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).
An earthquake occurs off the coast of Aceh in Indonesia with a preliminary magnitude of 8.6 and a tsunami warning issued. There are five indirect fatalities. (NineMSN)
Nominator's comments: One of the biggest, and most controversial cases in recent memory, top story in over a month all over the world --> Secretaccount19:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we should wait for the indictment to actually be filed, if indeed one is going to occur. Second, the best way to analyze the newsworthiness in this case is via the nature of the controversy. Civil rights activists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made an incredible amount of noise over this case. Being newsworthy figures themselves, they will of course propel this story to the international circuit. This in turn has sparked a number of reactions from other activists with similar agendas. Now, in the midst of all of this, there is so little that we actually know about the case itself, due to the fact that information and evidence of varied nature has been trickling out extremely slowly. Thus we have a great deal of contention between people who believe that George Zimmerman is guilty, and between those who contend he acted in self-defense. So, I agree that this is an extremely controversial and high-profile case. Here's my question: should we post the indictment, or wait for a verdict?--WaltCip (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm saying that we should post this right now when the indictment still haven't happened, but once it's announced it should be considered, thus the nomination. Secretaccount20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We consider the nominations made here, and the nominated story is a rumour. If you want us to consider something else nominate something else. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
We also don't need to be jerks. It's abundantly clear to anyone not trying to make a point what he is referring to. The event is believed to occur less than three hours after his initial nomination, and just over an hour from now. With an event believed to occur within such a short time frame that is not on WP:ITN/R, it is entirely reasonable to discuss the merits of the news story before it actually happens, so we don't have the unfortunate circumstance where an article has received an adequate update but we have a protracted discussion long after about its newsworthiness. No one is suggesting this get posted before it happens, if, of course, it does happen. -- tariqabjotu20:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No particular reason that I know of to post this right now. And the article is one of the biggest piles of fragemented, irrelevant, biased bullshit ever seen on Wikipedia, including its name. (And when I say "biased", I mean in many directions, depending on which fragment one looks at.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: First president of Algeria and a regionally prominent figure. BTW the 'Ben' in the title shouldn't be capitalized I believe --Tachfin (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose To be honest this is more a complete lack of enthusiasm than a vehement oppose. He's a former president of a country we have to regard as comparatively low-profile on the world stage. We have to face the facts that all countries are not equal of notability and that similarly not all former heads of state are notable. ITN is ultimately a service to our readers so they can easily find coverage of widely supported stories. Just how many of our users are going to be actively hunting down this? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose As historically important as he might once have been, his place in history now (from which we must take some kind of judgement/stance) is such that I don't believe we would be satisfying our own criteria by putting him on the front page. He is a significant person to a degree. Not, to my measure, a wide enough degree.doktorbwordsdeeds19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
umm...we posted the Lithuanian whathisface with neven as much global worth (both first leaders of the nelwly independent state)Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the mere magnitude of the earthquake makes it notable enough to post. 8.6s are fairly rare. Support either way (waiting for damage/tsunami reports or posting immediately). With aftershocks as strong as 8.3, I'd say the earthquake alone is notable. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable earthquake. I myself live in India and actually felt the tremors (in Chennai). Plus, tsunami possibilities and what not, this one most certainly needs to be on the Main Page. And soon. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Felt it in Bangalore too, had to evacuate office building temporarily. India has issued a tsunami warning for A/N Islands, Andhra and Tamil Nadu. Low lying areas on the East Coast are being evacuated. Its a strong quake no doubt, but may be we can wait a couple of hours to evaluate the damages/consequences to assess notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty notable already; 8.5 to 8.9 on the Richter scale (multiple sources show different things) definitely means heavy damage. Tsunami alerts compound that. Damage for such earthquakes is not so short-term; especially with a number of aftershocks, we won't know what will be the actual death/damage until at least a few days. I vote to put this on the Main Page now, and add any little updates later. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say ready to post now. At the moment, thee article consists of several sections with 1-2 sentences but this will surely improve. However, as I started the original article and nominated the item, I kindly ask another admin to post. --Tone12:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending repercussions - A massive earthquake indeed, some local authorities are being optimistic by saying that there is not a very high likelihood of a tsunami occurring and striking Indonesia. YuMaNuMaContrib12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As editors have said lets wait just a few more hours to see what is coming out of it. the article says there is no tsunami jsut warnings (whichis politicall the right thign to do so as to avoid blame). I moved from the lead to expand the article...some more work on organising 9with the rest continuing later) should make it ready. Mind you the article also has some OR and uncited stuff at the moment which needs to beb cleaned out. When on ITn there is sure to be vandalism , etc
