't understand the opposition to traffic accidents that kill lots of people, killing one person (even if many others are injured) is not sufficient. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article needs updating 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: The film festival is ITN/R so once the relevant articles are updated we should be ready to post this. Gianfranco Rosi also should be updated along with the other articles mentioned in the blurb above. Andise1 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Sacro GRA article would need a lot of expansion. I hope it gets it, but I don't think we should post otherwise. Formerip (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with FIP. I think the film festivals should be scaled back on ITN/R (what?!) to include just Cannes and include the others if there is a slow news week. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: First launch of the Minotaur V. Mission to the Moon. First solar system exploration mission launched from Wallops. Hektor (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (since this is rare) the first launch of a type of rocket is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ITNR convinces me. Even without it, it is a story of fascinating impact, in the news, and of international interest, as the frontiers of human science are expanded. What is that moon dust? Jusdafax 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/R so no-brainer (and no arguments)...get it to at least GA status before it touches down/gets to work? ^_^ --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Jusdafax. Miyagawa (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both for the new launcher and the mission itself. However I would turn the blurb around to lead with the probe and cut out the unnecessary detail. I've suggested an alternative above. Modest Geniustalk 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The LADEE article has a sufficient update, and this is ITNR so I'm marking as ready. Note my comment on the blurb is now even more important due to the location of the update. Modest Geniustalk 14:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current treatment. ITN/R status here is for the rocket, not the payload, therefore it is the lead article in any blurb where ITN/R is asserted. If the relevant article isn't ready ITN/R doesn't transfer to the element that isn't covered by it. Premature posting does nothing to encourage the ITN/R element to be built up to standard. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and pull per Monumentally incompetent. You can't simultaneously assert ITN/R as a reason to reject objections and then focuse on something that is not ITN/R. That's a simple bait-and-switch. 3142 (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that a nomination that instead focused on the LDEE specifically (and in which ITN/R wasn't invoked) wouldn't have achieved consensus for posting; space launches of this nature are generally supported at ITN. (Also, I'm not even sure your understanding of ITN/R is the consensus understanding; we often post, for example, articles about sports ITN/R items with an athlete's name, rather than the competition, bolded.) There's no reason to pull due to a technicality, especially as I glean from your remarks that you don't actually have an objection to the story itself. A request to pull is not an accepted tag for ITN nominations, so I'm reverting it back to the current status of [Posted]. -- tariqabjotu 06:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: This is usual. However there is a twist. In fact this 125th IOC Session will have indeed three votes, two important ones and a minor one: the election of the host city, the election of the new IOC president and the choice of a new Olympic sport. This is the first election of a new IOC president since wikipedia, I think. And I think given the prominent role of an IOC president it should be ITN. So do we do a second blurb when the successor of Jacques Rogge is elected, or do we do a single blurb to wrap everything, for instance "During its 125th Session in Buenos Aires, the IOC elects Xxx as host city of the 2020 Summer Olympics and Yyy as president of the IOC". And what about the election of a new sport ?
