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).
Ammar Harris, a suspect wanted in connection with a shooting and following car crash that killed three people and wounded five others on the Las Vegas Strip, is detained in Los Angeles, California. (BBC)(KLAS-TV)
Nominator's comments: Largest flare up of violence in Bangladesh in some time. Protest is likely to continue for days and have lasting repercussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Issues I could support this, but it has multiple major issues. The 22 deaths mentioned in the lead are not referenced in any updated article--the real headline here is Delwar Hossain Sayeedi sentenced to death. That article is very poorly written, often not in grammatical English. I'd attempt to improve the style, but given the rapid competing edits of partisans, I am unsure it would be unwasted effort. The article has a neutrality tag. That tag should probably be removed since there is no discussion or explanation of it at talk. Without the 22 deaths being referenced here or in another article I am loathe to invest the time. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The focus should be on 2013 Shahbag protests rather than on the individual because the aims of the movement is far broader than merely protesting against the war crimes, the movement aims at reversing the increasing religious radicalisation of politics. The blurb also skews the news in favor of the convict, because the original protests started demanding death penalty for war criminals. Tehelka has dealt with the issue in detail [1]. Furthermore the 2013 Shahbag protests is unique in recent South Asian political history. I would like to propose an alternative blurb: Thousands protest in Bangladesh demanding death penalty for war criminals.LegalEagle (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the proposed altblurb is that the protests started Feb 5 and aren't "in the news" per se. The sentencing of Sayeedi and the resulting violence is what is in the news today. I have no problem with using 2013 Shahbag protests as the bolded target (avoiding the mess of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi would be good) and/or using a different blurb, but whatever is used the blurb must reflect current developments to the story . --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you on the proposed alt blurb and support it. However I do disagree that the protests are not in the news, unfortunately the mainstream media attention has been patchy (though a google news search bound by dates would give close to 600 news item from Feb 5). The protests have not captured the imagination of western media like Tahrir square did, but an independent objective evaluation/comparison (in terms of aims, number of protests, number of days etc.) would show that the 2013 Shahbag Protests can become a pivotal point in the history of Bangladesh and South Asia. -- LegalEagle (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support the 2013 Shahbag protests if it had the minimum update for the current violence and met notability. I would also support Delwar Hossain Sayeedi upon execution if he had a leadership role in the military at that time. Sort of a prison camp guard vs prison camp commander debate. Yes, I realize there were no camps, but I'm just trying to get the point across. --IP98 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the altblurb over the first one. But both articles still need major work. I went to the Shahbag article to see if it was ready, and found the lead an incomprehensible jumble. I tagged it and have suggested how to improve it on the talk page. If someone with knowledge of the general issues can give the a better division into sections I will be happy to address other issues like grammar, etc. As it is now I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. An event unparalleled in the last 600 years. While Benedict's announced intention to resign was posted some weeks ago, the throne of St. Peter becoming empty (sede vacante) is a world historic event in its own right. This proposed item is about the situation after the resignation. Note: Not to be posted before 20:00 Central European TimeMocctur (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on rarity, reader interest, and equivalency to head of state. Suggest the nominator get working on the update so this is ready at the appointed time. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt: The Pope is a head of state, and is unique in being a subject of international law personally, a status held by noone else. What this means is that a state no longer has a head of state, the world's largest church no longer has a leader, and a unique subject of international law no longer has an officeholder. Mocctur (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sympathetic to the supports and opposes here. The bottom line for me is that this is of huge reader interest, and that a vacant see with a live ex-pope is an even rarer event than the Chelyabinsk meteor. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oppose, the throne of St. Peter becoming empty is hardly an unparalleled event. It happens every time the Church has to pick a new pope, most recently in 2005. This update is basically "Benedict XVI officially steps down", when we've already posted his resignation. Resolute18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't remember if we posted his resignation. If we did, then oppose this, if we didn't, then I support this as a suitable blurb could notify our readers of the significance of the first papal resignation in over 600 years.The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Death or abdication is irrelevant. We posted his resignation. We'll post again when there is white smoke. There is absolutely no reason to post incremental updates in the process. --IP98 (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before Mocctur so inappropriately refactored my comment, I opposed this nomination on the basis that we had already posted the resignation. I still do, only moreso. Strong oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "refactored", are you referring to the part where he was resolving an edit conflict? You posted in a section that he deleted just seconds before your comment went through. His reversion of your edit was a, no the, reasonable action to take and I see no reason to subtly accuse him of malintent. -- tariqabjotu18:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on rarity, but I dunno how you can write a ITN-size update without getting accused of WP:RECENTISM... and if it's even possible to write one when he basically rode a helicopter to his summer home to stay there once his apartment is up to standard. –HTD19:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps wait for the beginning of the Papal conclave, 2013, and use that as the main article? We already featured his resignation once already, so a bit silly to feature the exact same thing again. Thue (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Support How can this not be mentioned? This is the first time in 600 years that a Pope has resigned. Yes, we covered his resignation a few weeks ago. And yes, we will have a new Pope in a few weeks. For those who are opposing based upon that, consider how many articles we have about the Olympics every two years? But this is a MAJOR story line of more or less unprecedented level. I guarantee you that every major news outlet will have this on their main page. It doesn't matter if the site is US, British, German, French or what have you. None of those sites is thinking, "Gee we don't want to over cover this event, better bury it in section D." This is THE story of the day. About 1/5 of the world is Catholic, so it is far reaching.38.100.76.228 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however, prefer a snipette that indicates the upcoming conclave. I think most people who are going to look into this are going to wonder "what's next?" How/When will the next pope be selected?50.201.228.200 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Note, so as not to be mistaken for a different user, this is the same person that posted 4 minutes ago 38.100.73.228. Guess my IP changes with every post.74.124.47.11 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three step posting is not something I could envisage supporting for any succession, no matter how unusual. This is as much an inevitable consequence of the resignation as an inauguration is of a presidential election. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The announcement by the pope that he would retire was news enough. We don't need blow-by-blow updates. We are not a news organisation. Nothing to report until the new guy is announced. --RA (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree that we posted the announcement, I think we are missing the point here, it is the top news story around the world. There will be a large number of pepole coming to WP to find information on the process, to have no easy link from the main page is just silly and reflects poorly on us, this is a case that we invoke WP:IAR and post a link, maybe only for a day or so. LGAtalkedits20:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is, when we posted the abdication, it was obvious he was going to abdicate. And that a new pope would be chosen. Right now, nothing whatsoever has changed from that position. The pope has now resigned. We now wait for a new one. What is the significance (in addition to the original abdication) of today? In a few days we'll be posting "new pope" news, after all...... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we restrict Oscars and Olympics and various obscure sports to one post each every year, that is fine with me. Not having the no 1 news story of the year on the front page, an unprecedented case, is just ridiculous. As pointed out, no article will have more readers than Pope Benedict XVI today, and maybe even this year. Mocctur (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That few days may be as long as a month. There is no solid time frame. As for Rann's argument that this is no different than a president stepping down. Yes it is. First, the number of people impacted is significantly larger. Second, this is more or less unprecidented in modern history. Third, usually when a president steps down, the VP assumes the role as a result. Here it is unknown. This is THE biggest news story of the day---ever credible/reliable news source has decided to carry it on their main/front page because of how big it is. Nobody else is worried about the fact that it will be news again in a few weeks---do you have any doubt that when this year is over, this will be one of the 10 biggest news stories of the year? Possibly the biggest. As such, people are going to various pages to see what is going on. They come to WP for the same reason; but with the hope of getting a more neutral view than some of the main sites. I find it incredulous that it is even up for debate. [same IP as above regardless of how WP types it]38.100.76.228 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because there's no new news to report here. We had a post that said "Benedict would resign on February 28" There's no need to post a second time that says "Yup, just like we said he would, well, he did". When a new pope is elected by the conclave, then we'll have something new to report. --Jayron3220:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why on Earth would we post this? The fact that he resigned makes it inevitable there would be sede vacante. The only thing to post would be the new pope, and perhaps the start of the Conclave. Fgf10 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose 331dot said it exactly, and so did Fgf10. We knew there would be a vacancy. There was a brief one after John Paul II died too. Did that not count as a sede vacante? I'm no expert on The Church. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every papacy is followed by a period of sede vacante, as the papacy never moves to another pope automatically (like, say, a peerage might). GRAPPLEX22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Big news, yes, but only as recurring coverage of the exact same story we've already posted. We'll have a new pope soon enough to post, so it's not like we're leaving the issue alone. But this would just be a repost of the "Benedict abdicates" posting. GRAPPLEX22:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We posted the announcement of his resignation, and we will certainly post the vote for his successor. Two listings in a few weeks is plenty, there's no need for a third one. Modest Geniustalk23:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We already had a listing when Benedict resigned. This story would only be 'holding copy' for the press... some news to fill the blank pages pending the conclave deliberatation. Best wait until a new pope is elected, when we can rely on definitive copy. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke01:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same difference. We don't need to post his impending resignation, then his actual resignation, then the start of the conclave, the deliberations of the conclave, the selection of the successor, the installation of the successor, etc. etc. Every step of the process is not an ITN worthy item. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need for another posting on this subject until the white smoke appears. Canuck89 (converse with me) 03:07, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - It look's like the resignation story isn't going to be adopted. Sorry Benny 16, when you're out, you're out. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We did post the resignation: here. If you felt it should have been posted now and not when the statement was made, you should have suggested doing so then(and some did, but not enough for consensus). 331dot (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It would have been better to post this than to post the anouncment. But we did post the announcement, and we are going to have to post when the new pope is elected. Taemyr (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The government is down. This indicates there will be another head of state. We posted the similar situation in 2011 when Pahor's government got a vote of non-confidence. --Tone08:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral The word "ousted" is loaded. The coalition fell apart his party lost a vote of non-confidence. This is actually pretty common in coalition governments. I don't know enough about the Slovenian system of government to know why this doesn't automatically trigger an election. --IP98 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, BBC used that word, something better can probably be formulated. It should be stressed that the PM is the politician with most power in the country so this is a change of head of state (what we always post). There are two options now, either the formateur will form a new government or there will be an election, it's too early