Other such disasters are posted on casualties NOT if its a big bboeing vs. turboprop or hurricante 5 vs. tornado 1
comment no doubt there is support (and so far unanimous) were just pending a quality update through more source which will come. [please take this into account, posting adminLihaas (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Meh, many of us felt it, but that's not a reason for which this should be going up; I'd support this if we get to know of some casualties (if any) and the damage caused. We shouldn't be posting it just because it was an earthquake of 8 point whatever. Lynch716:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no seismologist, but one really shouldn't go by magnitude alone; the effect of earthquakes doesn't just depend on the magnitude, but also other factors like depth. I mean, if there's no damage/casualties and the quake is of another scientific significance (probably the highest ever measured or whatever), then there's probably some worth in posting it. But otherwise, I wouldn't be too sure of supporting this. Lynch716:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the effect of earthquakes can depend on other things, like depth, but that doesn't factor in here. The real reason this didn't cause more damage is that it was so far from land and because it was a strike-slip fault (which generally doesn't generate tsunamis). The vast majority of casulaties and damage in both the 2004 Indian Ocean and 2011 Japan earthquake (both of whose epicenters were offshore) were from the tsunami rather than the actual shaking. So, this is definitely a strong earthquake, but it would really need to generate a tsunami to do real damage. Tsunamis tend to occur as a result of vertical displacement in the plates, which doesn't, by definition, occur along strike slip faults (look at Part A of this image); tsunamis, at the very least, must occur on a fault (normal or reverse) that has vertical movement or, better yet, on subduction zones, which result in massive vertical displacements of fluid. The 2004, 2011 (and most other tsunamis) were in subduction zones. Long story short: strong, and fairly uncommon earthquake, with fortunate location keeping this from being a disaster. -- tariqabjotu17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im personally inclined to admit we should wait...looks like there will be stuff but we cant synthesise. At any rate, should the decision be made i think the page is coming along to a good level. (certainly better than the aircraft crashes we post.Lihaas (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for posting now. An 8.6 quake is a major event for the world, and the fact that the "main story" on this quake is currently the good news that it didn't kill a large number of people does not make it any less noteworthy. Also, the article is currently in reasonably good shape. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the Richter scale is widely considered deprecated in seismology circles (though I am not a seismologist); the Moment magnitude scale is more widely used nowadays and any blurb should make reference to Moment rather than Richter. But indeed, the BBC were saying earlier an earthquake above magnitude 8 happens only once or twice a year. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this candidate if it's posted as a novelty item. When was the last time an earthquake of this magnitude caused no casualities and minimal damage. YuMaNuMaContrib17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should not be treated as a novelty item. A major earthquake is not a ha-ha joke. This event was treated very seriously by the disaster response personnel and people who evacuated buildings and coastal regions, fearing a much worse outcome. Furthermore, it is not all that unusual for large-magnitude earthquakes to occur in locations so remote that they have little consequence for human populations. This one, on the other hand, occurred in a highly populated region and -- deservedly -- has been a major news story worldwide. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Novelty as in unusual, uncommon, maybe even uncanny. Also given that, most if not all magnitude 8 and above earthquakes that occurred in the last 100 occurred on fault lines which numerous large population centers are located at, an earthquake that has caused effectively no damage is novel. YuMaNuMaContrib18:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. In 1952, 1957, 1963, and 1965, there were earthquakes greater than 8.5 that had no casualties since they occurred in remote locations. Of course, the world population has grown substantially, but the locations of those earthquakes is still considered rather remote. The frequency of this type of earthquake is difficult to gauge: this image shows that the last 8.5-magnitude earthquake (ignore the file name; it's referring to 8.5-magnitude quakes) prior to 2004 was nearly forty years earlier (the 1965 one), but since then, this makes the sixth. This is the highest magnitude earthquake in 47 years to cause no casualties, but this isn't a product of amazing engineering, just chance location. Today's quake, recall, was nearly 500 km from a somewhat populated location. Shaking felt on even the closest land was relatively minor. It's not uncanny; the zero-damage, zero-causality result is to be expected. That, of course, does not necessarily mean this isn't newsworthy though. -- tariqabjotu18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second that; its not just the magnitude, but the effects which are to be taken into consideration. As I've said above, if there's something scientifically significant about this (I don't mean a novelty item), then I'd support it. I don't see why we should post it when there is no great impact on life (sure, some regions were probably evacuated and all, but thankfully there was minimal damage). Lynch717:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have to be careful not to be disappointed because people haven't died. It is a very severe earthquake and a current, notable event leading many media sources' news agendas today doktorbwordsdeeds19:08, 11 April 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.
