| blurb = The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] '''[[Prostitution in Canada|effectively legalises]]''' [[prostitution]].
| blurb = The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] '''[[Prostitution in Canada|effectively legalises]]''' [[prostitution]].
| recent deaths = no
| recent deaths = no
| altblurb = The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] deems laws against [[prostitution]] to be '''[[Prostitution_in_Canada|unconstitutional]]'''.
| altblurb =
| sources = [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/12/canada-lifts-all-restrictions-prostitution-2013122015318412319.html Al Jazeera] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25468587 BBC] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-canada-s-prostitution-laws-1.2471572 CBC]
| sources = [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/12/canada-lifts-all-restrictions-prostitution-2013122015318412319.html Al Jazeera] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25468587 BBC] [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-canada-s-prostitution-laws-1.2471572 CBC]
| updated = yes
| updated = yes
Line 42:
Line 42:
*'''Support''' Iselilja is correct that prostitution was already legal in Canada. Brandmeister correctly describes the three prohibitions the Court struck down. Having read the judgment, I do think it is a very significant ruling, which will have important implications not only for the regulation of prostitution but also for other areas of law (assisted suicide, a case on which is pending, has been mentioned in particular). Contra TRM, it most certainly is in the news.[https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&gl=nz&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=supreme+court+prostitution&oq=supreme+court+prostitution&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.873.4477.0.4742.26.5.0.21.0.1.250.702.2j1j2.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.oo8nCu1KUMQ] [[User:Neljack|Neljack]] ([[User talk:Neljack|talk]]) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Iselilja is correct that prostitution was already legal in Canada. Brandmeister correctly describes the three prohibitions the Court struck down. Having read the judgment, I do think it is a very significant ruling, which will have important implications not only for the regulation of prostitution but also for other areas of law (assisted suicide, a case on which is pending, has been mentioned in particular). Contra TRM, it most certainly is in the news.[https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&gl=nz&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=supreme+court+prostitution&oq=supreme+court+prostitution&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.873.4477.0.4742.26.5.0.21.0.1.250.702.2j1j2.5.0...0.0...1ac.1.oo8nCu1KUMQ] [[User:Neljack|Neljack]] ([[User talk:Neljack|talk]]) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
**Silly me, I should have Googled it. '''Oppose''' as not in the news, just in Google search. This has no genuine implications, life, and prostitution, will carry on regardless. Plus ca change. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
**Silly me, I should have Googled it. '''Oppose''' as not in the news, just in Google search. This has no genuine implications, life, and prostitution, will carry on regardless. Plus ca change. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support alt blurb''', despite the fact, European countries have no legislation against prostitution, but this is after years of the law developing in those countries. There have been no court cases in those European countries that upholds that prostitution should be legal. In Canada, having two separate branches of government - the legislative (those who introduce laws) and the judicial (the courts) - to both agree on a subject matter such as prostitution is significant. [[Special:Contributions/99.226.109.53|99.226.109.53]] ([[User talk:99.226.109.53|talk]]) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
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: Pretty landmark case, I dont think any other country has nationally legalised it, so it would be a famous first. --Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We can't have "effectively legalises" in the blurb. They either legalised it or they didn't. If it remains technically illegal but the law is now not enforceable, we might say "decriminalises". Formerip (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court struck down the prostitution laws, but gave the government one year to enact new legislation during which the laws will still be in effect. This is legalization of prostitution, but I think that is waht the nominator was refering to. --PlasmaTwa218:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a major Western country having its prostitution laws struck down as illegal is big news. This is currently on the front page of BBC, as well. --PlasmaTwa218:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do agree that we can not claim a court "effectively legalising" something. Full legalisation as I understand it would mean that any law criminalising prostitution and discretely advertising thereof would be voided, and prositute income made taxable, with promise that the government won't be changing that. This sounds more temporary and partial, am I right? --hydrox (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I see it's about three things: abolition of bans on brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public for purposes of prostitution. That actually means that the prostitution is now legal, btw by an unanimous ruling. Brandmeistertalk18:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prostitution was already legal. This ruling struck down a ban against pimping/brothels. Brothels are already legal in other Western countries like Germany and the Netherlands, so nothing extraordinary per se; only that this was done by the court instead of lawmakers. Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iselilja is correct that prostitution was already legal in Canada. Brandmeister correctly describes the three prohibitions the Court struck down. Having read the judgment, I do think it is a very significant ruling, which will have important implications not only for the regulation of prostitution but also for other areas of law (assisted suicide, a case on which is pending, has been mentioned in particular). Contra TRM, it most certainly is in the news.[1]Neljack (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, I should have Googled it. Oppose as not in the news, just in Google search. This has no genuine implications, life, and prostitution, will carry on regardless. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb, despite the fact, European countries have no legislation against prostitution, but this is after years of the law developing in those countries. There have been no court cases in those European countries that upholds that prostitution should be legal. In Canada, having two separate branches of government - the legislative (those who introduce laws) and the judicial (the courts) - to both agree on a subject matter such as prostitution is significant. 99.226.109.53 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it nicely, I don't think you'll get much support for this...(I'll abstain from any voting as this is an issue that's pretty close to my heart, however). It's hard to determine what to take seriously from NK considering what happened earlier this year. Anyway, lol, a fax. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, NK's credibility is super low. A fax is the icing on the cake. I remember that picture of KJU battle planning against the U.S. with a map showing Austin, Texas as a target. Seriously, Austin is a strategic target? Does he hate SXSW? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The pardon, announced only yesterday, is reported to have been already signed and effective immediately. --hydrox (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to have been done ahead of the Olympics, in part at least, and might indicate an attempt to give a better human rights impression. Getting coverage in many outlets. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant and surprising news. Could we incorporate the amnesty bill the Duma has just passed into the blurb? I'd argue that's at least as significant. See: [3][4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talk • contribs) 12:23, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are convicted of the murder of British Army soldier Lee Rigby. (BBC)
