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).
Three trapped survivors are rescued from the capsized cruise ship Costa Concordia, over 24 hours after it ran aground off the coast of Italy. Two corpses are also found, bringing the known death toll of the incident to five. (BBC)
Comment This is a very pithy article in totality - it's mostly tables - and there is no update to speak of. I don't object to this in principle but a dramatic expansion is needed to bring it up to something ITN worthy. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rescue teams find two survivors trapped inside the capsized cruise ship Costa Concordia, which ran aground off the coast of Tuscany on January 13, killing at least three people. The ship's captain is detained by police for questioning. (New Zealand Herald)
Support and comment I took the liberty of updating Eugen's proposal though some of the format may have been lost. Here are some sources for the attack: 1, 2, 3. Attacks such as these have increased exponentially since the war officially "ended." It would be wrong of us not to post it pending of course an updated article. WikifanBe nice13:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have multiple bombs blowing up in Iraq weekly now. I am unsure how these should be handled ITN-wise. We would have Iraq appearing all the time in the main page should these attacks continue. I do not believe it would be good taste to consider notability based on body count alone. Just a thought there. -- A Certain White Catchi? 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Certain White Cat. Bombings have become are still routine in Iraq. The first few after the US withdrawl was one thing, but now it's just routine killing. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability of the event itself shouldn't be the only factor in our decisions. One of the main factors I consider is whether we have an informative, interesting article on the subject that tells readers something useful. Right now we have an article that contains a mere four short sentences about the attack, in addition to a paragraph about other unrelated attacks and a subject sentence. Nothing of value. JimSukwutput22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That isn't the issue - articles can easily be expanded. Editors are opposing because it is a "routine event" (not necessarily true). WikifanBe nice23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Similar to Northeast blackout of 2003 Turkey just lost power in significant part of the country in most of Marmara region and many provinces of Istanbul and Kocaeli where vast majority of Turkish industry is located. I posted it here before the media so it may take time for the media to catch on or power lines to be fixed making the event less significant. -- A Certain White Catchi? 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It isn't restored yet. Such details aren't available at the moment. -- A Certain White Catchi? 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I've given it a copyedit, but the article could do with at least a paragraph more content. Things like reactions, estimates for recovery time, impacts on any significant events, etc are the sort of things I'd expect to see. Will happily support when expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This should be a no brainer, as with most national elections. Once the results come out (which is today the 14th) both president-elect and the new Parliament will be determined. Please note that the results are being tallied right now on the 14th so that the headline should be made today when the results are confirmed. --Yong (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why propose now? It is ITNR, so the only grounds for rejection would be insufficient update. That being the case, proposing it before a sufficient update is logically possibly is pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the comments, the election was held today and results will come out later today, so I don't see the point of not suggesting it as part of the proper procedure to get it posted. Surely this might not have to be suggested to be posted but if this can be a friendly reminder then why not. --Yong (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important note: Per the policy WP:NC-TW, the name we use when referring to the legislative council is Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China. The title of the re-elected president (Ma Ying-jeou) is President of the Republic of China. The incumbent party is known as Kuomintang of China or Chinese Nationalist Party. JimSukwutput13:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the blurb according to this policy and to include the election results. While the counting is not 100% over, the winners have already been declared (but we still need to wait for the full results before posting). JimSukwutput13:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my obviously POV bias, but it was intended to be a rough start for the blurb. Thanks for any modifications and updates. From the preliminary results it is less unlikely that the KMT will achieve a majority this time, though everything will be determined when the results are confirmed. --Yong (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that very guideline says that we should use Republic of China (Taiwan) for the state, i.e. with the brackets, but use Republic of China in the president's title. wow this China/Taiwan naming thing is a mess Modest Geniustalk16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, nothing in the blurb refers to the state. "Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China" is an official name for the legislative council. JimSukwutput16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of readers are likely to be misled that there have been presidential and parliamentary elections in China, and the bolded article doesn't really work hard to dispel that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If some readers have misconceptions about the current political status of PRC/ROC, this is a good chance for them to educate themselves on the issue. Yes, there have been elections in China, the Republic of China. JimSukwutput20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the article is missing some prose update regarding the results. There's just the infobox and the result table. Some reactions would be nice to see as well. Otherwise, when you agree on the blurb, I can post. --Tone19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NC-TW states that for official names such as President and Legislative Yuan, the term "ROC" is used without any reference to Taiwan. If you can find another way to put Taiwan in the blurb for the ignorant masses, fine (maybe we can start referring to the United States as "America"), although the blurb is long enough already. JimSukwutput20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fundementally I oppose until the blurb contains the word Taiwan so we can avoid confusing our readers. And therefore there isn't a clear consensus with only one support so removing the [Ready] tag.