Comment I don't know about everyone else but personally I am tired of these pro-forma nominations of ITNR items before the update and in some cases before they have even happened. The whole point of ITNR is that notability has already been established and there is only the update to consider, which by posting here you are implicitly saying has been done - otherwise it is nothing more than a waste of everyone's time. If I look at the article now I find the update sadly lacking and it would be an oppose.
I can think of a few items where that needn't necessarily hold because there is a much wider article to consider and the update is a small element of that - space probes come to mind - but an article about an event can only be assessed once the event has taken place and the article reflects that. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the blurb: Saenuri has won, and not only the plurality, but the absolute majority. The number of seats is already known, but the number of popular votes isn't yet, neither does the article reflect reactions on the result. --RJFF (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: For what it's worth, this is still being discussed on BBC news programming. Also please tell me the section header is the joke I want it to be. GRAPPLEX03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't previously report his dismissal from the Politburo, which has only just happened. We reported on him losing his position as the provincial secretary for Chongqing. Formerip (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the career of a mostly domestically noteworthy politician is in decline? Whoa, we'd have a ton of these .. I supported posting the original story, but I don't think it's worthwhile posting an update due to rather low (<-prove me wrong?) significance in the Anglosphere. --hydrox (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the murder aspect is new and it throws a new light on the whole thing in terms of how (according to observers) the Chinese system can facilitate serious corruption. Because Bo is not being fully supported or protected by the party and because the scandal is what everyone is talking about in China, this creates an atmosphere which may lead to political reforms, which is significant for everyone. Plus, in terms of the Anglosphere, the murder victim was Angloshperian. How this is now handled has relevance to China/UK relations [1]. Formerip (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I have sympathy with the view that we didn't need to post his downfall twice, this is unquestionably of more international interest than the previous one. —WFC— 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disabled Chinese land rights lawyer Ni Yulan and her husband are sentenced by a Beijing court a year after they were detained for fraud and "provoking trouble". (Jakarta Post)
The attorneys for George Zimmerman, the main person of interest in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, say that they quit representing Zimmerman due to them losing contact with him. (CNN)
Article:Loop Mobile (talk·history·tag) Blurb: India's oldest cellular phone service provider Loop Mobile becomes the third company to announce that it will shut operations in the aftermath of the 2G spectrum scam (Post) News source(s):Reuters Credits:
Oppose - A relatively small company with only 3 million subscribers in India becomes the third company to shut down after a scandal. I don't even think this will even make the news section in India's local paper, perhaps the technology section would suit it. YuMaNuMaContrib08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but three million people losing their cellular service provider is not small. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the west maybe, but it's certainly not notable when you have two other companies with 16 million and 35 million subscribers shut down which none of which were even nominated for candidacy on ITN. If that company was to operate in Australia, it would be ranked 4 in terms of the number of subscribers, not sure where it would rank in a country 60 times more populous than Australia. YuMaNuMaContrib03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose–Check again. The company is shutting operations in circles other than Mumbai. It means, the move is expected to impact 6,100 customers Only!!! --GPPande14:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charges are dropped against Larisa Litvinova in the case of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, whose controversial death in a Russian jail led to claims of torture and neglect. (BBC)
Its not ITNR but its the first election after the 2008 war and SO's intl recognition...its also a RE-run of an election that was canceled through high drama and controversy making it more pertinent.