Pelsender Didier, a 75-year-old Belgium national, who has been internationally wanted by Interpol since 2006 for sexually abusing two of his adopted daughters, is arrested in Vietnam’s Nha Trang beachside city. (Tuoi Tre News)
Berlin city-state officials says that a police investigation has traced vehicles stolen in recent years in Germany to Tajikistan, some 3,500 miles away. German authorities alleged that relatives and other people close to Tajikistan's president are driving stolen luxury cars from Germany, as a long-running criminal probe escalated into a diplomatic spat between two countries. (The Wall Street Journal)
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. While this was a bit more serious than some of the above comments make out, it doesn't rise to the level of things like the factory collapse in India and it's not likely to have long term significance. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sinaloa Cartel leader Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza dead
Nominator's comments: According to the article on the Sinaloa Cartel, "The United States Intelligence Community considers the Sinaloa Cartel "the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world" and in 2011, the Los Angeles Times called it "Mexico's most powerful organized crime group." The death of a high ranking member of one of Mexico's most powerful crime/drug organizations is pretty notable. Andise1 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, per ComputerJa. I have removed the picture from the blurb because it is not free, and as such, it cannot be used on the main page. Küñall (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Comment. If this is going to be posted, it should be as a blurb, as it is this man's death that is notable and not he himself; RD is for the deaths of notable people, not notable deaths. I oppose posting this as a blurb because as ComputerJA states he was not the top leader of the cartel and presumably did what he did at other people's orders. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: To confirm the more vaugue blurb we have now (as an update), today Bor was captured and the violence is spreading. --Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets to that point, we'll just sticky it. We've done that before with protracted wars and conflicts that stay in the news for some time. --Jayron3218:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Notable space launch, IMO. The article is good, the update says the launch was successful which is more or less all what can be said at this point. --Tone10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese actress Zhang Ziyi settles out of court a U.S. sex scandal libel lawsuit against the U.S.-based overseas alternative news source website Boxun. (BBC)
A United States EPA employee who committed fraud regarding his vacation pay is sentenced to 32 months in prison. John C. Beale had perpetrated a scam whereby he disappeared from work for years at a time saying he was a covert CIA agent. (FOX News)
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.
Nominator's comments: Harold Camping is the guy who claimed the world was going to end multiple times (Judgement Day, Doomsday, etc.) Andise1 (talk)
C'mon. He predicted the end of the world twice. That's hard enough to do once. And the only thing he got wrong each time was the date. Formerip (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose being notorious for one small stupid thing, like predicting the end of the world (or being a British gang), in no way puts you at the top of any field. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being sneakily called an asshole doesn't equate to quits. And all I did here was point out yet another example of hypocrisy in some of sneaky Medeis' voting. Yeah! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"You two"? What are you talking about Somchai Sun? I did not mention TRM, I did not respond to him here, I did not vote in the prior nomination, I did not address him there. Your indiscriminate implication that I am somehow responsible for TRM's obsessive behavior (which he aims at anyone who disagrees with him) is unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sneakier! Who's an a$$h0l3? And no, I disagree with plenty, but most of them don't sneak around other editor's talk pages calling me an asshole and then asking for the accusation to be deleted after reading. That's just you Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't meet the RD requirement in any way, shape or form. Just a big no, sorry. I found this guy rather amusing along with his sheeples. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would only be notable enough if he had correctly predicted the end of the world, but then we wouldn't be here doing this! Neljack (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Reported to be the first tapir discovered since 1865 and the first Perissodactyla animal discovered in over 100 years. Btw, we posted olingito last time. Brandmeistertalk17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the article the first specimen of this species was discovered in 1914, and was suggested back then as a separate species. At very least, the blurb wording needs to reflect this. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there were reports of gorillas before western science identified them. That is implicit in every species discovery. If it matters, the word discovered can be changed to identified. They amount to the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new species discovered/identified in the Amazon recently. It appears to have been known to western scientists as a possible distinct species ~100 years ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rumors and speculations are not quite same as scientific description, for all intends and purposes this is new species now identified. SeraV (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This seems to be developing into a diplomatic row; receiving wide coverage. Top story on BBC, other outlets. Will update later today. --331dot (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that- but I can only state what I am able to see. It was the top story in other outlets(CNN, NBC) for a little bit, and near the top if not the top in Indian outlets. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed article target to a stupid one deemed encyclopaedically notable because it is int eh news (duh!).