to say that at the moment. --Tone12:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Search "ousted" here on WP and you get articles on coups and overthrows. This was a pretty routine political procedure. I would prefer something like "leaves office after a vote of non-confidence". We usually post elections, I don't know that we always post the change of a head of state. I'm not blind to the significance here, but it seems more like routine political horse-trading. Opposition: "You're corrupt. Step down!". PM: "Am not. Will not." Opposition: "Fine then, we quit. No confidence!". It's not like he was convicted, it's all allegations of corruption. --IP98 (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral. The CPC is an official body. Even w/o a court, it's about as damning as it gets. Still think it's a pretty weak scandal, and that "ousted" needs to be dropped from the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, as a dramatic fall of a government. But the blurb could do with some work - maybe rephrase it as 'loses a vote of no confidence' to avoid the accusations? There should also be more than a one sentence update. Modest Geniustalk23:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modified the blurb and expanded with some reactions. Marking ready (I can't post as I am the nominator). There's also a photo available. --Tone07:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: National hero; named "ambassador for life" for his diplomatic work; and, most notably, known for his internationally influential writings that are said to have sparked multiple protest movements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated I never heard of him before but his bio provides good detail on why he's notable enough to post. We just need that update. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article as written is hagiographic and hardly balanced, the opinion from the left seems to be he's one of ours. The list of organizations he belonged to reads like a parody. He seems to have been semi-notable as a member of the resistance. But I don't see any verifiable accomplishments or respect from those not deeply committed to his political agenda. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mainly as a result of reading the above votes. If his notabilty for posting is clear but a lot of people haven't heard him, that makes him ideal for RD, IMO. If the best argument against posting him is (transparently) "I'm not so keen on his style of politics", then I think that seals it. Formerip (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have said no such thing and you know it, I have supported the nominations of plenty of people/things I am personally critical of. The point is, do we have two or three sources that are not his own partisans that speak to his actual accomplishments? That shouldn't be that difficult for someone so prominent. As for his being unheard of a factor in favor of posting, well, you so crazeh. μηδείς (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Influential personnality during the last few years of his life. I don't like his political views, especially regarding Gaza, but the fact is, that his death is ITN/RD worthy. Hektor (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready The death section has a whole of one source for mutiple claims, and lacks a source for the twitter claim--I'll assume the date of death is correct although unsourced in this section. Two more sources, at least one for the twitter claim, will make this ready. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is inaccurate in multiple regards. First, there is no requirement for multiple sources in an update. Second, nothing is unsourced. There is no need to put a [1] after every line if they all use the same source - only direct quote "require" a cite. (Technically, there are no requirements but best practice is to always cite quotes.) In fact, I've been gripped at for putting the same incline on consecutive sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the point that there is only one source for his death, or that the nomination is not worth the effort? Look at the death sections for Van Cliburn and C. Everett Koop when they were posted. Five full sentences with multiple sources and updates in the body as well. As it stands the sources all credited here to the BBC could be condensed into two sentences instead of five, and the nomination would not meet the criteria. Fixing that should be simple according to WP:RS, and you'd have my support even though I am skeptical on the grounds I have already noted. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that using two (or twenty) sources instead of one for the same information does not make the update better. Koop's death section consists of 6 sentences totaling 919 characters (and actually had less at time of posting). Hessel's consists of 8 sentences totaling 727 characters. The difference between the two updates is not substantial. (And no, it Heselle's update could not be condensed to two sentences any more than Koop's could.)
All that said, I will add a second source. Your 'is there only one source or something?' question was ridiculous and you know it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This is breaking news, international sources will be available shortly. Fox says "Van Cliburn, the internationally celebrated pianist whose triumph at a 1958 Moscow competition helped thaw the Cold War and launched a spectacular career that made him the rare classical musician to enjoy rock star status, has died. He was 78."[3]μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems to fulfill both second and third criteria. A highly decorated pianist with major international impact. Article is sufficiently updated for RD mention. --hydrox (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Leonid Khabarov (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Leonid Khabarov, an alleged mastermind behind the new Russian revolution, has been jailed, despite nation-wide protest. (Post) Alternative blurb: In Russia, Leonid Khabarov is convicted for an alleged role in a coup plot. News source(s): Primary sources: RT, RIAN, Interfax, and Russian Legal Information Agency:
Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Events, which are happening right now with a Russian ROTC chief, whose coup d'état charges do not hold water, and the trial itself looks more like a political farce, as it was noted by the majority of political observers in Russia. --93.75.44.49 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might potentially be notable, but the point of view needs to be watched carefully so we aren't trying to right a wrong. I also don't see any coverage of this outside of Russia yet, though that's not the only requirement. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. RT and RIAN are state-owned media, so there're no reasons for them to try to "right a wrong." Interfax and RAPSI are surely non-government networks, so they should be watched carefully. --93.75.44.49 (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That blurb is very POV, I've suggested an alternative. Given the context of the nomination, and reading the Leonid_Khabarov#Backlash section, this needs serious attention from neutral editors before it can be considered for front page posting. --LukeSurltc12:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he has been convicted, it is exceedingly POV to describe it as an alleged role. He has baan convicted of conspiracy to murder and to “create panic among the population.”
