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).
A three-storey factory collapses in the Pakistani city of Lahore after a gas explosion resulting in at least three deaths with dozens of workers trapped. (Reuters)
Support. This is a very notable event worthy of being posted in ITN. Considering there will be Diamond Jubilee celebrations throughout the world, I think it should be included. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, suggest posting as ITN and removing the piece in OTD, I suspect that the appearance of Her Maj. in OTD is a regular occurrence regarding her accession but the diamond jubilee is far more notable. Points of notability include head of the commonwealth, only the 2nd British monarch to have a diamond jubilee and only the 3rd for any monarch in the last 60 years [1](fact 60). Also suggest changing the blurb to "Elizabeth II, the second longest reigning British monarch and head of the commonwealth, celebrates her Diamond Jubilee.. --wintoniantalk02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest removing the Fred Goodwin story or at least removing direct reference to the Queen as it might be a bit unfair for her to have 2 mentions in ITN at the same time. --wintoniantalk02:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well if the story can be pulled from OTD, then that would take care of my oppose. HOWEVER...I'm not sure it is her diamond jubilee. Isn't that later in the year on the anniversary of her coronation? --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just like her birthday, the exact date is a total mystery to some! I'm really not sure about it either now. Is this just ascension day? The Jubilee is just for her coronation day. She wasn't crowned the day her father died xD (Woah, imagine how insensitive that would be) --Nutthida (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3)A jubilee occurs on the anniversary of the monarchs accession to the throne at least in the British Isles. The celebrations however are in June due to the accession also being when the death of the previous monarch occurred. --wintoniantalk02:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence "The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee marks 60 years since her accession in 1952." in my interpretation states that accession day is the actual date of the jubilee, unless I am reading it wrong. --wintoniantalk03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, since I'm getting the impression that the jubilee is 2012, rather than any specific day. In either case, the phrase in the blurb "celebrates her Diamond Jubilee" seems wrong on the basis that she intends to celebrate it in June, according to the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point "celebrates her Diamond Jubilee" is compleatly the wrong phrase to use suggest we use ""marks her Diamond Jubilee" instead? --wintoniantalk03:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't generally do anniversaries here: we didn't even post the tenth anniversary of 9/11. If this really a more significant milestone that that? What can there be in terms of a real update anyway? Crispmuncher (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
This isn't just an "Anniversary" it's Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee (or, maybe it isn't, this is confusing). And comparing it to the anniversary of 9/11 is totally irrelevant to this entry. We do not play tit-for-tat here. Please treat them as individual events /: --Nutthida (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly notable. Reaches the milestone of Queen Victoria, a record breaker if ever there was one. Head of State of numerous territories around the world. doktorbwordsdeeds03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Titoxd. There will be ceremonies and celebrations all around the world for this event, as well as several royal tours this year commemorating it. Highly notable. --PlasmaTwa205:25, 6 February 2012 (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.
Isn't it surprising that the British paper the Guardian has one of those live feed pages for, in Doctorbuk's words, a sport "supported only by a minority of sports fans across the world, is US-centric as a subject, is US-centric in terms of article content, does not promote Wiki's world view, and is a non-notable event in the context of sporting headlines"? Is there any other non-British (or even European) sport they do this for? If anyone else opposes it will be as laughable as that dancing red M&M's. –HTD00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of warped agenda are you promoting here? Nobody has opposed posting this when it becomes appropriate to do so: it is ITN/R, so no such objection would have any grounds anyway. One can only assume that your comment serves no purpose other than to be argumentative and to draw attention to an opinion that received no support a year ago. Most people would have got over one person's wind up by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.77.50 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We did not post the final of the indian cricket tournament, and indians are crazy about it, also I dont know both sport event.--Feroang (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely unreasonable to base your opposition on that. These are separate nominations and separate issues and should be treated individually. As far as I can see, the Super Bowl is a far larger event that commands a much wider global interest than a lot of people outside - and even inside - the US seem to think. --Nutthida (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Was the Indian cricket tournament watched by over 30% of the country's population? Last year's Super Bowl was watched by over 100 million Americans during one single game. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Once ITN/R is asserted you are implicitly asking us to consider the update: well, it's not ready. Try re-filing (under the correct date) once the result is known and the article has a substantive update. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not ready because it finished literally seconds ago. And boy those Patriots-idiots stupid leaving him open tp SIT for the TD. But if they made the catch itd have been the greatest ever in in sports history!. (silly all-yankee game as it was...one of the worst combos to see at the superbowl. Anyways, Superbowl L = Cowboys vs. Texans, i said it here first)