oppose its a diplomatic spat with no repercussions. If there were declarations of persona non grata for ambassadors etc then id support. Mind you the arrival of Ahmedenijad to Lebaonon (with that dodgy border there) was not deemed ITN-worthyLihaas (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How often does the thumping in the nose of arch-enemies happen at their doorrstep? That is would Obama go to the N. Korea or Iran border overlooking those countries? Highly notable that would be. OR is Netanyahu did that at Iran (Heck he doesnt even do it to Syria/Lebanon)Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One world leader criticizing another(or another nation) is hardly unique. If this was just an arrest I probably would not have suggested it; but the strip search is what seems to really be riling people in India up. Some in India are calling for gay spouses/partners of US diplomats to be arrested(in keeping with the recent court ruling), as well as the action they have already taken. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you say "One world leader criticizing another" is hardly unique, yet the one person in india calling for partners to be arrested is notable? Please you know wthats even more political blabber.
Further, the incident in precedence was not 1 critcising another, as i pointed out it was the physical presence in a hostile zone amid warning of firing back if he did PHYSICALLY throw stones. Id be hardpressed to see any world leader take physical action against another by himself ...no tjust ordering troops. Yet the physical presence in the hotspot is even more rare.Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we posted when Barack Obama stood on the DMZ in Korea and peered into the North. I'm not really here to debate past nominations, though. This incident, now, is a major news story involving two nations with large populations and is having repercussions. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get that the strip-search has been commented on in the media, but I don't think we need it in the blurb. It almost feels like it could have "click for pictures!" in brackets after it. Overall, I'd say wait to see how/if the story develops. I think this is mainly in the news on account of what could happen rather than what has. Formerip (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The strip-search seems to be the main issue India is having(along with her being placed in the general population of the jail) but I don't necessarily object to removing it. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support India really isn't happy about this. India has been threatening USA with reprisals which makes this quite serious incident. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India isnt happy? Lots of nom's indicate non-hapiness.
Anyhoo, threats are just talk. As precedence here as indicated, when the talk is put to action, when the rubber meets the road, when push comes to shove then we post.Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the blurb should mention the arrest and the reprisals. This was a deliberate act by the US, and rather pointed, as the administration permitted this arrest on irregular documents but is otherwise freeing illegals and advocating free border crossing, amnesty, in-state tuition, and driver's licenses for illegals, etc. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She's a consul employee with consular privilege only when she is on consular business. She is accused of having falsified documents regarding an employee brought with her. The arrest would be standard, and the strip search given she was in a local jail. But the arrest was okayed by the Obama administration, which seems an odd priority, given the administration's stand on related issues. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose storm in a teacup. After all, we recently had Spain opening up diplomatic material from the UK coming from Gibraltar. Same shit, different day. Nothing will come of any of it, besides diplomatic apologies in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening up diplomatic bags is very different than personally violating another nation's diplomatic officials- namely due to the former not being reported to the same level as this, if at all. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really in the news? I see the link from Lihaas below mentions "hundreds of protestors" across all of India. Big deal. Hundreds of protestors protest about hundreds of things in hundreds of countries every day. Besides Al Jazeera promoting a "conspiracy theory", is there any substance to any further action other than "oops, sorry"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tha Al Jaz story seems like absolutely nothing. Basically, rather than throwing the nanny out of the country and losing their witness, the authorities have given her a special type of "witness visa" designed for exactly this sort of situation. Oh, and they didn't dismiss the case when India asked them to. Which, apparently, means there's a conspiracy. Listen carefully and you'll hear the sound of a story fizzling out. Formerip (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support well, well, well...its now a parliamentary issue with more illegal dealings by the GOVERNMENT and hocus-pocus thee. There will be hell to pay, it seems.
Oppose If this really is going to be an international incident, let's actually wait until there's a strong sign of that (eg (hypothetical): if the Indian consulate closes its US office in response, or the US formally charges the person with any crimes). At the present state it is not ITN-worthy news as there is no strong evidence of long-term effects (it fails NEVENT). A snafu and one with some political ramifications, sure, but at the present time, a year from now, it will be just a blip and forgotten from the way the story is going. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far:
The diplomat involved has been charged.
The Indian government have moved her to a post with full diplomatic immunity.
The Indian government has removed some security protection from the US embassy.