While I wouldn't go as far as the nominator, I'd be cautious about considering the verdicts of Russian courts in cases such as these as reliable sources of the actual facts. Its democracy index recently dropped from "hybrid" to "authoritarian", and its pretty apparent the courts are used as weapons for the powerful to attack each other. LukeSurltc19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think it would be best to find a wording that extended this ambiguity to whether such a plot ever existed. It's worth noting that the protests regarding this case is what is making it newsworthy. LukeSurltc
Oppose for now. The Khabarov article needs to be cleaned up. I appreciate that not all editors are native English users, but that article really needs a sentence-by-sentence rewrite. The facts and sources all look good, but I don't think the prose is in a shape to be featured on the frontpage.80.220.123.162 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do run this, I feel the picture and/or the blurb should mention his former Colonel status for those unfamiliar. Running it with no picture would be better than the one currently used; although, I prefer File:Colonel Khabarov addressing the farewell speech.jpg. In regards to the article, I oppose pending a rewrite. Section headers like "“Massoud? Treat him like my best friend”" don't work. Did we publish the arrest? RyanVesey19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose purely on article quality grounds. This seems worthwhile to post based on notability, but the article is a complete mess as noted above. Too many problems with tone and referencing to list them all here. --Jayron3221:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending greatly increased quality. I thought I understood what was going on when I read about his arest a ways back. After reading this article I have no idea what's going on from any side's viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Seems like a major accomplishment with significant practical application - the inventors site internal medical devices; wearable and very portable computers come to mind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a continuous stream of technological innovation. It's a very high degree of WP:SPECULATION to say anything about the impact of this technology at this stage, when there seems not be even a proof of concept product, just an announcement from an academic research group. Time to market could be anything from months to years to decades to eternity. --hydrox (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. This is a rare type of disaster and the death toll is simply not comparable to the bunch of plane and car crashes that we usually post. Moreover, saying it's the deadliest ever induces excessive importance to the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple. Can you point out to any other hot balloon crash that recently happened, apart from the numerous car and plane crashes that occur every day? You should take a broader look through the media that the news exhibits decent coverage and the fact it's the largest in history makes it surely notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so simple. Can you point out what impact this will have on the economy, politics, history or future of Egpyt, aviation, or tourism? Pure shock body count. --IP98 (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what impact will have the fact that Jimmie Johnson won the Daytiona 500 and Danica Patrick became the first woman to achieve a top-10 finish?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP98, I don't see a problem here. There is a mass-casulty event in the news, with widespread coverage (yes, partly due to the nationalities of the deceased). We have a developing article, which should hopefully soon be ready for the main page. This disaster will be part of the encylopedia in perpetuity, I can't see what we'd gain by not posting it in the In the News section when it is in the news. --LukeSurltc12:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, according to this BBC report, the last time an accident of this nature occurred (resulting in 16 injuries, no deaths), "Balloons were grounded for six months after that crash while safety measures were tightened and pilots were re-trained by Egypt's Civil Aviation Authority." so yes, there was a lasting impact. This crash is considerably worse, so I suspect the fallout will be accordingly serious. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's actually pretty helpful. I knew my oppose was futile, but I wanted to see some other reasoning than corpse count. --IP98 (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a rare and record-setting event. In this case, the actual body count is not as notable as the reason for it. It likely will also affect tourism in Egypt, on top of how the political turmoil there has already. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't even think you could fit 20 people into a hot air balloon. It's not every day you hear about hot air balloon crashes of any sort, except some idiot pereodically getting his/hers caught on a telephone pole or deciding to fly it in 20mph+ wind gusts and going on the ride of his life. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it really true that this is the deadliest balloon crash in history? What about blimps? The fact that it was in Egypt and involved international tourists is consistent with INT requirements. Abductive (reasoning) 16:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blimps are not balloons; blimps generally have powered and controllable movement, and are also not dependent on hot air; balloons have no control over their movement other than altitude. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President of CubaRaúl Castro announces he will not seek another term as president when his current one expires in 2018. He also states he will seek to put term limits and age caps for political offices in Cuba, including the presidency. (The New York Times)
Nominator's comments: Massive news in Korea, and amongst Korean communities abroad. Park Geun-hye is the first woman president of Korea. She is also the daughter of a former ruler, which I don't think happens often in that region. (Father -> son succession, yes, but not father -> daughter with some other rulers in between.) --70.179.161.230 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question? Did we post the election? If not, I would support this one, if we did, I would be neutral, leaning weak support. This seems like an historic event if it hasn't been posted already, and the article is in pretty good shape, which is always a plus for putting something on the main page. Also, the blurb should not pipe-link "Korea" as though the entire Peninsula were one country and she were the actual leader of it. It should read and link to President of South Korea. --Jayron3206:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We generally don't post inaugurations, just the election. I have read that the inauguration is a formality and she automatically took office at midnight. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This has been big news here in the UK. Resonates with other stories regarding the church. Current update may or may not be sufficient. --LukeSurltc23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think we would have posted this if he had been arrested. It's unprecedented for the Catholic church, given that he is a cardinal. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on whether the story should be posted, but it surely is not unprecedented in the Church's 2000 year history for a Cardinal to resign. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He was already scheduled to retire in less than three weeks. This is primarily about avoiding press distraction during the conlave. Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Kevin McE looks like it is all to do with the conclave, would be open to consider a sticky for Papal conclave, 2013 between the 28th and the appearance of the white smoke (at which time it would be replaced by a full blurb on the new Pope anyway). LGAtalkedits00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to a priest guesting on Newsnight last night, the cardinal was actually dismissed by the pope, he made it sound like this was a very rare event. Would have to find more sources for that though. Fgf10 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It reports that he had intended to resign on his 75th birthday (as is customary) "But Benedict decided to make the resignation effective immediately". Formerip (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean Benedict asked him to resign in the first place("Murphy-O'Connor said that it was O'Brien's decision to step down and that he had not been forced or asked to do so."; he only changed the date it goes into effect. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every bishop is obliged to tender his resignation in time for it to be considered before his 75th birthday. The Pope will communicate that this is accepted (with very rare exceptions if he thinks the guy is irreplaceable) reasonably quickly (by Roman standards), but it does not become effective until that birthday. It had been routinely agreed that he would step down on 17 March, so it would have been a very contrary move to refuse to bring that forward by less than three weeks at the bishop's request. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't request that it be brought forward. Allegations about his conduct appeared in the media. 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Serious Comment The career section and "koop report" section needs an orange tag for lack of sources, then needs the orange tag resolved. The legacy section is pretty well sourced. --IP98 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the obituaries which will be published there will information on his career. We should be able to use these to help cite the article. --LukeSurltc23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not seeing the coverage outside of the US at this time, not going to make the mistake of opposing at this time as per Jerry Buss, but unless this does get covered outside the US (more than just wire republishing) then will be an oppose. LGAtalkedits23:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This is from the "please do not's above", it's actually kind of rude, which I don't intend to be, but I'm just quoting as written: "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --IP98 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, if, as contended this person had an "influence on public health worldwide" (see nomination) then I would expect such an influence to be reflected in worldwide coverage of his death, and an absence of such coverage, points to that not being the case. LGAtalkedits00:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, there is a world of difference (no pun intended) to opposing an item because it relates to only one country as compared to to opposing because an event gets coverage only in one country, this is In The News and IMO for something to be listed, it should be in the news in more than one country. LGAtalkedits00:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated I am marking this updated--the death section was only two sentences when I checked but the expansions to other areas are of higher value than "his goofy beard will be missed" type comments. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withholding support until cleanup. Clearly worthwhile for the RD ticker based on news coverage, but the article needs to have the orange-level tags cleaned up. --Jayron3205:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing how this meets the criteria, he was not a high officer of state (POTUS, VPOTUS or Sec. of State), lack of coverage outside of the US indicates he was not regarded as top of his field. LGAtalkedits05:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His influence in the field of public health was tremendous, a household name for starting a rational discussion of AIDS in the US, etc. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Koop was very well-known as a public figure (as the lead says, he was "the only surgeon general to become a household name"). His outspoken/controversial opinions and actions in the 1980s regarding AIDS and other public health concerns had major impact on the way these concerns were addressed in the U.S. -- and doubtless in the rest of the world. He established and gave his name to one of the earliest health-information websites. Frank Zappa wrote a song about him. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (which I didn't bother to say before since I didn't expect any opposition) prominent in public health, very influential in early rational discussion of AIDS prevention (at a time when you got calls for tattoos and forcible quarantine from prominent public figures, or disgusting jokes at best) and began long successful campaign against smoking in the US, greatly raised the stature of his office. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I am marking this as ready, all current sections are well documented. The large career section has been commented out, since it is very detailed, but almost entirely lacking in sources. I don't see waiting two days more in the hope someone has the time to fix it when the rest is good to go. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Significant in his field, and a major newsmaker. I am not in love with the lack of sources in parts of the article, but think we should go for this RD entry now. Jusdafax22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding references where needed and where asked for, and have hidden the long "career" section--which is so good I fear plagiarism--until it's referenced in full. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: It appears that the recent bombings have fallen just short of making the mainpage, so the presents another opportunity to get Syria back on ITN. The first step, albeit a small one, towards ending the conflict seems worthy of mention to me. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting just an offer of talks; not significant unless there are actually talks which result in an agreement or cease-fire. Given the flurry of Syria events recently, it may be worth putting a sticky up again, though. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If the rebels actually agree to and begin the talks, I would support this as an important turning point. Even if the talks don't bring about a cease fire, just agreeing to meet means both sides are open to some kind of compromise. It would actually be infinately more relevant than a mindless car bombing with no associated attack, no claims of responsibility, and no newsworthiness other than a body count which is found by some people to be horrific. --IP98 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Article needs a lot of work: orange level headings in several sections, and it needs a prose update on the results. Support, of course, when those issues are fixed. --Jayron3215:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Need to wait till the results all the results are in, we don't need to jump any gun on this. A number of sources are reporting this as too close to call. Also lacks a results update section. LGAtalkedits20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the headline story here is that there's going to be gridlock between the two houses, with center-left in control of the lower house and Il Cavaliere winning the Senate. --hydrox (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Electoral System" section sort of explains whats going on, but it doesn't really help relate the data in the table to who will form the coalition. As best as I can tell, no one really "wins" an Italian election, but instead the strongest losers form a government. --IP98 (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the article is very thorough and in good shape. It's unfair to expect an article about a particular election to explain all the intricacies of the country's political system (as per some of the comments above).80.220.123.162 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it should be explain enough for the casual reader to understand the results without first having to become an expert in the Italian political system. --IP98 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, but as a casual reader looking for a quick read, all I need to know is who won the election, the manner of how they came up with the composition can be saved for an FA push later. Also, is "hung parliament" being used in local media? It looks more like a parliamentary version of a "divided government". It depends if the consent of the Senate is needed on most bills (like the US Senate); if it is, it is "hung", again depending if that term is used in local media, if it doesn't (like it can only delay like the House of Lords, or via a rarely-used constitutional provision like the Aussie Senate), then we should avoid using the term "hung", again depending if the local media uses that to describe the situation. –HTD04:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vote percentages are visible in the infobox, and the very first sentence explicitly names the winners of the election. For people interested in the impact of the outcome, there's links in the Electoral System section detailing how seats are derived from votes and links to the various other Italian political institutions in the lede. Detailed analysis of the political system of Italy is outside the scope of the article, and I think would detract from it. In any case, the article is clearly ready to be posted.80.220.123.162 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one really wants to read the intricacies of Italian electoral law, just how they arrived in those numbers. The article does explain how the seats are allocated: lower house = national district vote, upper house = regional vote, Aosta Valley = FPTP, etc. –HTD10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article has improved considerably over the last few hours (good work). I think we need a quick "reaction/aftermath" section explaining the deadlock in prose and we're good to go. LukeSurltc08:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I've removed the proposed blurb, let's wait and see which movie actually wins. Otherwise, the standard blurb goes like "X wins Y awards, including Best picture, at the 85th Academy Awards". --Tone08:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iv'e reworded it to include X and Y instand of the movie/actor names per above advice. To Kevin McE, The award starts today, doesn't matter if it ends 10 minutes after midnight. (the American Football final nomination was added the day of the final, I did not see anyone remove it becuz it ended after 00:00UTC) the ITNR clearly stats "However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted." so thats why posted. About the update, like every other article which is ITNR or regular like elections there is always porposes blurb before the actuall info arive yet. – HonorTheKing (talk)10:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We never post Best Actor. Because, then it would also make sense to post Best Actress and Best Director etc. However, we can possibly combine it with a photo, if it is for the same movie (Best Actor X pictured). --Tone11:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb we can very easily accommodate best actress per the concern above--I am not sure if the Best awards should be capitalized or not. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose alt blurbs why not best director while we're at it? No, we can't turn this into a laundry list of awards crammed into the blurb. We've only done best picture in the past, lets stick with that. --IP98 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the altblurb that was actually nominated, rather than one snuck in in the form of a question? Jennifer Lawrence's win and 2nd nom is also a record for someone her age. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The Daytona 500 is not on ITN/R, but actually receives more coverage and notoriety than the Cup winner (which is on ITN/R). It has been posted several years. This year's race was especially well covered with the big crash yesterday and Danica becoming the first woman to win the pole (and finishing the highest ever by a woman). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs prose update for results section. Also I'm not seeing anything about the crash in the article body. Subsections for the crash and for Danica Patrick, with 5 referenced sentences (ie the ITN minimum update) would make this an easy support for me. --IP98 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daytona 500 is obviously one of the most popular races. However i think it should be posted on a yearly basis only depending on notability for that year. This year i really believe it deserves to be posted mainly for 3 reasons. 