Support if and when adequatly updated. We are neither the UN nor the ICJ. We don't apply international law, we inform from a neutral POV. Soth Ossetia exists de facto, whether other countries like it or not. The election has taken place, whether other countries consider it legitimate or not. There is a new head of state, whether other countries may acknowledge it or not. And if you start citing precedents: of course we have included the presidential election in Taiwan, even though it is not officially recognized by most UN member states. --RJFF (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
okey, this is the same logic rubbished on ITNR. kosovo is a small state, as is Uruguay, Zimbabwe, Mali, the 2 claimants to jerusalem, lanka, singapore, etc.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- At a point it becomes too much when we try to post every head of state election for every self-declared independent country. Not every election is notable, and this one is for a country that is insignificant in size and population and doesn't have much statehood recognition outside of itself. I don't think it's just the small size, as Lihaas has shown that to be irrelevant, but an election that bears little significance to the rest of the world in an insignificant, not just small, "nation." —Bzweebl—talk14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For many of the reasons given above. This is not a country recognised by many other countries. Indeed, my Chrome spell-checker is having trouble with it too ("Ossetia" is red-lined, "Kosovo" is not, curiously). I respect democratic elections and have stated elsewhere that Wikipedia should be a window into the democratic world. I cannot deny this country's existence or the fact the election has been run. I can deny its place as front page news doktorbwordsdeeds16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Microsoft Word spellchecker recognizes Ossetia, but the spellcheckers on my Blackberry and this Wikipedia edit page underline Ossetia while Kosovo is not underlined. Its time to face the cold hard statistics: Kosovo is 300% more widely recognized than Ossetia (North, South and all resident Ossetians included) by software applications made in North America. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another one of the puppet states of Russia, set up to intimidate Georgia and the West. I fail to recognize the ITN-worthiness of it all. Crnorizec (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are not here to assess the legitimacy or otherwise of the state: that is intrinsically POV. This is not a "puppet state of Russia" and to portray it as such is a gross misrepresentation. Western media coverage has been highly selective and biased in this area: it was widely reported when the Russians went in as if it was some unprovoked act of naked aggression. The trigger for that - Kiev sending in troops against its own people who had the audacity to demand autonomy - was conveniently ignored. Like it or not South Ossetia is a de facto independent realm and these are the first elections of that realm. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
North American spellcheckers decide whats ITN-worthy? thats a first. This is more notable with the rare case of a RE-run election that was still democratic by all standards.
Comment: By no means is S.O. an "independent" state, on the contrary, it is heavily dependent of- and reliant on Russia. That's why it is not widely recognized. I would urge people who profess democracy here to look at the map of Georgia, and to recognize that it is one of the few strongly pro-Western states in the sensitive Black Sea and Caspian basins. It is therefore repeatedly undermined by Russia with artificial political events such as "independent" Abkhazias and South Ossetias, frequent armed conflicts, economic blockades, and other means of special warfare. Crnorizec (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you to get the facts right and not assert pov as fact. 1. pro-western doesnt mean independent and democratic, 2. kosovo is far from independent (Seen its constitution that explciitly calls/justifies a foreign presence?), 3. "undermined...artificial" how is that then? because you dont like it? Keep forum postings off deceiving ITNLihaas (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of countries have aid of various forms, this position simply doesn't hold any water. Is Isreal not an independent country? Egypt? India? Countless developing countries? The political views of a country are an irrelevance and far from being undemocratic simply because they have adopted an anti-western position, it is this attitude of "You can have whatever views you want, provided you agree with us" that is the very antithesis of democracy. It is that very systematic bias I alluded to in my first post: people have been programed to a particular belief while being completely ignorant of the underlying situation. Pro-western does not equate to democratic, and the West does not have a monopoly on human rights and democracy. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point for ITN here is not whether S.O. is pro-western or not, it is that it is widely unrecognized. And it's not because it is a puppet state. Crnorizec (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If their views are an irrelevance why are the more pro-western views of Ukraine so relevant to your previous analysis? It is logically inconsistent to assert they are relevant in one case and not another. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barking up the wrong tree: There is no requirement to debate the international recognition of South Ossetia. I had mentioned this in the Abkhazia nomination as well, but I'm quoting the criteria for posting elections from the ITN/R page again: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". So the fact that South Ossetia is disputed or dependent does not disqualify it. Even if we were to concede (for argument sake) that the primary argument of most of the opposers that it is not a "recognized state" or that it is a "puppet state" were true, that still does not disqualify this ITN nomination. Its extreme POV and systemic bias if you start disqualifying de-facto independent territories just because they are not recognized by the West or just because another nation exerts more influence on them than the Western countries. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that elections in disputed states should not be disqualified (it's policy), but I think the point is that South Ossetia is barely recognized by anyone and its election is insignificant to the world by virtue of that fact, so judging it on its merits alone I would say that it is far less important than an election in another disputed state with more influence and recognition, such as Taiwan. —Bzweebl—talk03:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was a controversial election, even without the whole unrecognised thing. The elections will go a long way to deciding the future path with regards to Russia (Interesting article with regards to that here). CMD (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least 40 people are reported killed across Syria ahead of the Tuesday deadline for Syrian armed forces to withdraw from cities, as part of a peace plan brokered by U.N.-Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan. (CNN)
U.S. police arrest two men suspected in carrying out a shooting attack in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that happened the day before, leaving three people dead and two injured. The shootings are being investigated as a hate crime. (CNN)
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.