Not at all. This is a storm in a teacup, as I said already. There's nothing in major news outlets, even Al Jazeera has had to resort to "conspiracy theories". No big deal, time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - for an encyclopedia, this is noise, so far. I won't say that it will never be more notable but the trends are all towards a blip in diplomatic relations that we shouldn't be covering (Wikinews, on the other hand...). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you say that, then why do tinpot stories of x dies in bus/boat/plane accident get posted on ITN? Wha tis that big deal then?Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you havent asked/answered then as to why those accidents are important with an impact and a legacy (as i keep saying, they ought not to be articles even)Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes mr rambling but perhaps you should read news bit more throroughly before you start claiming nonsense in here. You know for future reference so I can take your claims seriously. SeraV (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and it is fair enough, I wasn't questioning that. I was referring to your claim that there is nothing in major newsoutlets about this particular story, and you dismissing my point with a snide remark wasn't particularly welcome either. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We actually do block several minor accident stories, such as that recent New York commuter train issue, and I'm blanking on it but even when there's just one or two deaths we don't post the story. So we are careful, and not every one of these gets posted. This is the same this as a non-fatal accident. Widely covered but short-lived. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this moment. She was reportedly released on bond, so far no indication she'll be Helen of Troy (although she may have similar beauty). However, if she was strip-searched in the consul office, the US actions may consitute an invasion on Indian soil, as far as I know. Brandmeistertalk16:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction by India included digging up and tearing down the protection barrier built after 9/11 and revoking the embassy's passes. The agent was stripped searched as part of normal processing during her arrest. That the upset is mainly about the strip search and not the arrest itself is interesting. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the news is significant only in India (probably because 'may our diplomat always be in the right; but right or wrong, our diplomat' mixed with outrage over intrusive body searches) also the spat seems to be dying down (checked the current Indian English news tv cycle ndtv, times now, ibn (they are the Indian equivalent of cbs, fox and cnn respectively) - the diplomatic tussle news seems to be 3rd or 4th place, in US it is just a low variety news). So oppose on the basis of insignificant coverage outside India. However professionally I find the legal knots on consular immunity in private contracts very interesting (with added whiffs of conspiracy, entrapment and diplomatic retaliation). LegalEagle (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 comment. A loveable rogue, or a leading notable member of a gang who commited a violent and notorious robbery. Divided opinions in the UK and abroad. Article updated to reflect death and is in okay shape (no tags). Great Train Robbery article also pretty decent (and likely to be visitor's second click). Front page news on BBC. Proposing for RD only. Pedro : Chat 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic and controversial figure, famous not just in Britain but also internationally. Notorious not only for the Great Train Robbery, but also for escaping from prison and living in Brazil as a fugitive for 36 years before voluntarily returning to Britain and being imprisoned. Remained in the news in recent times with debate over whether he should be granted compassionate release on health grounds (he eventually was, after earlier requests were rejected). Neljack (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, when artists, scientists, composers and other figures of lasting worth are regularly rejected from RD, I don't feel this thief was the sort of figure "worthy" of an RD blurb. Much as the BBC and other outlets are giving his death front page news, I don't think we should. He was an old man whose death had been expected for years and whose incompetence even in the event he was most famous for led to its most controversial aspect. Bobtalk09:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, my point is that we should not be giving this criminal any more publicity than he deserves - just because all the newspapers are headlining with it, I don't see why we should. Bobtalk11:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You answered your own question- because it is in the news and this is "in the news". We do not make judgements about what is good and bad. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Whatever you think of what he did with his life, his death is undoubtedly in the news as he was an iconic, controversial figure in the UK and Brazil at least. His death has been expected for years, but that is irrelevant as RD's purpose is exactly for deaths that are in the news but not noteworthy other than for having happened. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD His name and the Great Train Robbery has become famous even now 50 years on. Documentaries have been made about him, his life in exile and the robbery itself. I think it's perfect for RD. CaptRik (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD, as demonstrated by the various international sources, Biggs was clearly notorious across the globe, his death is certainly in the major news outlets, and for just a handful of characters on the main page, just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Biggs's involvement in the robbery was seemingly very minor and any notability was acquired from his time spent evading justice. I cannot see how Biggs meets the required criterion ('widely regarded as a very important figure in his field'). During the BBC News at 11:00, Biggs was only mentioned after reports on a fall in the British unemployment rate and proposed changes in benefits for migrants from the European Union, which suggests he is not as notable as implied above. 