(Yeah that missed catch was pretty epic - I appreciate close games in any sport, steam-rollers are boring, I would veto a steam-roller game for IT/N fufufufuf) I'm going to so wait rather than oppose because of updates, which are expected, to come in. --Nutthida (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for my reasons quoted by the nominator. The sudden upsurge in British interest in this event is a curiosity, not proof of a trend. The sport does not feature on the broadcast media news, for one thing, and there has been no build up on the broadcast media, only on-line where there is no guarantee that the domestic audience really cares. Clearly this is not something for which Wikipedia's world wide audience would find notable, interesting or worthy of front page inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)
That doesn't really concern me- I think we've posted Super Bowl results for the past 6 years (estimate?) and it's also on ITN/R. SpencerT♦C03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good pull by Spencer, there wasn't even close to an update. That said, this is ITNR and there's no point opposing—it will be posted as soon as there's an update (and rightly so). Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the charade of being on ITNR has been proven with the oppose votes here today! There is little support for this nomination to be anywhere near the front page. And rightly so. doktorbwordsdeeds03:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that several of the oppose votes deal with the fact that the article isn't updated, not that it isn't notable. Article update takes precedence over any other rationale. SpencerT♦C03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Post after update. Update doesn't need to be huge, just include the winner in the lead. I'm sure it has already been done by editors. And seriously, we post far less relevant sports games, like handball. WikifanBe nice03:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the note ate ITNR says usually doesnt say its ITNR to add it. I digressl , leave that for the article. Also couldbe interesting to note as in the post-game interview, that Eli did it at the stadium that Peyton "built".Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's still an orange-level tag (original research) in the Game summary section, which is particularly crucial to the update. -- tariqabjotu05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Anyone opposing the inclusion of the single-most watched sporting event in the world (excepting the multi-day Olympics) makes completly transparent their anti-American bias.98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Also per ITN conventions. Article is pretty good. I'd support even without further expansion, but I'd like to see a bit more about the issues and the party that is in power after decades on the outside. Jusdafax21:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
its a stellar article compared to most (all?) elections from non-english speaking/commonwealth countries. Also marked eady.Lihaas (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I say we should concentrate on getting the item directly below posted. This might be able to be merged with that somehow. ...*eyeing nominator suspiciously* Nightw21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this should somehow be combined with the blurb below. Something not happening (i.e. no resolution) is usually not ITN. --bender235 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here is a link from Russia today [10] states that: "Reports say at least 200 perished in the attack on the Syrian city of Homs, which started late on Friday" --aad_Dira (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The article is there, the update is extensive, however, on the top of the article, there are some tags that would need to be addressed. Support then. --Tone12:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is very long, there are a lot of doubtful and uncheckable statements that have lasted for month. The neutrality over the forces in the city and diverses thing is also contested. However, like Goltak, I suggest to use the new article specially made for yesterday claims.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Syrian government denies it, and the reports (at least initial ones), were based on some bloggers claims. The blurb is not neutral. GreyHoodTalk17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Greyhood. The blurb exclusively attributes the deaths to the government, rather than to the armed rebel groups. Some attempt must be made to reconcile the two viewpoints; otherwise the blurb promotes the Syrian National Council. Shrigley (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this pseudo-NPOV "he said, she said" charade is ridiculous, for god's sake, then just mention that there have been hundreds of deaths, w/out attributing them to anyone. --bender235 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Would like to see mention of the deaths via bombardment as well as the UN veto. Time constraints today preclude my work on the blurb, but this story should be represented on ITN, in my view. Jusdafax21:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, alternative blurb, since (for some reason) we did not post the Arab League monitors withdrawal:
Comment Well, alot of discussion have taken place here. First, what is unneutral is to say that the deaths were in clashes between the two sides, because neither the regime nor the opposition have said that such a thing happened, i think that we are assuming neutrality rather than trying to be really neutral. If you want the actual two sides views, the opposition says that 400 people were killed by a heavy shelling launched by the Syrian army, and the regime says that 400 people (Actually he didn't mention a number, but whatever) were killed in an armed bands operations in Homs, that is all. Second, from my view, there is difference between the blurb itself being unneutral (For example, saying revolution not protests, or martyrs not deaths) and the case it is showing just a one-side view, because the blurb can be neutral in showing the opposition view even if it didn't mention the other side view, in addition to the fact that the sentence is too short to mention two views (At the time of 2011 Damascus bombings, the view of the opposition for the hand of the regime in what happened were not mentioned in the main page news section). So, i think the current blurb is good, and mentioning the number of deaths is very important (note that 200 is the least number mentioned by all agencies, even the russian), and the clashes sentence is far away from true --aad_Dira (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
tweaked blurb trying to merge 2 items, if its too long we can remove the monitors birt. also made npov with the CLAIM of 200+ deathsLihaas (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready one of the bolded articles still has a serious issues template (neutrality) on it. Remember ITN is for highlighting quality content. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Please note that the problem of the article is solved now, because a new article has been created for the massacre, and we can link the blurb to it directly. Personally, i don't see a big need for mentioning what is related to the monitors. Also, what is the point of "civil unrest" part? The sentence in general sounds like a 200 people have died surprisingly in an obscure conditions, why don't we say simply that an artillery shelling on the city of Homs by the Syrian forces caused 200 deaths and stop circling around it? It is simple, all news agencies tells you in the bold font: "The Syrian regime has killed 200 people in Homs". Remember WP:UNDUE, if the media didn't give much attention to the regime story of the armed bands, we don't have to mention it, because it is not notable, what is notable rather is the 200 deaths caused by the REGIME story, it is neutral and notable and we can say it simply --aad_Dira (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
becuase that is POBV. its a CLAIM by the opposition (no bias there?) and the international media who cant verify it because there is a media blackout and they rely on claims. And we dont credence to waht the media gives attention to or not because this is NOTNEWS. Its clear from the statements above that this is POV. Futhermore, the govt denies it happened (or at least via shelling()Lihaas (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC) )[reply]
What is the relation between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE? The news agencies is simply the primary source of news articles on Wikipedia, so it does not require alot of thinking to conclude that what is notable and unnotable depends on it. You guys sounds like trying to make the things neutral but you don't know how to do that, so you just try to change things that don't need to be changed. Yes, the regime has shelled Homs and killed 200 people, there is nothing unneutral here, this is the opposition story and this is what was the top news in the international newspapers of 4th February. If you want to tell the regime story, so shall it be, but don't change the main story told by all worldwide media and invent Wikipedia very own story of what happened in Syria yesterday --aad_Dira (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Your statements are showing more of a bias each time. FIRST you say that WP should not "invent" stories, whoich is true, but the invention is being made on behalf of 1 side and unverified (not to mention dubious). WP is not a weblog/social media (by intention anyways). if as you say its the primary source here then thats explicitly frowned upon as biased. (can bt cited but needs to be backed elsewhere). notability does NOT depend whatsoever on what the news agencies report. there is a lot of garbage, even if RS, that is not notable enough to be on here. Perhaps Wikinews is better using the logic behind the arguement here. Thereis no affirmation of shelling other than the opposition claim (to bolder their view/garner support of oppression) and the media that have repeatedly said reports cannot be confirmed as they are not present. to present it we need BOTH stories, not seperate stories.Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am biased to the revolution, i support the revolution, there is no reason for me to hide this fact, also you are biased against the revolution, it is clear that you are Shia Muslim, but all of these facts does not prevent any of us from the right of discussing things out here. When we publish the opposition view of events on Wikipedia we does not invent things, but we simply tells what the opposition said, but when we invent a new thing that neither the regime nor the opposition said like that the current blurb is a different thing. And, from what you said, can i understand that Reuters, BBC, France24, CNN, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Russia today, The Guardian, Sky-news and Fox-news top page news of the day was all unnotable? Are you kidding or what? As i said before, mention the regime view if you want, i don't care, but don't try to change the fact the Syrian army has shelled Homs and killed 200 people, this MUST be mentioned in the blurb. I don't know why you just wanna make the discussion longer and longer --aad_Dira (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
thats fine but youve completely discredited yourself with an admission of bias. Furthermore, if it is "clear" that i am a Shia can you prove it? Dont resort to personal attacks but comment on content. Wehtehr im a Shia a or notis irrelevant, and thats a presumption to say so!Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, here is a new proposal (Although, i don't see why it is biased; Civil unrest, Alleged, according to the international media. Please clarify your point):
An artillery shelling according to the Syrian opposition and armed bands attacks according to the regime causes 200 deaths and and 500 injured in the city of Homs.