Nominator's comments: Tournament article needs an update once the playoff finishes. Watson's article could also be bolded. --Hot Stop23:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the Masters, that should be enough reason to post it (Once the article is ready) - Anc516 (talk • cont) 00:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Updated both articles. If this isn't good enough, let me know. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 01:38, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Prose sections of the tournament article need a good copyedit - right now they read like a hundred piecemeal edits and wedged-in facts as opposed to a coherent whole. Do the first two sentences need to tell us three times that the tournament occurred in 2012, for example? Is "one of, and the first, of golf's four major championships" not redundant in a cringe-inducing way? Why does coverage jump around chronologically in a seemingly random way? I don't think too much work is needed - perhaps ten or fifteen minutes comprehensive redrafting by someone who knows and cares about the subject as opposed to further piecemeal editing. I'll be happy to strike my oppose once that is done. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the criticism of my edits; I'll keep working on it, but I don't appreciate being called someone who doesn't "know and care about the subject". If you truly cared, why didn't you invest the ten or fifteen minutes into improving the article, compared to the hour or so that I put into it? - Anc516 (talk • cont) 02:10, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand me: not knowing or caring about the article is my reason for not doing it myself, it is not intended as a slight of your work. If you look at the edit history you will see that I did make a few minor technical fixes. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Sorry, it just sounded at first like you were trying to go after me. I reworded the first sentence based on your criticism. If you or anyone else has any other feedback for me, let me know. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
The 158th Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge is stopped mid-race due to a swimmer in the water. After a clash of oars at the restart, Cambridge won easily. (BBC)(Yahoo)
The Boat Race
Article:The Boat Race (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Cambridge win the 158th Boat Race, which was interrupted mid-race after a swimmer was seen in the water. A clash of oars following the re-start left Oxford with a broken oar, handing Cambridge an easy victory. (Post) News source(s):Yahoo News Credits:
Comment. I'm not sure there's an article to update, is there? There's no specific article for this year's event, and it seems a bit of a trivial event to include in The Boat Race. FormerIP (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a non-Brit, I actually hear of the existence of such race for the first time. I found it fascinating that the race has been held since 1856. The article is in great shape. It is just the kind of material for the front page. There's a sufficient update under #Notable races in recent years. --hydrox (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my vote. Turns out the event was disrupted by someone to draw public attention to a personal agenda. Per Crispmuncher reasoning far below, it's best not to give any more publicity than he has already received. --hydrox (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as college basketball was opposed, as being far from the top level of the sport, even if it does receive publicity disproportionate to its sporting importance. Unusual events in a mid-level sporting event happen every weekend, because there are so many unimportant mid-level sporting events every week. Kevin McE (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the difference? Most of the institutions that participated in the NCAA tournament were Universities, or is the meaning in British English different from that in American English? --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Maybe that's the reason our British friends adamantly opposed college basketball. When they think of "college" they think of something (I'm guessing here) less than a "university". Lost in translation? –HTD17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in British English, "college" tends to refer to a level of education equivalent to the latter years of high school and/or freshman year of university in the U.S. But, I really can't believe most British readers (Mjroots, obviously not included) would not have either (a) known that in the U.S., "college" refers to university-level education or at least (b) known that that nomination was about university-level sports. From my understanding, the notion that "college" means something else over there [i.e. in the U.S.] is not an uncommon piece of knowledge in the UK. -- tariqabjotu22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that university rowing is inherently insignificant like college basketball. But given the long history of this particular event, the good shape of the article and the fact that (to my knowledge) it has never been featured in ITN, I would give it a go if easter time proves a slow news period. --hydrox (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without any comment on the merits of the nomination itself, this seems like an utter slap in the face to those who supported the failed NCAA basketball nom earlier in the week.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a supposed global audience, this is not trending in Twitter worldwide; the upcoming iCarly episode with British boyband One Direction is the one trending in the UK and worldwide. In fact, the race per se (keywords such as "Cambridge," "Oxford," and "boat race") isn't even trending locally in the UK. The swimming troll is trending, though. Would support if the blurb focused on him. –HTD16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware of demographics Howard. Those who tweet would be more One Direction oriented, those who read encyclopaedias would be more Oxbridge oriented. Historic race today with the swimming moron. I would support either main article or, better still, a 2012 boat race article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you implying that Wikipedia, in spite of being an Internet medium, is intended only to cater to those who would read paper encyclopedias?