86.158.217.251 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re "any notability was acquired from his time spent evading justice"; it is certainly notable in the field of crime that someone managed to do that, even if he was not the ringleader of the group in this infamous robbery. Re placement in the BBC broadcast, we consider more than just that(such as worldwide coverage, which this has), though the fact that he made it at all would suggest he is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did Ronnie Biggs receive an Oscar? Or anything else he'd earned except a long-overdue jailing? The man was a petty criminal who played a small part in a large and violent event. By 'died of old age' I mean that there is nothing sudden or unusual about his death to add to its noteworthiness. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Opposes pointing out that he was common-or-garden crook and not the brains behind the robbery totally miss the point. His notability isn't primarily as a thief but as a fugitive. In that field, it's probably fair to say that he was pretty successful and one of the most famous there's ever been. Formerip (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Best known for being a part of a well-known robbery? That doesn't make him top of his field. As to FormerIP's comment above me, I don't think "being a fugitive" is a field. Besides, it says he went to Brazil, which didn't have an extradition treaty with Britain. So we're not talking about some skilled evasion of the law. He moved to a country that wouldn't extradite him. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what he did is pretty much unique in history. AFAICT, only a tiny number of people have escaped from a British prison and not been recaptured, and the others were all members of either the IRA or the KGB (i.e. they had considerable help). Formerip (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point is that this man is notable enough to be posted, which is also indicated by the worldwide coverage of his death. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting Oppose per Bob, i find it really odd indeed that we don't post certain musicians and such if they don't have enough exposure in main newsoutlets or if their pages aren't perfect, yet we think some thief is worthy of posting in our main page. I really don't think he meets any of our criteria either. SeraV (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several prominent Turkish businessmen and the sons of three cabinet ministers are arrested as part of an investigation into alleged bribery and corruption. (BBC)(Reuters)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support posting now What everybody cares about is who wins the Ashes, and that's what has just been decided. Sure England will be trying to save face in the last two tests, while Australia will be going for a clean sweep, but ultimately this is a dead rubber now. Neljack (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is big news NOW. The final result of the series will definitely be lesser news. It's ITN/R, this is the big news from the series, so it should be posted now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aus trashed Eng and deservedly won the Ashes with two Tests to spare. There's no news in waiting for the final two Tests whatsoever. The news is that Australia regain the Ashes (although never the urn, hahahahaha). Post immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's comment from an admin who would have posted it if it was in better shape. If it was a support, it would say 'Support' wouldn't it? Stephen02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead now contains the relevant information, but those match descriptions ARE a worry. An incredibly poor effort by the editors involved. I'll see what I can do. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Did you see the abuse I copped, and am still copping, for firmly suggesting that writing that much content with no sourcing at all was simply not good enough? LOL) HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to suggestions on the blurb but it seems to be that regaining the Ashes is the storyline, and that has happened. The 3-0 series score seems unnecessary to mention for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] German chancellor Merkel, ministers inaugurated
An Admin, an Admin! My Kingdom for an Admin! --consensus was for this to be posted as of inauguration time, Germany, a day and a half ago now. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support The formation of this coalition is non-predictable, and therefore news we haven't posted before. And Germany is the most important country in Europe, so obviously the government formation is notable. Thue (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A significant event in European politics (not just Germany). Also I'd like to suggest a picture of Angela Merkel if this is approved. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as a German, I am biased on the importance of this). For the record, it should be taken care that the (possible) posting of this news item goes along with the actual event(s). Tomorrow, December 17, the Bundestag will start its session at 09:00 CET to elect a new chancellor (and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this is not going to be her). At 12:00, she is expected to take the oath of office, and will subsequently drive over to the president in order to be formally appointed. By 13:30, she is expected to be back at the Bundestag, where the ministers of her new cabinet are then sworn in. So, one could either run a blurp "Merkel re-elected chancellor" from something like 12:00, or (what I would prefer and what has been suggested above) "new government inaugurated", but this could only be posted some time later than 13:30. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ready se nomination below to which this was merged: "German parliament confirms Angel Merkel for new term"[12] [Credit Sca] 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The center-left candidate Michelle Bachelet is elected as president of Chile for the second time. She is the first leader in Chile to be elected to serve two terms since military rule ended in 1990. (BBC)
27-year-old Sebastian Kurz becomes Austria's youngest foreign minister. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: According to the analysis of the BBC, this is a "critical point" for South Sudan which is "facing its greatest challenge since becoming independent".[13]Mohamed CJ(talk)12:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! did you take it from my page? ;) I intended to create an article for this when I had time. Though I would add it should be called a failed mutiny rather than a coup as the latter is a much harsher word with repercussions. Not sure what repercussions this would have (okey there is the strong/key ethnic element). Anyhoo, rant over...article title? Perhaps 2013 South Sudanese mutiny attempt or 2013 SOuth Sudanese coup d'etat attempt (As in the the page for the Eritrean one)
btw support as a nitable incident and the first in the country setting possible pace for its future politics.