As Greyhood already said, "regime" is a negative word for "government", so it should be avoided. And if the article describes only the alleged shelling, and not the rebels' attacks, as the wikilinks suggest, then it is not neutral. If it covers both, then wikilink like this: [[Homs Bombardment (2012)|cause 200 deaths]]. "Bands" is not really idiomatic; it sounds like it could almost be "bandits", and could be any side. "Rebel attacks" would be clearer. Also, qualify the numbers with something like "reportedly". Shrigley (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're intentionally missing the point, bender235. Why do I keep getting the feeling that you're somehow trying to push a political agenda every time you comment on an ITN item? JimSukwutput00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i agree with bender actually, i see that as i said before, you guys want to be neutral, but you don't know how, so you are just trying to change everything around on the hope of representing the regime point of view, although many thing don't need to be changed. Anyway, Shrigley please write a suitable blurb yourself, because it seems that it is hard for me, as a supporter of the revolution, to realize your criteria of neutrality here, and please do that as soon as possible because two days have passed already after the event --aad_Dira (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
in reply to bender, as opposed to the now irrelevant user who blatantly said hes biased AND showed it, the issue is not about the artielley oshelling or not its about the fact that its UNVERIFIABLE going SOLELY on the credence of 1-side to the conflict .Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So? What is the result do you need to reach to? We remove the whole sentence and write that an armed terrorist bands have attacked Homs and killed 200 people although some liar people calling themselves opposition claims that it was done by the army? --aad_Dira (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
pull it ASAP the blurb is hidepusly pov and unverified with the due caveat. At any rate, the timer is not overdue with the finland posting.Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hideously POV? There was a military operation. During that time, 200 people were killed. This seems rather undisputed, at least as the article puts it. Of course, now that you put up that disputed tag, it's hard to judge what's undisputed. But, this pushing off Syria until the next event pattern is starting to get a bit annoying. There have been so many events related to Syria over the past month that are of great enough significance to be on ITN. Each time, something derails it. Let's not ruin this again. -- tariqabjotu06:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The linked article has some questionable grammar/sentence structure and is, in any case, a re-direct. Can we pull, tidy up, and then re-open the discussion? doktorbwordsdeeds06:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, employers added over 240,000 jobs in the month of January and the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, the lowest percent in three years. (CNN)
The Daily Mail reports that the world record for the number of water skiers pulled by a single boat (145) has been broken. (Daily Mail)
Lance Armstrong Investigation Dropped
Article:No article specified Blurb: US Federal prosecutors drop an investigation of cycling champion Lance Armstrong for alleged use of performance enhancing substances. (Post) News source(s):(USA Today) Credits:
Support, the end (and arguably largest development) in one of the biggest stories/scandals to emerge from cycling, which is a global sport. Lance Armstrong is a globally-recognisable name. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this is notable because it represents the end of the US federal involvement in any investigations into LA's alleged doping. This is key because the federal government has powers unavailable to the press and to sporting authorities and there was a significant possibility that such a Federal investigation would shed light that 15 years of muckraking by the media has failed to uncover. It is now far more likely with this federal investigation behind him that Armstrong will remain officially clear of doping despite widespread belief that he is guilty.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first Support post says it's the end of the story. No way. The rest of the cycling world is unlikely to accept what a US inquiry says about a US cyclist. Would the dropping of a Spanish government enquiry remove all doubts about Alberto Contador? The fact that no reasons were given for dropping the investigation won't help either. Note that I'm not declaring any opinion about Armstrong and drugs. I have no idea on that. I'm just commenting on the process. I see it as one more step in the saga. Not sure if that makes this particular event important across the world. HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
obvious oppose case is DROPPED (ie- no conviction) and its a minor domestic issue. If the issue was at CAS with repercussions for the world of sport it would be a different issue.Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this a 'minor domestic issue' is severely warped. Had a federal investigation uncovered new evidence it would have been of significant interest throughout the cycling world, and Armstrong's 7 TdF titles would have been in question.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Now that I look, we've posted the original verdict back in 2010 already. That probably makes the new one less ITN-material... --Tone11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The extension of the original sentence is extraordinary and INT-worthy. I've been to the compound this man ran, Tuol Sleng, and found it to be one of the most horrifying experiences of my life. Jusdafax23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Gagner of the Edmonton Oilers becomes just the thirteenth NHL player in history to record 8 points in one game, doing so against the Chicago Blackhawks. It is the first time the feat is attained since 1989. (CBC)
Comment. I presume there will be more updates to come on this. It's good that we have an article on it. It'll need to get past stub size though. Nightw07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable disaster. The article provides the relevant information so far. The blurb needs to be made a bit more specific; there were reportedly about 350 passengers & 12 crew. The latest news is that 246 people have been rescued, and no bodies found; the others are still missing. Aridd (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I found the article enlightening, and it is in pretty good shape. Refreshing change of pace for ITN. Suggest we post this one. Jusdafax05:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a nice story for ITN since we don't feature many art stories. However, the update is really short and contains too many speculations. If this is addressed and the blurb modified correspondingly, my support is here. --Tone12:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although an interesting story, its relative impact is rather small- this is simply a copy of the Mona Lisa that provides some insight into the actual painting. Also, Mona_Lisa#Prado_copy is too short. SpencerT♦C19:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — As has been mentioned above, the European cold spell has claimed more lives and certainly has been "in the news" far more than the Japanese one. Given the state of the article, I cannot support, but will not oppose at this stage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
update over 200 dead (mostly homeless in Ukraine) and state of emergency in Bosnia with forecasts for a worsening cold spell. Al Jazeera reports that gas supplies are also limited to demand decrease, worsening the situation. Article needs an update.Lihaas (talk) 02:34, 5 February 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