--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, but I do realize the UK has to be one of the most wired places on Earth, so those who care about this race should also tweet about this. Or is this more about Oxbridge thing than it being an athletic competition? If it is then that truly is a very limited scope; if it is not, then we'd have to judge this as an athletic competition with all of the "mid-level sporting event" argument Kevin told us. If we're going into longevity, college basketball is almost as old as basketball per se. If we're going to global audience, that smells like the NFL saying that the Super Bowl had a global audience of one billion. I don't think this was even televised live in Japan (tried looking for TV listings there). –HTD16:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wasn't, but probably was televised in most of the former Empire which accounts for 1/3 of the globe. But anyway, I think we'll have this NCAA (who?) vs "Boat Race" (what?) argument to eternity. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop mentioning about the Basketball tournament being opposed judge each nomination on its own merits and not about getting hung-up on something else. This is absolutely ridiculous and getting way out of hand now, sometimes I just wish sports nominations were banned because they cause so much trouble and tit-for-tat arguments... --Τασουλα (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: This was a reply to Τασουλα's original post which was revised by him: NCAA audience in the Commonwealth (the British one) wasn't argued upon in the NCAA nomination. What was argued upon there was "global audience" which was never in the ITN criteria, so was invalid from the get-go. We're talking about here is the Boat Race's audience within the Commonwealth. Also, I thought you were talking about the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Hah.)
(Note: Now, this is a reply on Τασουλα's subsequently-amended post.) This is a similar event to the NCAA one hence you can't prevent people from comparing the two, unless you're into banning people. True story: Sometimes I join in these discussions just to see how "ridiculous" the arguments are. 180 countries watched the Boat Race? Who knew? Are the Home Nations one or 4 countries? –HTD17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Are the Home Nations one or 4 countries?" - Don't even go there!!!. Sorry, about what I said it was in reply to the original post and anyone so much as talking about it, there's just no need and it cloggs up the system. Also, please refrain from referring to me as "he" xD Also, I thought you would of been thinking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Swish! Τασουλα (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim in that article that it was broadcast, in the normal sense of the word, in more than 200 countries. Essentially, it says that the internet relay was not geographically restricted. Which is pretty much tantamount to saying that it was of no economic value outside the UK. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course you'll find plenty of pages that don't feature it, but the point remains, an event broadcast in over 200 countries is notable and globally significant. How many countries does NCAA get broadcast in? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has argued that NCAA basketball is "significant on a global scale" (Wait, I think somebody did!), but I just find it cringe worthy that a significant event (not just sports event) on a global scale doesn't show up in the sports section of Google News Canada, heck even Google News Australia. That's like the 2 largest Commonwealth countries that should care about this. –HTD17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>_< Maybe they don't have the story up yet? Omg wait. There's a conspiracy going on here, the former Empire is rebelling! Which is funny. Wait, wasn't the original nomination based on the Aforementioned troll interrupting it? Was he really a troll? And I dare anyone to oppose the Olympic nomination, when it comes, based on the NCAA basketball being opposed. As a joke of course... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I saw this on the French Google News (I can't read French that well, but I'd presume the story focuses on the swimming troll), so, as what I've said earlier, I'd gladly support this if the blurb focuses on the swimming troll and not much else. Not because it's a boat race between Oxford and Cambridge that's been held for a long time. –HTD17:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, a lot of people go to those universities who aren't "posh toff twats" actually. If you have issues with such educational establishments, that's fine, but labelling a whole bunch of people you know nothing about as "posh toff twats" is entirely uncalled for. A British television audience of 6 million, are they all "posh toff twats"? Sounds like you have a chip me old mucker. Shoulderwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. If anything, these are the "Jocks" competing in the boat race and most people who watch it here do so for the rivalry thing. Maybe if this was ascot or another butchery-sport event I would agree... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this year in isolation due to the exceptional circumstances of the race. As an annual event I'd say it's borderline (impressive viewing figures notwithstanding), but this year definitely tips the scales in favour of posting. I would however suggest getting rid of the second sentence of the blurb. —WFC— 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support probably the most notable boat race in the world, I agree with WFC get rid of the second sentence as that reads like a sports headline from a newspaper. Secretaccount16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is open to amendment by the posting admin should this get posted. There'll be no complaints from me if an amended blurb is posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only iff the blurb mentions the race restart, and does not focus on the clash of oars (or any other insignificant race incident — we don't post touchdowns for the Super Bowl or goals for the World Cup Final, for example). Suggest blurb: The 2012 Boat Race, suspended and restarted due to an intruder in the River Thames, is won by Cambridge University. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Canadian, U.S., Australian, N.Z., Dutch and German crew members. This isn't just a bunch of British upper class amateurs. Leaky Caldron17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have any significance in Australia? I'm pretty sure that if I started talking about the "Boat Race" to my mates they wouldn't have a clue what I was on about (though the same could be said about US college basketball). Jenks24 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see how significant is this to be on ITN in comparison to other (and more professional) sporting events out there such as those mentioned in this discussion, plus is not likely to benefit to anything else other than those involved within the two universities. Donnie Park (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It just wouldn't be Wikipedia without thinly veiled UK-US tribalism going on, accompanied by a smattering of pointscoring in revenge for past failures. I say this independently of my support rationale: there is some of this going on from both sides, and such rationales should be discounted. Discussion should be focussing on the merits (or lack thereof) of this event, not of another event or of the relative importance of one or more countries. —WFC— 18:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even most Brits find this event an embarrassing anachronism, of almost no interest. The interruption makes it marginally less trivial than usual, but still not ITN-worthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^^I'd hardly call this a British Event, maybe English, but most certainly it's An Oxford-Cambridge thing. Most people are just interested in the competitiveness...not really the sport itself or the history/tradition/those involved. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this year only, due to the exceptional circumstances. I do not believe this should be posted each year, but it's pretty clear this year's race was out of the ordinary. Generally, I see this as on par with March Madness, which I would probably lean against posting unless something exceptionally noteworthy happens. Jenks24 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlike college basketball, which is watched by a minor audience in one country, the Boat Race has a worldwide audience and is part of the very fabric of British life. There can be very little details "not notable" about a 100+ year sporting event between the two oldest, most established, most respected Universities in Europe, if not the world. Unlike basketball, this is an event with wide appeal. Unlike "the first 1080 in skateboarding" or whatever it was, this is a credible sport and not just a hobby. Ultimately the event falls on the right side of "important". Our Colonial Cousins in the States might not like it, but when it comes to actual world important sporting events, we have far more right to far more events with that title. This is one of them. doktorbwordsdeeds19:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose In ordinary circumstances I'd have no problems with posting. Comparisons to random American college sporting events are at best misguided: there is a difference between asserting that a union of two or more factors lends notability to a broad class of possible nominations (i.e. "This is a popular sport, college sport is popular, ergo this is notable") and putting forward a single nomination as a stand-out event. No one here is suggesting we start posting British university or college football or boxing or whatever, the assertion is that this one event is notable.
On the other hand I am actually opposing this, and that is due to the swimmer incident. This is one man with an axe to grind to has already received far more publicity than he actually deserves because of the childish and disruptive manner he went about making his point. The coverage we give of his "argument" (which appears so far to be poorly developed and lacking any intrinsic substance) should be based on its intrinsic notability. IMHO fair coverage here amounts to zip, and since we can't cover the substantive story without including the protest we don't cover it at all to avoid undue prominence. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regional interest. I am specifically skeptical of the claims that it is viewed in 180 countries; on a very technical level, that's probably true, but that's also true of countless other even less significant sporting events. Referencing The Boat Race's homepage, it would appear that most countries received the broadcast via BBC, which is certainly a major news outlet, but is also very specifically a British news source. The claim that it's viewed in 180 countries would suggest that it receives major coverage by all those countries, on the scale of something like the World Cup (Association Football), which it does not. - OldManNeptune⚓03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far less significant that the basketball nomination which was not posted. That the use of the phrase 'global interest' in this thread is a classic example of how that factor is misused at ITN. 'Global interest' (if indeed that's the case here) doesn't' mean 'global significance'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is significant due to the nature of the race, see High drama for historic Oxford-Cambridge boat race and for the "security questions ahead of the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Those that are opposing it due to the link with basketball, shame on you, how is a basketball event which nothing unexpected happened relate to this, lets hope the reviewing admin discountes them, they have no place here.