Further one could also add the element of the dismissal of Reik Machar earlier in the eyar that i nominated here for cabinet reshuffle but wasnt posted
Actually gunshots and explosive were reported by the media before Salva Kiir's announcement. I can't see how BLP is a concern here when we are following reliable sources. Mohamed CJ(talk)07:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Neljack. This might be the beginning of a possible major development in the region. The article is in a very good shape too. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 11:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this attempt was a failure, how does it qualify as a "significant development"? And I don't think it should be posted on the basis that it "might be the beginning of a possible major development"; get back to me when the result is a major development. 212.139.250.209 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a significant development. At least 66 are reported killed so far and 16,000 have fled their homes. This is the current situation in Juba (the capital): The airport has been closed, a night curfew has been imposed and gunfire is being heard, including from heavy weapons. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, but a coup(or even an attempted coup) in the US would be an entirely different animal than a coup in a country barely two years old and lacking nuclear weapons, a significant military, and large population. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If the word "coup" is a problem we could use a different word, but there clearly was violence against the government causing a significant disruption in that nation. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A carjacking resulted in the death of a Hoboken lawyer who was murdered in front of his wife while returning to his vehicle after shopping. (NBC New York)
Support. Was coming here to nominate this myself. Seems like a no-brainer to me. A much loved and respected actor, who was the most-nominated actor never to win an Academy Award outright. - JuneGloomTalk18:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to fight too hard on the blurb, but the Academy gave him a rare Honorary award in 2003 because of his number of nominations but always missing the win due to another stellar performance by another actor that year; he remains the most-nominated actor for the Oscars. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that's why I see him as worthy of RD. For a blurb, he falls short of the "Thatcher/Mandela" threshold as I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, also support quick RD posting too, a nice idea to post RDs as long as they meet the min update criteria and then push to blurb maybe a few hours later once more serious editorial concerns have been addressed. O'Toole was a legend, an actor of extreme notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about Hitchcock, Grant, Chaplin, or Monroe. Many of them won many awards or had other recognition(Hitchcock got A KBE) 331dot (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and O'Toole was offered a knighthood in 1987, but turned it down. He also received many other awards. The point is that Oscars are not the be all and end all of notability. 91.125.222.105 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb? I am a huge fan of O'Toole's (who isn't) so a blurb won't bother me in the least, but this is not an unexpected death, and "dies of old age" is really meant just for RD. Will have to watch Lion in Winter tonite. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to draw an immediate parallel, but there has been a recent posting of "died of old age" that received a full blurb. So "died of old age" isn't really a means to reject a blurb it would appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the discussion for RD was that it saved space on blurbs when the mode of death itself wasn't notable. That being said, there is tension with the person's importance, which is a reason for the full blurb. After reading [http://www.imdb.com/list/nIPBezOA5RQ/ this list, I think he does make the cut, so I
(edit conflict) oppose blurb relation to "who else would be posted" is irrelevant. Other blurb supports indicate ILIKEIT. His legend status id dubious objectively. LOA was the lone lead. That said RD is pretty obvious and per Abductive, that needs extraordinary circumstancesLihaas (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD - I won't weep if this goes to full blurb, but comparing O'Toole's death to Mandela's (apples and oranges in any case) doesn't work. Mandela was an international icon and triumphed over injustice and persecution to change a nation's racial policies. O'Toole was an actor, one with a quite distinguished career, but not at the same level of global importance. Jusdafax19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to be made is among actors, of whom O'Toole (Becket, Lion in Winter, Lawrence of Arabia, 8 Oscar nominations) was near the top of those still alive. His competitors are who? Connery, Hopkins, DeNiro, Pacino, Hackman, Nicholson, Duvall, Redford, Hurt, Caine, Neeson, Irons, Pitt, DiCaprio, Clooney. O'Toole sits easily at the top of that list. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurp. The RD spot is sufficient: This is exactly what it's for, notifying the reader of the death of a highly significant person. Medeis, one can indeed take the Mandela case as an example: Mandela's death and its aftermath was extensively covered in all kinds of media, which upon the announcement often jumped in what I would call "expanded breaking news mode": Special features, program changes, studio experts etc. to rewind Mandela's life and achievements. A whole bunch of world leaders convened at Mandela's memorial service, and South Africa had ten days of state mourning. This is why in that case a blurp was justified. Obviously, O'Toole plays in a different league.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. It's pretty obvious there's a consensus for RD, and I can imagine no serious objection, so I've gone ahead and posted it there. Debate is still open on the blurb, but one of the world's greatest actors seems an obvious one there as well. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb A very important actor, but didn't quite have the level of international impact I'd require for a blurb (few actors would). Neljack (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just added a note in the title that the item has been posted. I'm not happy with the orange tags in the article, nevertheless. --Tone20:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of 20 votes I count six opposed to a blurb, from 7-9 in support of a blurb (depending on how you count), and the rest unopposed to a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote counting is perfectly appropriate for whether something goes up as RD or Blurb. Of course support votes should not be counted as opposing a blurb unles they say oppose blurb--you'll have to bring that up with someone besides me, though. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rubbish. If someone cannot come up with a decent reason for their opinion, it doesn't count for anything here, no matter what the purpose is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore HiLo. He's stirring the pot as per usual. The consensus should be for RD. The support for a blurb should be near-universal to get posted as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm nio. Ignore the rest. hes perfectly right in saying tht we dont vote count and use the quality of agruments. He said nothing about RD/Blurb.Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lihaas (again, this is odd...?!) Well that's an interesting take on things. RD has already been posted, so that's irrelevant. Where is this "near-universal" support required for a blurb? Surely it's down to admins to gauge comments on their merits rather than simply count pluses and minuses? Or did I miss that bit at admin school? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, unless you think HiLo just goes around saying "that's rubbish" without referring to anything at all, or unless you can't keep in context two comments at a time, it's obvious he's responding to the three statements above him which were counting votes for and against a blurb. Upgrading to a full blurb is always possible. This was all discussed at length in the RfC that established RD in the first place, and bfore RD both these actors recently passed would have gotten full blurbs. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, Medeis, and be careful not to be patronising to others ('unless you can't keep in context two comments at a time'). This is not obvious: 'Ignore HiLo' does mean to ignore HiLo, which is how Lihaas interpreted it. I believe WaltCip intended to write 'Ignore, HiLo', which, on the other hand, is unambiguous and correct. 86.158.217.251 (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, but agree it shouldn't have been done with an unresolved orange tag. I think there are only a handful of people in history whose acting careers would merit a blurb, and they are all dead. Formerip (talk) 21:32, 15 December 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.
