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).
Oppose based on lack of update. There is no doubt that the story is ITN-worthy, but I don't see any sort of update in the section we're linking to. —WFC— 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the section in the article is "2011: Eng Game" which sounds like the title of an Alex Jones DVD. The whole section is just a loose timeline for 2011. It needs a section like "US involvement officially ends" with relevant updates. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. On balance I think it's worth posting given the lack of the recent update. The conviction of a former Western leader is rare indeed, and this is certainly making the news outside of France. On the other hand it was only a suspended sentence. —WFC— 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting story, in a country that doesn't feature normally on ITN, with possible unrest. Blurb is too long, though, and we don't really have an article for this. Doh5678 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The population of the village of Wukan in southern China revolt over the death of a local man who led protests against a land grab; local officials and police flee. (Wall Street Journal)(Daily Telegraph)
Pakistan police rescues 50 boys from a dungeon in Karachi, Pakistan. Police reports say that the dungeon was equipped with shackles and hooks. The prisoners say they were beaten and threatened and that, if they had tried to escape, they would have been forced to join Jihad militants. (The Telegraph)
Iran has turned down the United States request to return a RQ-170 that was captured recently by Iranian forces after it crash landed in the country. Iranian officials report that they are extracting data from the aircraft. Iranian officials stated the drone was brought down by a cyber attack. (Voice of America)
Support - four dead and counting, 75+ wounded (many of whom severely). This is possibly the biggest attack on Belgian soil since the Second World War. I see every reason to add it on the Main Page asap; article needs improvement though. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article title includes the word "bombing", but it seems from reports that no bombs were planted or used in the incident, but guns and possibly grenades. --FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an "attack" in the NYT, and "attack" on the BBC and an "attack" according to the Guardian. Should I keep looking? How long do you think it will be before I find one that says "bombing"? --FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bombing" is a legitimate term to describe "grenade attack", in one word. If you feel like changing the blurb and the article, go for it. Crnorizec (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be most widely reported in the media as a "grenade attack" or "grenade and gun attack". "Bombing", though perhaps correct by definition, is too misleading. SwarmX18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to post ASAP. Update can't be better for now; the attack happened hours ago so nobody knows more than what's already in the article. --Tachfin (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Credit rating agency Moody's in its weekly credit report dismisses the significance of last week's EU agreement, saying it "does not change our view that risks to the cohesion of the euro area continue to rise." (Reuters)[permanent dead link]
Comment combine with Durban? Something like "The 2011 UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, closes with agreement to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions; as Canada becomes the first country to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change."? A bit wordy. maybe someone with better English skills can suggest better. I just think the two are a logical combination, then Tunisa and the Ivory Coast and round out the top 3 nicely. IMHO anyway. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but oppose blurb with "the first country" as tendentious POV, suggesting that other countries would follow, and ambiguously inaccurate (The US was even faster in withdrawing after signing but before ratifying).--Elekhh (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the implicit suggestion that you are seeing. I find the description "the first country to withdraw" to be an important component of its notability. JimSukwutput07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging. These are two separate events, nominated separately and linked only by the fact they each have something to do with climate change. --FormerIP (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would not say "We don't..." We could, and perhaps we should. I fail to see why the fact the two were nominated separately is relevant in the slightest to our readers - this is not a process of giving out awards to nominators. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't be absurd. This announcement came one day after an agreement to replace Kyoto was made. The claim that these two stories aren't linked is absolutely laughable. SwarmX18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Environment Minister has compared Kyoto obligations to pulling all vehicles off the street or cutting all natural gas to homes, saying that pulling out of Kyoto will have no effect on carbon emissions. ~AH1(discuss!)15:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bias tag has been removed which is good, but this article still has some problems IMO. I've spotted at least one copyvio. The whole article looks more like an academic paper than an encyclopedia article. Why does it need parethetical references? For sources it relies far too heavily on academic papers and similar sources. This is an article about a political treaty, not a scientific subject per se. We should be citing major media sources for how politicians react to a country withdrawing from Kyoto, not Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John: I agree with you on the general readability and over-emphasis on science in (essentially) a current affairs article. But probably some scientists have been editing it who would look at you agog if you said that to them. And, at the end of the day, I don't think it bars it from ITN. The update could still do with more. For example, there has been a lot of comment from other counties and notables on the withdrawal ([7]) and I think that should be represented. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the issues you've mentioned above don't bar it from ITN, but copyvios do. I've found at least two full sentences copied from their cited source in this section. Those are easily fixable but I'm worried that there may be more. That article should be looked over very carefully. Given that I will remove the 'ready' tag. (EDIT: whoops, it hasn't been tagged ready yet; fine). I agree that the update is now ok.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a somewhat large story here in Canada, but it doesn't surprise anyone here. This government is just a huge mess and things like this are inevitable. They haven't done anything to aid the danger Kyoto was created to quell, but in order to look good they bitch about how Kyoto is a horrible protocol. They're playing politics with what should be a very serious issue. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two are separate events. Just because both deal with environment does not mean they should be merged... we dont merge elections of two countries. -- Ashish-g5520:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two are associated (I know this looks like semantics but....). We don't merge elections, that's true. But these aren't elections, I think putting them together is a sensible idea. The word needs changing, that's all doktorbwordsdeeds20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an international audience, I think it would be "while". But also, no, they absolutely should not have been merged, because it's a significant innovation not mentioned in the guideline and it didn't have consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any benefit of "while" (or, God forbid, "whilst") over "as". Furthermore, the former, more than the latter, suggests the two happened simultaneously, which they didn't (Dec 11 vs. Dec 12) and makes the connection less overt. That being said, I'm really shocked that people think these are two completely unrelated events. The Kyoto Protocol article even mentions that a Canadian minister noted that the new idea out of Durban would be a better way forward. The blurb isn't saying that the Canadian withdrawal was because of what happened in Durban (or vice versa); it simply mentions that they're two related ideas -- "coincidental" or not. Elections in one country generally have no connection whatsoever to elections in other countries and are almost never, if ever, mentioned in another country's election article. -- tariqabjotu23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has suggested that they are completely unrelated, Tariq. The timing probably isn't a coincidence. But they are separate news stories and are treated as such by reliable media. Can you appreciate that the majority of editors seem to disagree with your position on this? --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am Neutral on the actual item, however Oppose the merging of the two unrelated stories, if it is going to be listed (and consensus would indicate it should be) then it should be as two. Mtking (edits) 00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose merging as those above argued. Certainly there was no consensus on merging at the time of posting, and is even less support now. --Elekhh (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't, because it's not true. Comments after posting, furthermore, are skewed toward requests for changes, and are, thus, generally ignored unless a good reason is provided. -- tariqabjotu02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Between 2001, the first year CDM projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emission reductions.., in this section, taken word for word from [here on page 262. I cited two more in my post above. I agree the article should be tagged.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're posting this again, let me state that I also oppose a merge. It's true that these events are related, but if we put these events in the same blurb, we run the risk of seemingly emphasizing this connection when this itself is a controversial political issue (it is not considered proper to pull from one treaty in the prospect of having another agreement). Furthermore, I see no need for putting them on the same blurb; each event is important enough on its own. (For the record, I did oppose the merge before the nomination was posted, but my comment was accidentally removed by another user.) JimSukwutput02:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post pull opinion And this is why ITN has been so slow recently ;) I continue to support merging the two stories into one blurb. There is an obvious connection between the two - but not SYNTH-like. The Canadian decision happened whilst the agreement was made elsewhere. There is an obvious and relevant connection between the two. Wiki does not have hard and fast rules on precedent which forbids news stories being connected in this way. It might be a good precedent to start. doktorbwordsdeeds04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are there rules for such stories to be merged, and so far eight editors had argued against the merger (as opposed to four in support). It is however sad to see that a news item of such global relevance is stalled, while a local lunatic can make it to the front-page in minutes. --Elekhh (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Again, numbers, especially when considering remarks after the fact, should be taken with a grain of salt. I would not be surprised if, had the blurbs been kept separate, a couple people would have come here asking why two related stories aren't just combined (or why one didn't replace the other), especially since they would likely be on ITN one below the other. The rationale against it is highly enigmatic to me. "We don't do it for elections" is a straw-man argument, and we frequently merge related blurbs together (e.g. during the Arab Spring protests at the beginning of the year) when there is an obvious connection. So, this is hardly without precedence. Some seem to argue that this is coincidence, but FormerIP, who still thinks the blurbs should be separated, acknowledges that this is probably not the case. So, I don't understand what the issue is. That we don't want to imply something that isn't explicitly said anywhere? That we don't want to bold two articles in one sentence? That we just want to give a nomination the full glory of a blurb to itself? Someone please explain, especially as most of you have provided no reasoning so far. -- tariqabjotu04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the obvious connection beyond the fact that they're made around the same day, and that some Canadian politician made a offhand reference to the conference. Does anybody have more substantial facts suggesting that the conference had any influence on the Canadian decision? This suggestion troubles me because I believed that the decision in Canada was made (informally) long before the conference happened. JimSukwutput04:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb did not say "because of". The fact that an agreement to establish a new treaty replacing Kyoto comes at the same time, even if by coincidence, that one of Kyoto's signatories backs out is a connection on its own. -- tariqabjotu04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The rationale against it is highly enigmatic to me"? It has been argued very clearly and persistently that the two news items are quite distinct, and that merging is confusing. As you well know, Durban is about 190+ countries negotiating to join a future treaty for 2015, this item is about Canada stepping out of a 1997 treaty which is currently active. Each news item is notable in itself, and sophisticated enough to have a proper blurb explaining it, instead of monster merger likely to confuse. --Elekhh (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying this has been argued very clearly and persistently is quite the exaggeration; most have presented straw-man arguments, repeated the idea that there was no consensus to merge to begin with, or simply expressed disapproval like their positions went without saying.