I think it would be best to mention the host city and the new IOC president in the same blurb. I don't think the new sport is important enough to mention, but I don't suppose there is any actual harm in listing that also, if it can be done without making the blurb overly long (I doubt that it can be). Either way, my preference would probably be to omit the new sport. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support mentioning both the host city and new IOC president in one blurb. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Please note then that I would support putting the blurb tonight as soon as the 2020 host city is elected, and update it on September 10 (Tuesday) when the IOC president is elected. Hektor (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can update it gradually, but there are three days between the elections and there is a little risk that the blurb will vanish from the main page during that time. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support including the host city and the new president in one blurb. It's quite likely that there won't be a new sport, since it's widely expected that wrestling will be successful in its attempt to remain in the Olympics. I don't think "wrestling doesn't get kicked out of the Olympics" would be a sufficiently big story, though perhaps a new sport would be. In any case, it might be difficult fitting that into the blurb too. Neljack (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though since the presidential election will take place three days after the choice of the host city, the blurb should go up with just the latter and then be updated and bumped up when the former is announced. Neljack (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd go for the host city and the new sport. I know the presidency does not change hands regularly, and it's not like it isn't a big deal. I just think it's likely to be less interesting to readers. Unless, perhaps, it is someone already well-known. Formerip (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support host city and presidency - I just had the thought of coming here and nominating it, so I've obviously supporting! Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Result of the city vote should be known around 20:30 UTC. Hektor (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Post now for city. Update blurb for president. Support sport if new sport is selected, not if wrestling is retained. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. Post now for city. It's in the news NOW. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unready No. Update now the article. It's not updated YET. μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as "The International Olympic Committee selects Tokyo to host the 2020 Summer Olympics." "Elect" seems overly technical and pedantic, and saying "was selected" is very much passive voice, which we try to avoid. Also, the noun "host city" is less direct and to-the-point than the verb "host." CaseyPenk (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Why the delay in posting? Consensus to post the host city was reached before the decision.More than 12 hours. later still no update, this should have been done yesterday evening. yorkshiresky (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the chocolate fireguards are dripping onto the logs of ignorance. Go Tokyo! LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this a bit with some "reaction". --LukeSurltc 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go as far to say this is Ready now. --LukeSurltc 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: Is that really necessary? As yorkshiresky seemed to acknowledge, the problem was the update. It was only marked ready at 12:02 UTC, and was posted within an hour and a half. C'mon. -- tariqabjotu 14:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment Re the blurb... Australia has a parliamentary system. Voters do not vote directly for the PM. Assuming the result is clear enough quickly enough (it wasn't last time; it took weeks), the blurb should read something like "The xxxxx party wins a majority of seats in the Australian federal election, making yyyyy the Prime Minister." HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The blurb has been amended accordingly. YuMaNuMaContrib 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the election is likely to be won by a coalition rather than a party, and its leader will not become PM for a couple of weeks (until appointed by the Governor-General after final results are in), so "making yyyyy the Prime Minister" would be misleading. I would suggest this as a blurb, following our usual practice for election blurbs: "The Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, wins the 2013 Australian federal election. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the Coalition seems likely to win, and that should be clarified, but with that word having a uniquely Australian usage, different from almost anywhere else, I think it needs more than just a Wikilink to tell the world about it. How about "The Coalition of the Liberal Party and National Party, led by Tony Abbott, wins the 2013 Australian federal election"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I was going to say something more than just "The Coalition" until I saw from the article on it that it technically comprised four parties (Liberal, National, Country Liberal. and Liberal National), which complicated things a bit. But the Liberal National Party is apparently just a merger of Liberal and National in Queensland, and the Country Liberal Party is sort of a mixture and only exists in the Northern Territory, so perhaps we could refer to the Coalition as "the Liberal-National Coalition". I've seen it called that in the international media and it is referred to as such in the disambiguation note at the top of our article too. Neljack (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "the Liberal-National Coalition" sounds good. (I wonder if we should try to explain to the Americans that Liberal means conservative?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal in both Australian and US usage are essentially equivalent terms. Both Democrat and Republican parties would be well on the right side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? You're truly obsessed. That's the first post you've made in nearly a week, and the only one on this page this year, and it's to contradict me. Do you comb Wikipedia in minute detail every day to find things you can say I've been wrong about. You're a very sad case. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey! Are you stalking me? Never mind. Seems to me that Australian Liberals fall a lot closer to the American idea of liberal than (say) the average Democrat - both major US parties would be seen as well on the right-wing side of Australian politics. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good news, so I say support... Hanamanteo (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good news? I'm sure those supporting the losing parties won't think so. Not a good reason really. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support metioning the winning party or coalition and perhaps its leader, but not the PM until his name is known and confirmed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Coalition" is not a proper noun and is not capitalized. I'd also express a general distaste for generic piping - "The coalition" or any similar term could redirect anywhere and the link should bear a meaningful relationship with the target. The actual story is obviously worth posting given a decent update. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've encountered a unique and confusing aspect of Australian politics. Please look at Coalition (Australia). Note the capital C. It's a virtually permanent coalition of a couple of larger parties that tends to exist even when the parties are not in power. To add further confusion, one of the members of this Coalition is the Liberal Party, Australia's major conservative party. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll resist commenting on how upside-down that is ;).