Comment The article is not updated, otherwise, this is ITNR. Also, it's about time we change the picture in the box since Mandela is currently the last item. --Tone18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Not sure if we posted the election and under what terms the blurb went up, but the agreement of a grand coalition is important + we posted aus/can/uk more than once. --Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 331dot. We already posted the results from the election, so there is no reason to post the constitution of the new government coalition. Some may argue that the country has never seen more dramatic post-election period which ended in a coalition between the two "political rivals", but the political climate during this period did not receive much popularity in the media and was not followed with unpleasant events to consider this an end of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't witnessed that news related to one single election have been posted in multiple blurbs, but I'd oppose as well any news related to a peaceful constitution of a coalition following election that was already mentioned on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we did when the election happened. UK was posted when the coalition was done and the previous australian one was posted (before Abbptt) multiple times (with whatshername aftert Rudd)Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're speaken here nein Deutsch, (i.e., Not zee Tscherman!)L)ihaas, uND Somchai. Pleasen to speaken yust dee Englsky wit dee porper splngk and ! punkshnuation...^)? Medeis
Comment I don't think the section is well structured and updated. The first sentence for instance says "Amongst coalition possibilities, many SPD insiders do not want to work with The Left." Other examples: "Issues for the SPD in coalition would entail a national minimum wage and conflicts over dual citizenship, which the SPD supports but CDU fears would cost them votes"; "The Greens are "open" to coalition talks with the CDU/CSU". Iselilja (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my comment. I still think the article in question needs updating and improvement. More about the agreement and we should also include a list of new cabinet members. Also, the article isn't linked to in the current blurb. Maybe start a new article about the new cabinet? Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — On Nov. 27, when negotiations between the SPD and Merkel's CDU/CSU ended with leadership agreement to form a "grand coalition," I and several others argued strongly in favor of posting, but were told by skeptics to wait until it happens — i.e., until the SPD membership approved the agreement. Well, IT'S HAPPENED, [17] boys & girls, and it's high time for the results of the Sept. 22 election to be posted in ITN, sofort, unverzüglich! (With apologies to Günter Schabowski.) Sca (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not an inauguration, it is the formation of a government - quite a different thing. The results of the election were known, but not who would govern the country - which is surely the most important thing. Let my give an analogy for Americans who may not be used to parliamentary systems: imagine if the the US Presidential election resulted in a tie in the electoral college. We would surely (and rightly) post that. But would anyone seriously argue that we should not post the election by the House of Representatives of the new President. Well, this is like that: the election has not produced a clear result and then the legislature is choosing the government (through parties with a majority in it negotiating an agreement to form a government). Neljack (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the government had already been formed, and the votes in the parties were just making it official. (Someone as a party leader doesn't agree to those sorts of things unless they already think their party will accept them.) The blurb seems to focus more on the beginning of the government itself(essentially an inauguration); if the formalization and acceptance of the coalition agreement is what's notable, then the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the first female defense minister needs to be mentioned in the blurb, but it should be in the updated article; along with named of the other members of the new cabinet. (We might well hold this post off to 17 Dec) Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well no the government had not been formed, because the SPD's agreement was conditional on it being approved by the party membership. No doubt the leadership were confident of getting approval, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion - the rank and file are often more radical than the leadership. Neljack (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by the convoluted path of this discussion. It seems the topic now is represented by Third Merkel cabinet, and the discussion above is closed with just three comments. Do I understand correctly that this means it will be posted Dec. 17? Sca (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its ITNR so the election has to be posted, but regardless its got support and an update. The only issue seems to be when to post and I think 12:30 tomorrow (that is in 19 hours) itll be good to go.Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the party chiefs — Merkel (CDU), Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) and Horst Seehofer (CSU) — signed a formal, 185-page "grand coalition" agreement on Monday, Dec. 16, in Berlin. [19]. Why wait? Sca (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the new government has not taken office yet. Let's wait until tomorrow afternoon, when Angela Merkel will be re-elected and the members of her new cabinet will have been formally appointed. In order to determine the moment when to post at the earliest, one would need to watch the news. By the way, there is an article about the Third Merkel cabinet, which might be displayed at the blurp rather than the one about the election.