And I really just don't understand how half of the people here see the obvious, direct connection between these two stories, while others say the only connection is that both stories are about climate change. The Kyoto Protocol article mentions the UN conference when speaking about Canada's withdrawal, while the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference article mentions the Kyoto Protocol. The connection, clearly, is not just climate change; the connection is the two treaties themselves. Canada's impending withdrawal was a point of concern in the conference. Going further, the fact that Canada made do on their promise the day after said conference was over, with the Environmental Minister remarking that the treaty at the conference is a better way forward, is hard to put down as coincidence. This is not just some random guy making an offhand comment about the proposed Durban treaty; this is the Environmental Minister, an attendee of the conference, making the statement. And, despite what you say, everyreputablenewsorganization seems perfectly content making a connection between the two stories. How does merging the blurbs confuse readers? If anything, in clarifies things, because, right now, readers are left to wonder what this "new treaty" is replacing. You do realize that's the Kyoto Protocol, right? The same treaty that Canada's withdrawing from?
FWIW I was fine with the merge, and if an alternative article could be found, I'd be fine with merged blurb again. There is an obvious connection here. ITN has limited space so while media websites may report them as separate events it makes sense for ITN to combine blurbs were possible.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2011 (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.
Support Yep, meets criteria I feel - haven't checked sources against updates myself but no reason to assume all is not well with the article. It's always nice to see non US/UK politics on ITN. Pedro : Chat 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Around 1,000 people protest in Taipei, demanding that the government make a weekly day off a legal right for Taiwan's 200,000 foreign live-in caregivers. (Straits Times)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Firstly because most of the ITN material we post up isn't ITN/R, secondly because the blurb may need amending and thirdly, the article may not be updated and up to the standard where it's deemed ITN suitable. YuMaNuMaTalkContributions07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending outcome, meets ITNR and I'm confident that a sufficient amount of work and a suitable blurb will materialise when the outcome becomes clear. —WFC— 09:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ITN/R, so the only issue is whether the update is sufficient. There is absolutely no merit in placing it here before it is in anyone's power to provide an update. Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major international event, though outcomes are currently unclear and articles will continue to be updated in coming days as reports emerge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relevant ITN topic, however, there is an issue with the article. As the orange tag says, the article is mostly about background and not so much about the conference itself. Some work will be required to update/expand it. --Tone10:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Story of global interest, India, China and the USA agreeing that something should be done is significant in itself, and enough has been added to the article to just about justify an ITN posting. "Weak" because the article could still be more informative. —WFC— 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting. Could we change "new" (as implicit) to "legally binding" (which is the main and unexpected news). Eventually could be shortened by replacing United Nations with UN and/or removing South Africa (as Durban is already linked for all those interested). --Elekhh (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "new" treaty is fine, as it contrasts this treaty with the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, "legally binding" sounds unlikely. How could it possibly be legally binding with no one really to enforce it? -- tariqabjotu06:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a matter of sport statistics. We don't post it, unless it is combined with some other story that would make it to ITN anyway. --Tone09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he has done this without winning a major is the angle that a lot of media outlets are taking. —WFC— 10:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a world ranking for golf, and this isn't it. This isn't a result, it is a conclusion based on an aggregate of results. We already have 9 guaranteed golf stories every two years. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