In terms of whether coalition is a proper noun, what do major news sources do? Formerip (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Capital C all the time. See here. It's so common and ingrained a usage in Australia that I'm certain many Australian people don't realise that the words "coalition" and "liberal" have very different meanings elsewhere in the world. HiLo48 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very topical event, and should be added. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per above supports. I see clear consensus, so will mark as ready. Jusdafax 18:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone point to me where the update is? –HTD 20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because it needs one, and I have changed the note accordingly. Jusdafax 21:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What update is needed? The current text appears to address the comments above where appropriate, and the bolded article text appears to be up to date from a quick scan. John Vandenberg(chat) 04:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to me what section is the updated one? The only update I see is the infobox. Nothing in the prose tells me that "the Liberal–National Coalition win an absolute majority in the House of Representatives as Tony Abbott(pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia." In fact, Abbott won't be elected until parliament convenes. The "Timeline" section ends on September 1, but the election is on September 7! –HTD 05:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abbott is currently the leader of the party that's the major partner in the Coalition which has, for all intents and purposes, won the election. The formal process is that in that capacity he will, some time in the next few days, visit the Governor General and tell him he is able to form government. The GG will then swear him in as Prime Minister. It doesn't depend on parliament meeting. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, "The Prime Minister is chosen by a vote of the members of the government." I'm unsure if "government" refers solely to the ministers, the members of his party/coalition, or the parliament per se. Well of course, he should have to go to the GG once he is chosen. –HTD 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Government" refers to the elected members of the ruling party, or in this case, the Coalition. I guess that, theoretically, a new vote could be held now and the leader could change, but that would be unprecedented. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "as Tony Abbott(pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Australia." bit isn't strictly accurate - he wasn't elected PM, as this position isn't up for grabs directly (it goes to whoever leads the party who controls the house of representatives). I'm not sure what the best alternate wording is though - "and Tony Abbott(pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Australia." might be an improvement. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post as soon as possible, someone, please. This is very important news, and Kevin Rudd, when he was elected leader of Labor midway, was put on the news post-haste. Someone do this quickly, please. (btw, good riddance to him) Decentman12 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2013 (EST)
We're not interested in your political opinions. Such comments NEVER help. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yeah, look, parliamentary elections with an indirectly elected leader are obviously more complicated but all reliable sources are now describing Abbott as the "Prime Minister-elect" with the presumption he will be sworn in over the next few days. That's what they're saying in the news, and this is "In The News". I don't think we're going to run into too much trouble. Stalwart111 11:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished adding a results table for the House of Reps and some prose in the "Post-election" section. Is that good enough? If so, can someone uninvolved in updating the article mark this as [Ready]? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. The article is still something of a data dump, but the final section is decent enough. Marking ready. Modest Geniustalk 16:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
South Korea bans all fishery imports from eight Japanese prefectures, amid concern over leaks of radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. (BBC)
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: For reasons relating to Syria, this summit has had a lot of media attention. --LukeSurltc 17:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The target article is somewhat thin on the content side, but that will grow. Definitely in the news, and of international interest. Perfect candidate for ITN. Jusdafax 18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BRICS wasnt posted and that is ITNR/. Why was this done so without discussion?!Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, perhaps the BRICS-related article wasn't updated? If you have concerns about a past discussion, WT:ITN might be the best place to go. SpencerT♦C 00:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dutch Peacekeepers found liable for Srebrenica
Article:Srebrenica massacre (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The Dutch supreme court rule that dutch soldiers acting as UN peacekeepers were liable for some of the deaths in the Srebrenica massacre. (Post) Alternative blurb: The Dutch Supreme Court confirms state liability for the actions of Dutch soldiers in the Srebrenica massacre. News source(s):BBC Credits:
Nominator's comments: Likely to affect future peacekeeping missions as governments may be liable if troops fail to keep situations under control. Also opens the way for relatives to file compensation claims, partial update in this section Srebrenica_massacre#The_Netherlands. EdwardLane (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a significant decision that will surely get plenty of international attention. Suggest changing the blurb to make clear that it is the Dutch state that has been found liable, not the soldiers personally. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on posting, but the proposed blurb is somewhat misleading. The Supreme Court ruled that the Netherlands shoulders liability for three of the 7,500 deaths in the Srebrenica massacre; while "some" might be technically accurate, I think that to most readers it would suggest a higher proportion than 0.04%. -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that the blurb should say "three deaths" rather than "some of the deaths". Neljack (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment alter the blurb please, I was under the impression that the 3 were a 'test case' for 'The three men were among thousands who took shelter in the UN compound'. And yes dutch state were found liable not the individual soldiers but I couldn't figure out a correct sounding blurb for that. EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of clarification will be necessary in the blurb by someone familiar with the case. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think the blurb should say something like: The Dutch supreme court confirms state liability for the actions of Dutch soldiers which facilitated the Srebrenica massacre.