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We post the results of election without them being sworn in...Also even if the election article is not bolded I think it's imperative to have it in there as we did'nt post the result (we could have 2 bolded articles).Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"German parliament confirms Angel Merkel for new term"[20][21] — Not news yet? Agreement to form a new "grand coalition" government was reached nearly a month ago. The ex-journalist in me is appalled (if amused) at how long it's taken to get this noteworthy event into doughty old ITN. (Could there possibly be an anti-German bias lurking somewhere on English Wikipedia?) Sca (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly doubtful there is any bias. There seem to be a very limited number of admins watching this page, so attention is often irregular and lacking. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's wait 'til Mrs. Merkel retires from politics someday, then run an ITN blurb about how she was chancellor for a third term. ZZZzzz. Sca (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment Needs some updates, then ready to post (we've already reached a consensus about it when the mission launched). --Tone15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, consensus seems to be that a major space first for a country is ITN-worthy. Can it wait until the Jade Rabbit actually rolls onto the surface in a couple hours? Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready both articles are updated, and support is overwhelming. No reason to wait for further developments, since readers are looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to hold a merger discussion, but I beg to disagree; Yutu is about the rover specifically, while Chang'e 3 is the mission as a whole and the base station - compare the precedent with Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity (rover). They are similar at the moment because the rover has not yet detatched from the rest of the probe, this is expected to happen in the next few hours. --W.D.Graham20:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I've added a detailed description of the last mission and corrected a typo in its launch date - it had been incorrectly listed as occurring in 1975. --W.D.Graham22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I was not sure what exactly to name the new article which is why I did not create one. If anyone has a good idea for a title for the new article, please feel free to create the article with a good title. Andise1 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Q. What longstanding principle of physics was overturned by this discovery? A. None. Q. Was there a hypothesis that led the discoverers to look for noble gas molecules in supernova remnants? A. No, there were some odd emission lines, and they came up with candidate molecules to explain them. Q. What lasting impact will this have on astronomy? A. None given by the sources, and likely none whatsoever. Don't believe the hype.Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose because this doesn't seem to be getting coverage in mainstream media(just science outlets). If it did, I would support as molecules with noble elements have not been seen outside of a laboratory, and certainly not in space up til now. People are certainly entitled to believe something like this is not important or just "hype", or that we should only post earth-shattering discoveries covered in the media, but that doesn't change the fact this hasn't been seen before. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very interesting scientific first. And if we seriously need to violate a law of physics to qualify for ITN now (I can just see the headlines--CNN: "Wikipedia Bans News that Doesn't Violate Laws of Nature")--we can just shut down ITN and go home. μηδείς (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to see a link to the 'Noble gas' article. Tempted to support this but the blurb needs tweaking. The other issues, like a new article, complicate this one a bit. Abductive's objections are noted but this is a somewhat interesting "first" in my view. Jusdafax12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I await their nomination to consider their merits; but that says little about this story, which seems to be getting much wider coverage than those. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News media are generally amateurs wrt science. The nominated article is clearly not very important science, no matter how widely covered. Thue (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support*, for reasons opposite to the opening comment, eg. Q. What longstanding principle of chemistry was overturned by this discovery? A. The long, LONG, LONG standing belief that noble gases do not and cannot form chemical compounds with other elements, due to their full outer shells (of electrons). As with all responsible breaking science, the wording of the article is cautious and of course awaits supporting evidence from others. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.170.20 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the Noble gas compound article says. No, us humans have made all these molecules in the lab. Not only that, but that article cites a 1968 source that says that noble gas compounds have been detected by spectroscopic means. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beyoncé unexpectedly releases her fifth self-titled album without any prior announcement or promotion, ultimately changing the global release date of all future albums to Friday.[1]
The storm spreads to Egypt with some Cairo suburbs seeing snowfall. Local news reports claimed it was the capital's first snowfall in 112 years. Night temperatures are expected to drop as low as 2°C / 36°F. (The Daily Star)(Huffington Post)(Al-Ahram)
China's mission begins the descent phase to the moon that will likely make it one of only three countries to reach it. The landing is estimated to occur at 8:40 a.m. EST, December 14. (CNN)(Universe Today)
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