It seems to me that the newsworthiness in this story is not the boat race itself, but the fact that there was someone in the water.--WaltCip (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont' see the interruption as significant on its own. One man stages a protest by stopping a sporting event. It's no more significant than a streaker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a little like that other than it caused a thirty-minute delay to an globally observed annual event which has been hosted since 1829. The significance is really the whole package. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Globally observed sporting events happen every day. I just watched a league football match, which unlike boat race was available via streaming internet (legally) where I am, that had a controversial penalty that's being discussed the world over. Is that ITN worthy? As has been pointed out above several times, the size of the 'global audience' for this is highly questionable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, I accept the "questionability" of a global audience here, but your "league football match" is not a once-a-year event that has taken place since 1829 where the athletes train all year for one single 17-minute event, is it? In any case, we'll see this again next year, and we'll see the boring NCAA vs the-rest-of-the-world arguments forever, so perhaps we're all better off just moving on and doing something less boring instead. I certainly am. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stopping of the race was a trivial event. Also, I note that the NCAA Basketball Tournament, which engages nearly 70 U.S. universities, is of great interest to both news media and oddsmakers, and included a game attended by the U.S. president and the UK prime minister, was deemed to be too minor a sports event to warrant attention at ITN. If that's too minor a topic for ITN, then the Boat Race surely is too minor to qualify. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that NCAA March Madness isn't even the proper comparison to this event. In March Madness, more than 60 teams are selected from hundreds of teams around the U.S.; this one is between two schools. It's more akin to the American college football rivalry games, such as the The Game, or the most equivalent comparison should be the Harvard–Yale Regatta. –HTD16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has nothing to do with college basketball. It's a trivial amateur event that only gains attention because of it's history and that it is held in London, where 300 thousand people out of a metro population of 14 million come to watch. Utterly and staggeringly insignificant. --PHof7 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is all hype. This news should be on the England Portal page, or better, on the Oxford - Cambridge rowing Portal page. __meco (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who have come here to oppose this out of spite because the NCAA game wasn't posted would be smarter if they supported this, and other specialised local events, otherwise no such event will ever be posted. Take the more mature position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting incidents in the US are never going to surprise nor seem newsworthy to people from other places because of what they see as America's insane gun laws. Sex scandals happen all over the world, and are rarely posted here. And old football coaches die everywhere too. Heck, I couldn't get the ridiculously young death of one of the most amazing people to ever play Aussie Rules, Jim Stynes, posted here recently. I still think though that the NCAA thing could have been posted had it been promoted a little more objectively and wisely. (WTF does "filling a bracket" mean to a non-American? Anyone who used that as part of an argument was off their brain.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that ITN wasn't for specialized local events unless there was some extra circumstance making them especially newsworthy. In any case, sports are especially sticky since virtually all sports have regionalized interest (on top of already being of speciality interest, namely to sports fans) and hence a large (perhaps vast majority) of readers will not be even mildly interested. Regardless of whether you view American laws as insane or not, a school shooting is almost indisputably of greater impact than a local sports contest. But, most of those get passed over as well, and rightfully so. - OldManNeptune⚓11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debating tip Rhetorical questions don't work very well on the global Internet. They tend to be too culturally inclined and not well understood by those from different cultures than the poster's. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He was appointed as interim head of state and elections are announced to be held within 40 days. Let's wait for the election result with an elected president with a (hopefully) full term. --RJFF (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. Article is decent, up to date and adequately expanded. Broad community support to post this notable disaster. --RJFF (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is a bad thing. On DYK, it would have stayed there for eight hours. On ITN, it'll stay there for eight days. -- tariqabjotu23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did the heavy lifting on the article itself up to this point and had no knowledge of this whole thing. Ah well, should have checked, I guess. Maybe I can get a GA out of it if I stay on top of things. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:08, 7 April 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.jpg)