There is nothing confusing about the blurb. There has been two elections in the Republic of China, and we stated that there were two elections in the Republic of China, as our current policy guidelines demanded. No ambiguity at all. It's true that some readers may have the mistaken belief that the government of Taiwan island is known as Taiwan. That's okay; some people also believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that evolutionary theory is fabricated; Wikipedia doesn't pander to their ignorance. JimSukwutput20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it should seek to correct it, and to avoid expressing itself in ways that it knows will be misunderstood. Also, please don't use the word "pander", since this is likely to make people think of Chinese wildlife. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I've spent a lot of time looking at sources about this when getting China re-titled, and its blindingly obvious that the WP:COMMONNAME in English for the Republic of China is "Taiwan". Taiwan is what the country is known as to our readers, and people who aren't experts on greater China will probably assume that the Republic of China refers to the People's Republic.
I'm happy for the blurb to contain the words "Republic of China" as that is the current title for the article on the government of Taiwan, but we need to mention Taiwan as well.
The KMT article should also probably be linked without "of China" - no need to mention China in the blurb as that is confusing as well and the aritcle is located at Kuomintang. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kuomintang of China is the name of the party, but I wouldn't mind using a short form. As for your insistence on including the Taiwan name, if you can find some way of putting it in the blurb without violating WP:NC-TW, that would be perfectly fine. But it is not appropriate to add (Taiwan) to the end of "President of the Republic of China". (I think your concern about the possible confusion is unnecessary; people are going to read the articles, and it'd be perfectly clear that it's not the PRC that's having an election) JimSukwutput21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's apparently some nitpicky distinction between the Legislative Yuan as a branch of government, and the defunct National Assembly as a true "parliament". If what you oppose is the redundant mention of "Republic of China", then I propose using simply "Legislative Yuan", as in the article, which makes things clear enough. Shrigley (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Ma Ying-jeou was not just elected by constituents on Taiwan island but also by people on several outlying islands belong to Fukien province. It does not make sense to say "in Taiwan" here in a geographical sense; "in Republic of China (Taiwan)" would be preferable, but that'd make the blurb difficult to read. JimSukwutput22:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To those who want the blurb to say China, stop playing politics. The common name is Taiwan. I will strike this out and add a Support comment when the word China disappears. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What politics? Ma Ying-jeou was elected as the President of the Republic of China. It's not politics to state the title of the presidency; it IS politics to arbitrarily change the title of the office into something else based on your personal preferences. Furthermore, WP:NC-TW forbids any mention of the term Taiwan when referring to official names and titles that do not contain the term. If you have problems with the policy, bring it up at its talk page. JimSukwutput21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage the word China appears conspicuously in the blurb, the title of this section, and the name of the linked article. The presence of that name distorts this whole discussion. It certainly fooled me. It will fool others. Those including it are playing politics. It is NOT NPOV. It is promoting Taiwan's international political goals. I cannot possibly support it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my frankness, but it's not our problem if you're ignorant or obtuse. Our naming conventions dictate what names we use, and in this case there is no ambiguity whatsoever that we ought to use ROC or ROC-TW in the articles and the blurb (and certainly not the term Taiwan on its own). You seem to have a problem not only with the blurb but with the entire NC-TW policy and the naming conventions that we have been using for years (see the previous election articles). I'm sorry, but consensus rules, and your objection here is out of place. JimSukwutput22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems with several Wikipedia policies. My reasons are rational and clearly stated above. If policy allows supporters of Taiwan to play politics here, so be it, but it doesn't mean I will endorse it. China is that huge country on mainland Asia, not this place. I still strongly Oppose. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you understand that your opposition is with regard to WP:NC-TW, and not this blurb. Yet you still choose to whine and moan here, rather than in the policy's talk page. You know that is disruptive, correct? JimSukwutput22:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my position is supported by Wikipedia's policy to use common names (which I can't be bothered looking up the proper name of, but I KNOW you know what I mean.) Using China to describe this country is non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't always apply (it states that we should generally use the most common name); that's why we have WP:NC-TW guidelines to specifically settle disputes about the PRC/ROC naming issue. This is the way it has been done for over 5 years; it makes no sense for us to diverge from it now just because you got "fooled" as a result of your ignorance. JimSukwutput22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone gathered a coherent set of evidence about how the Republic of China is named, and managed to get enough non Taiwanese-partisans to participate in the move discussion then Republic of China would move to Taiwan per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE.