My understanding is that these were test cases. The principle of liability is the important thing here, so "three" would be misleading. It would be good to see this posted, but the section still needs updating and copyedting. Formerip (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support that blurb, good job formerip EdwardLane (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb I have added a slightly shortened version of FormerIP's suggestion as the Altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This leak is of global impact; we now know the NSA is capable of hacking "HTTPS, voice-over-IP and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)" among other things. Mohamed CJ(talk) 14:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Especially the confirmation that the NSA has been inserting back doors in hardware, software, and standards (though previously suspected) is highly notable. NSA's collection of private keys through hacking and court orders is also highly notable. The NSA has basically highjacked the Internet security structure. Though it should be noted that the NSA can't actually hack HTTPS and SSL in general. Thue (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am pretty sure Snowden released all these things in one go. these newspapers just want to take their sweet time and slowly reveal one classified program after another. Its getting annoying... couple weeks after it'll be another thing that he released. We get it NSA snoops on anything and everything. -- Ashish-g55 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we have posted almost nothing of it ITN. This news item in isolation is insanely notable - I am baffled that people here are so opposed to posting it. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose because the article is so short, and can not be foreseen to develop much further, because all information about this programme is so incredibly scarce. We know very little (actually nothing) of its specific technical capabilities, like which encryptions it can actually defeat. Quoting The Guardian, after pressure from the intelligence community the publications that ran this story "[...] removed some specific facts but decided to publish the story because of the value of a public debate about government actions [...]." If we actually had information about the specific cryptographic advances NSA has supposedly made, this would be a very interesting story. --hydrox (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is actual technology news, as opposed to, say, the Verizon buy out. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the core responsibilities of spy agencies is cracking encryption and codes. The existence of this program should be utterly unsurprising. In that vein, this seems little more than an incremental update on the already-ran fact that the US government is spying on its own citizens. Resolute 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting actual backdoors into encryption standards (and getting caught) is not business as usual! On the other hand, would you also argue that the military's job is to wage war, so ITN should not feature any news involving a military waging war? Thue (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put in parallel, an ITN story on a military going to war would be equivalent of our posting the revelation that the NSA is spying on its own citizens. The latter was posted, and the former would also be posted, of course. This story is like running an ITN blurb on troop movements. Resolute 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A parallel would be the military using chemical weapons. Backdooring encryption standards really is not business as usual. Thue (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is non-news. NSA receives billions of dollars to make codes and crack codes. It is not news that a secret government agency is able to do what they are supposed to do. Per Resolute, this is a minor, incremental update of a previous story. JehochmanTalk 20:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The head of NSA also thinks this is "not news" [18]. Mohamed CJ(talk) 07:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The newspapers were asked not to publish specifically these articles because of national security, but posted edited but still revealing article anyway - calling that "not news" is insane. Don't be fooled by diversions in the information war. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to get through is that downplaying the importance of these revelations is exactly what the NSA wants. Mohamed CJ(talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their desires, one way or the other, are not relevant to this process. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all in a day's work for these guys. No surprise at all that someone else has been buying useless junk on my credit card. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The backdooring of encryption standards is NOT "all in a days work". It is entirely unprecedented. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jehochman. Also, ITN is not an Edward Snowden ticker. We don't need to post every "new" release from the information he took. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last time we posted something from the NSA documents? Not for a while, unless I'm mistaken. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, we only posted the initial revelation, and the grant of asylum in Russia. Our Snowden coverage is proportionally wastly smaller than the newspaper coverage. Thue (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct (both of you) but I have seen proposals to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important new revelations, raising questions about internet security and privacy with considerable public interest. Widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the oppose comments that suggest we should already all know exactly what the NSA is doing border on the assertion of psychic ability. Indeed, why don't those who suggest this is "no surprise" tell us what other secret domestic spying and other illegal activities the US government is up to? I don't see any reason to wait for the press to cover it, when editors here are so knowledgeable. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are filtering everything and reading/listening/looking-at whatever is flagged as "interesting". I don't see this revelation as being different from the one that was already featured. With ITN we don't post every new facet of the same story. This news is significant, but it's not separate enough from the story we already featured to be featured again. If more details are revealed about "back doors", I might change my opinion. If the back door is just a method of complying with a subpeona, that's not really newsworthy. If NSA have found a way to crack PGP or quickly factor really large composite numbers, I'd be impressed and might reconsider. JehochmanTalk 02:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This chunk of the story does seem to suggest that they can 'crack' really large composite numbers - not because they are better at the maths required but because they have forced the people writing encryption protocols to use particular factors (that are then known to the nsa) making cracking any public key encryption possible where normally it would need a supercomputer - all they would need to say is you must use this large prime as part of the composite number - the code appears encrypted but is effectively not encrypted to anyone knowing which large prime is used. That's described here as "adding a common exponent to a public-key exchange protocol," EdwardLane (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though not stated explicitly in the article, the back door in the encryption standards has to be talking about stuff like this. A confirmation of that really is extremely notable, and much more than just another subpoena. Thue (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is another big twist in the ongoing spiral of online spying. The "back door" revelations are new and highly significant. This is a big breaking story with international implications and clearly ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a long-running story, and this is a significant development so a good point to post. Deliberate installation of back doors into entire protocols is a major new revelation, and entirely unprecedented. However, I would prefer to avoid naming Snowden in the blurb, and instead having a link (on 'reveals'?) to 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, which has much more relevant content. Modest Geniustalk 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is not about the NSA having cracked a code, that's indeed part of their job (although had that happened, that would still be Breaking News because 256-bit AES requires a supercomputer far longer than the age of the universe to crack using brute force). Rather it is about the use of backdoors, which violates the contract every internet user thinks he/she has agreed to. Count Iblis (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready The article is updated and support is over 60%. I have added a shorter altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is that neither Misch nor his death were significant enough to justify an ITN blurb. Modest Geniustalk 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. The ITN criteria for deaths are not met: Misch neither held a high ranking office, nor was he "a very important figure in his field". His death did not create a major international impact. A listing at "recent deaths" would me more appropriate.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it was worth nominating this, as it is a very interesting fact. Unfortunately, it's a little too trivia-like for ITN. Recent deaths would be a better place for it. Redverton (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (both blurb and RD), as per FoxyOrange's reasoning. This is, essentially, trivia. --LukeSurltc 14:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A low-ranking, entirely minor — if interesting — historical figure, not significant. Sca (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would think that being the last survivor of the Fuhrerbunker and being Hitler's personal bodguard would fulfil the notability of being an important person within the field. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which field would this person be notable in? 331dot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment definitely not blurbworthy, and can't imagine any circumstance in the last 60 years where his death would have been anything other than a backpage (in)human interest story. Not worth pushing any current RD off the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate would have made an interesting RD for people thinking "who?" and clicking on it. Certainly not worth a blurb, obv. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're overlooking the fact that posting Misch would mean taking down one of the existing listings, all of which are more notable. I'd be in favor of some sort of ranking system for RD so that this could go up when one of the other listings is stale, but without pushing another listing off prematurely. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention. Not worthy of a blurb, and does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
_(72).jpg)