Support posting and saying "Taiwan" and nothing else, because that is of course how mainstream reliable sources are reporting the elections. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:NC-TW. Comments like this are tiring. It's not that hard to understand this: When there is an existing policy, we follow it. When you have an objection regarding the policy, take it to the policy talk page. Any other objection on any other location is completely worthless and valueless. Simply because you've never heard of the policy before is not a valid reason to object to it in one specific place and expect us to create a huge inconsistency. Please don't waste your time. JimSukwutput22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tone it down a bit there, big fella. I am well aware of NC-TW, having argued against it in the past: [1]. You are downright wrong to call this a policy. NC-TW is not a policy, it is a naming convention -- a guideline -- to which exceptions "may apply". It is a "general rule of thumb", from which we are free to depart. We should do so here, because no-one is reporting this as the "Republic of China" election and we should follow, as always, what the reliable sources say. Have a cup of tea, take a break from your keyboard mashing for a while, and read WP:POLICY. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether the name ROC or Taiwan is used more often in mainstream English media. Articles on ITN follow Wikipedia guidelines; how other news organizations report it is none of our business. Sure, you're right that we can "ignore all rules"; so far you've not provided a convincing reason to do so. JimSukwutput22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
June 16, 2008: A Taiwanese activist boat circumnavigates the disputed Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands following a diplomatically charged ship collision the previous week.
August 8, 2009: Typhoon Morakot kills at least 36 people in the Philippines and Taiwan after producing a record-breaking 2,489 millimetres (98 in) of rainfall.[3]
Comment: With one exception, all references to the state (not the island) uses the term Republic of China or Republic of China (Taiwan). Seems like the precedents are pretty clear. JimSukwutput22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Australia. I just checked all our major reliable news sources. Every one of them used just Taiwan for this news, and didn't use the word China at all. Oh, except for one. It said "China-friendly leader wins Taiwan re-election". Clearly the name China is simply not used to mean Taiwan here. I don't think Australia is on any particular political or reporting extreme, and it certainly shows where my views come from. So, Wikipedia's or Jim's policies notwithstanding, I'm sticking with total opposition to the word China being mentioned. It's confusing, unhelpful, and political POV pushing HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting. Neutral on whether "Republic of China" is used, provided that (Taiwan) remains in brackets if it is. Either way, just get on with posting; there's no reason that this debate can't continue once it's up. —WFC— 23:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even if considered only a Chinese domestic event, this is important news with international implications. Some people here make good points about the naming of Taiwan-related articles. They should join the active debates about this issue at Talk:Republic of China and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). But we seem to have worked the blurb so that it doesn't gratuitously mention the formal name of the state ("Republic of China"); so that it does so only once, before which "Taiwan" is mentioned first in order to clarify. Shrigley (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I support using the guidelines per WP:NC-TW. While only guidelines and not policy, they provide a clear reference on this issue that reflect WP consensus presumably. Wikipedia is not a news media outlet and is not required to follow the media in naming Taiwan. (If we didn't have such guidelines I would suggest we follow the media). We are also not required to follow the guidelines WP:NC-TW, but I see no compelling reason not to.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think they do represent consensus and they certainly don't represent the reality of how Taiwan is covered in English language sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy posting. And, please, use common name of Taiwan. The "In the news" section is for a general audience with casual interest, not those interested in Wikiguideline minutiae or refighting 60-year-old wars over China. Per the principle of least astonishment, we shouldn't fool some passersby into thinking China has suddenly started having elections. — AjaxSmack07:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Naming shouldn't come up as an issue at ITN. Leave that to a move request. One was recently done at Republic of China and the page wasn't moved. If that's the name of the article, that's the name we should be using here. Let's not set our own naming guidelines, stick to WP:NC-TW. Nightw09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously most people commenting here would not have been part of the discussion contributing to the claimed consensus at Republic of China. Ethically I think we have every right to comment on the inappropriate name here. Many have commented on it here. That cannot be ignored. A different consensus can validly arise here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's different when there's a guideline in place for it. We can't ignore a guideline that a lot of time has gone into (especially for the Main Page). The guideline needs to be changed first. Nightw09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at that guideline and how it came to be? It's obvious the discussion involved a bunch of people with strong political interest in a perceived local "correctness", with no interest in the global common name. That part of Wikipedia won't change its view no matter what. That means it's a bad policy. I argue that this discussion can develop its own consensus among people with less of an obsession with a century of politics in that region. We really should be using today's globally common name. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because there are more Taiwanese partisans interested in the guideline than either Chinese partisans or editors who don't have a "side" in cross Taiwan strait relations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but not entirely happy with the update - given the coverage this is getting surely we can do better than that. The section title grates in particular: I may not be an expert but is appears to be a complete loss to me from the TV pictures. Why then, do we need to quote the year of the grounding in the title as if it might happen again? Crispmuncher (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Three deaths (according to BBC news) in a transport incident is, sadly, nothing: they do not become more newsworthy because they died in a mode of transport only available to the wealthy leisured. Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we change "killing three people" to "with three reported fatalities"? The BBC article I read said 12 dead with 3 jumpers. Also the timer in the template above needs to be reset. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by [[User:{{subst:Scanlan}}|{{subst:Scanlan}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:Scanlan}}|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:{{subst:Scanlan}}|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BKiribati+presidential+election%2C+2012%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Kiribati+presidential+election%2C+2012&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
Nominator's comments: Major event for the country, which might be overlooked by outside media. Public Domain photo of Tong is located on the article's page for posting. --Scanlan (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only on the basis that it's the first ever (we similarly posted the first Summer Youth Olympics). Other than that, it shouldn't be (and isn't) an automatic post. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly how little coverage this event is getting from the mainstream media. Well, as it is the first time for winter youth olympics, I guess we can post. We'll see in years to come how it develops. --Tone19:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only because its the first one. Such little coverage for the first event will probably mean even lesser coverage for the forthcoming ones. I don't think it could hold its own on ITN if it wasn't the first one. Lynch719:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a sports event with the word "Olympic", it has almost no coverage, seems to have barely any minimum level of entry for athletes, and the article is as scarce as it could be for the front page. Not convinced at all by its nomination doktorbwordsdeeds23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support an official IOC sanctioned olypmic event is newsworthy. I think it's worth noting that the opening of the summer and winter games, as well as the summer and winder paralympic games are already on ITN/R. The article is a good size, and all the links are event specific, such as "Speed skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics" or "Austria at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics". Also, --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is the widespread coverage of this? It seems to me this has only gained any level of support because of the Olympic connection. We don't do notability by association elsewhere on this project, so why on ITN? There are two clarifications here that both restrict notability - it is winter sports specifically for youth. That lacks the prestige of the main summer games and as a youth event it isn't a top-line competition. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The time of year that it is contested doesn't, but the range of sports covered does. Do you really doubt that there is greater interest in the Summer than winter games? Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source for your claim No coverage, no news? We also posted discovery of a new frog species, and I doubt everyone would care about this news, except biologists... ♫GoP♫TCN11:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is the inclusion of items in the project that needs sourced verification, not the omission. There is nothing in Wikipedia about fact that my garden fence has a damaged panel, but I don't need a media source proving the lack of reportage on the state of my garden fence to justify the fact that it is absent from Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: hardly any coverage, article has 125 words of prose and the rest is incomplete tables. May support if there is a significant update to the article. Not sure why this was marked "ready". I♦A22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking about all article, since most of the biography has no references - or at least no footnotes. Try to improve that as well. Regarding the comments Northery Cyprus is not internationally recognized, we often post events in other unrecognized enthities. --Tone19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was actually about to support until I saw that Northern Cyprus isn't internationally recgnized, and only is by Turkey. It's be like putting the Governor of a province up here, which wouldn't fly. WizardmanOperation Big Bear18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan (Republic of China) is internationally not recognized (despite being a former UN permanent security council member) and yet we even show their elections on the main page. See above. -- A Certain White Catchi? 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though it is not recognized, Northern Cyprus is still a state. And before the establishment of it, he had led the Turkish Cypriot community for years, see the article Cyprus dispute. Not only that, he is considered to be a national hero in Turkey, as he dedicated his life to promote Turkish Cypriot nationalism, which obviously satisfied Turkish interests. And a governor of a province would not receive that much coverage anyway. --Seksen (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the article needs a considerable update. Also, the timeline in 2011 section needs to be improved. --Tone15:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article, no substantial update this year, let alone of this event. Also, the blurb needs to make it clear this is only one of the many internal conflicts. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, moderately interesting story, timer's red, and the article is decent enough. There's even an image! The blurb needs to be 'scientists announce' or 'publish', since the discovery itself was in 2009 but we've quite rightly waited for the peer-reviewed paper. Modest Geniustalk10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's also interesting to note that the previous record holder for the smallest frog, Paedophryne dekot, had been described just a month ago. Plus, there have now been three papers on the genus, each describing two new species, and each being published in an Open Access journal under CC BY. --Mietchen (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and Modest Genius. Currently four of five items in the ITN are about human deaths (#39 in total). The fifth is about alleged sodomy. Time for something positive, and the image is great. --Elekhh (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better you keep your misguided preconceptions to yourself: I was referring to the news item about the messy politics of unproven allegations, no intention whatsoever to be judgemental about sexuality. --Elekhh (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image is great, frogs symbolically taking over global economy. Hm... :-) Anyway, give me a good blurb and I'm posting. BTW, s there a quick way to protect images on Commons (I'm not an admin there) so that the files do not need to be uploaded here and protected? --Tone11:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assassination produced a furious reaction in Iran; the kind of an event that makes some kind of a military blow-up between Iran and the West more likely. Nsk92 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Notable assassination which further deteriorates the already fragile relations between Iran and "the West", especially in light of calls for retaliation from within Iran (although I doubt they will actually retaliate). There has been a series of such assassinations - is there an article on that? May be worthwhile to link the same as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Nothing particularly note-worthy. If posted, blurb should be truncated. No need to say "calls in Iran for retaliation against the West." Who are making these calls specifically? What is "the West?" Blurb infers the culprits are the "west" when the only country making that claim is Iran, so far. WikifanBe nice03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RS say assassination, murder, and killed. Considering the high-profile nature of the person and regional conflict "assassination" fits NPOV. Killed is more reserved for general deaths - i.e, suicide bombings. WikifanBe nice04:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that the word 'assassinated' shows that the death is regarded as being intended, but the word 'killed' can mean that the man was just caught in the crossfire. So I think assassinated works better.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all the news-outlets covering this event refer to it as "assassination" (see 1900+ GoogleNews hits here[3]), so I think we should use that wording. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.png)