1) Danica Patrick winning pole 2) The major crash day before the race which injured spectators which is incredibly rare 3) Danica Patrick becoming first woman to get a top 10 finish. I've added alternate blurb to add her achievement as well. The media attention for this race has been massive and it definitely should be posted this year. it does not need to be on ITN/R (also please remember that any oppose based on the race not being in ITN/R is basically invalid as noted many times) -- Ashish-g5500:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats your opinion. every single news article i read out there says otherwise. If you saw the race then you should know they followed her around in the entire race, much more than anyone else -- Ashish-g5502:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did watch the race and honestly it does not matter if they spend most of their time covering her. In the past, did we ever mention Danica being the first female driver to finish in the top five at the Indianapolis 500. Unless she wins, mentioning this is just insignificant trivia. Truthsort (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how not mentioning her improves anything. clearly she is more in the news than the winner and would be a major reason to post this -- Ashish-g5502:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a combined blurb covering the race results and the crash. I know very little about the sport and care less than that, but I live in a region of the United States where NASCAR gets more local media attention than Major League Baseball, and I can testify that the Daytona 500 is possibly the biggest race of the year for NASCAR fans. This year's race got more even more attention than usual because of the prominence of a woman driver, and the crash adds to its significance. As noted above, if women's cricket is important enough for ITN, surely this item it, too. --Orlady (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most important single race every year on the NASCAR schedule, well covered by the sports press, article is updated. --Jayron3202:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting alt-blurb. The article dedicates a lot of information about Patrick (who also makes the race more notable this year), so posting the altblurb. If there's consensus to use the first blurb, it can be changed. SpencerT♦C02:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Historic agreement - its not often you can get 11 countries to agree to anything - whether or not it proves effective in the long run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while this is a good thing, we often see the United Nations agree (i.e. over 150 countries) to something which is then summarily ignored (per most recent UN resolutions). Sorry, but not really news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An agreement to end a long war is notable. We can't assume that it won't succeed or be ignored. Nothing would get posted here if assuming it would be undone in the future was a disqualifier. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, so what are the "supporters" supporting? I suggest the supporters wait for (a) an article to be updated and (b) the update to be suitable, before they offer their support.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting the notability- unlike the discussion below, this nom is not ITNR so its notability must be agreed to. I presume the article will be updated, and not be posted until it is adequate; if it is posted improperly, or not updated, then it should not be posted(or be removed). Your suggestion is noted. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was mentioning that I felt the story was notable (as I judge from non-wikipedia sources), as this is the main point of discussion on most items here. It's pretty well established that determining/working on article readiness and item notability are the two main functions of this page, and that they can be discussed separately. For example, arguments like "I do not think this is a sufficiently important development to post, but the article update is good" and "The article is not ready yet, but the news item is of sufficient importance to post when it is" are both useful contributions to the working of this page. --LukeSurltc22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article is now updated. In-fighting about how to deal with the agreement among M23 rebels today left 10 dead indicating the agreement is not likely to just be ignored entirely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait There is a pretty good update, but until the M23 actually agrees to it, it's one sided. They're meeting in Uganda right now with the Congolese government, so we'll see. Nice job with the update Thaddeus. --IP98 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, those talks on unrelated to this agreement. The agreement in question is for the 11 countries to "cooperate" (which mostly means stop poking their noses into Congo's problems) in dealing with the situation. There is nothing in it for M23 to agree to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Article is now updated and as an ITNR item is thus ready for main page. Naturally, another admin should verify that teh update is sufficient before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously pointless since the item is ready, but I wanted to throw in anyway. Nice job ThaddeusB. For what it's worth, I think it's better to not link to the results section directly in the bold link. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Article is ok... there are a few wording quibbles in it that could be repaired, but it's ready for a link from the Front page. Jusdafax00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We regularly post the winners of the Alpine skiing World Cup. Usually, we do this at the end of the season, combining men and ladies winners but this year, Maze secured the title 9 (out of 37) races before the end of the season, what is an impressive achievement by itself. I suggest posting now because of that. --Tone 14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) --Tone14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if her lead is insurmountable, isn't she still not formally declared the winner until the end of the season? I'm not sure how it works. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Lots of reliable sources say she has won although some of them use other words like clinches or seals the title. It's basic arithmetic. 2013 Alpine Skiing World Cup#Overall 2 shows she has 1844 points and number two has 886. FIS Alpine Ski World Cup#World Cup scoring system shows 100 points for a race win. There are 9 races to go. That means number two can get at most 886 + 9×100 = 1786. Winning with so many races to go is notable and should be included in the blurb, and it is in the news now. The official ceremony after the last race will probably get less attention. But since the competition is ongoing and something might theoretically happen (death, doping, the end of the World, ?) let's use other wording. Suggested alternative blurb:
Yes, the sources state that's it. The three theoretical reasons would probably merit another ITN story (especially the third one). The alternative wording is good. And then in March we just post who won the men's cup. --Tone09:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support posting it now as long as the altblurb is used. It looks like the early securing of victory has generated a good amount of international coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- ITN has always waited for things to be official, so until she gets the trophy and is declared the overall winner, she hasn't won yet. As a side note, if she died would she still win? Are there any scenarios where she could not win? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The election is a slightly different situation; the Electoral College is just a formality and while they technically could choose someone other than the percieved winner of the election, they never have. If we posted this person's victory at the end of the season but before she took possession of the title, that would be OK. But I don't believe we post someone as the winner of the election while the polls are still open, even if the winner is mathematically certain. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We often post election winners before all votes have been counted. Vote counting usually starts after the polls close but we actually posted Obama's win [10] before the polls closed in Alaska [11] (we did the same in 2008). Lots of votes in many states were still uncounted, including states Obama needed to win. But enough states were considered safe, even if his lead was sometimes smaller than the number of uncounted votes and therefore not mathematically certain. As mentioned, posting sports winners when the result is mathematically certain is the ITN norm and not a suggested exception here. We are more careful in sports than in elections. We never post a sports winner just because their lead is so large that it appears very unlikely they will be reached. We wait until the win is mathematically certain, and it is for Tina Maze. The theoretical reasons she could be removed from competition are not mathematical, and some of them would still apply after the last race. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three people are killed and 14 injured in clashes between civilians and government security forces in Aden and Mukalla, as thousands turn up for a day of planned protests. In a separate attack, a senior Yemeni security chief and two of his bodyguards are injured in a shooting. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Been more than a year since I nominated an article here so hopefully I have got everything right! Recent violence in North Darfur has broken a ceasefire negotiated in January. At least 21 people were killed on 21 February and 60 on 23 February. Fighting over a gold mine by the same tribes earlier in January has now been revealed to have killed more than 500 (I didn't nominate that as details were too sketchy to update the article back then, new figures have just been released) but this is the worst since the ceasefire that ended that. Now we have good details on a currently occurring conflict it is a good chance to get the ongoing situation in ITN. Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready in line with support given here. If posted now it would just make the second-last spot on the template. It is a shame the news takes several days to be reported from Darfur (for obvious reasons) - Dumelow (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I do not recall ever hearing of an auto race where spectators were injured, so I assume this is a highly unusual event. Event has a high potential to lead to some sort of safety updates so has long term implications... The Daytona 500 will happen tomorrow, as scheduled, so a combined blurb is a possibility. (Daytona has been covered on ITN some years and skipped some years, so would have a good chance of being posted regardless.) -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw three auto races on the first list you linked the last was in the 1960s, so that hardly proves it is common. So, I researched it a bit more. Looks like the last time a spectator will killed in a track autorace was 1999. The last time spectator injuries (7) occurred was 2009 as near as I can find. Therefore, I stand by the rare categorization. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Sporting events only shows cases with at least 6 deaths, and there are actually 10 cases under these entries (including dead drivers in the count): 80+, 28, 15, 13, a second 13, a third 13, 12, 11, 8, a second 8 (in 2010 in California [12]). There must be a lot more cases with fewer deaths, not to mention cases where there were only injuries. Restrictions like track autoraces seem of low relevance to ITN. Are non-fatal injuries at a track more significant than deaths outside tracks? And spectator injuries and deaths are common in general at other sports or events, for example in riots, stampedes, fires, collapses. I guess this gets a lot of coverage in USA but internationally I don't see the big deal. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between tracks, which are short enough to be completely surrounded by car-catching fences, and Le Mans or a rally like Senegal-to-Cairo where people just stand on the side of the road. On the other hand, I have never heard of a riot, stampede, crowd crush, collapse, stands fire, or hooliganism at any sporting event in the US (we have these things called cops in the stadium by the way), which would go up on that alone on US Wikipedia but is apparently common in other countries. Go figure. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It varies by country. We posted the 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede (nomination) with 61 dead and over 200 injured (it was a sports stadium but not a sports event). If you add enough qualifiers (auto race spectators, closed track, USA) then you can make something rare, but a lot of shit happens around the World. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC) one guy got shot before a top-league football game in a ghetto city, in the parking lot Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
closed courseI didn't say US or closed track, I said with catch fences. You should see how it would be much easier to have accidents when they just drive from Dakar to Cairo with no safety barriers than when they encircle the course with an inward curving metal fence which I'm almost certain is designed to bend to maximize the chance of car matter not breaking/penetrating it (and minimize driver injuries). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb tomorrow on the winner of the Daytona 500 and the injuries to people in the crowd. The Daytona 500 is a a very big deal in the context of NASCAR, so it should be a perennial strong candidate for ITN. Absent the accident, DRIVE4COPD race isn't particularly inherently important. The accident was a serious one that is worthy of consideration for ITN, and the combination of the race and the accident makes a very strong ITN item, assuming that the articles are developed appropriately. For the record, there have been other incidents of spectator injuries at NASCAR and other motor races, per this AutoWeek article. Also, I found a 2009 news piece about injuries to 9 spectators in a race that year. --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any mention of the spectators that were injured, unfortunately it is a relative common, so much so that most Motorsports events admission tickets specifically warn spectators of the risk. As for the race it's self, I have to Reserve Judgement on that as it has not happened, and there is no article update to review and no coverage to speak of. LGAtalkedits06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with this logic. The tickets have a warning to prevent legal liability, which in no way proves injury is common. All kinds of products carry warnings for events that happened once or even never. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose thankfully this event, while visually spectacular, has too few serious casualties to merit ITN. Drivers and spectators being killed is not all that rare, and there were none here. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose Unless you want to relegate ITN to a complete joke Wikipedia, don't post non-news worthy items that effect a very small amount of people in a minority sport (Which is set up to make crashes a possibility, isn't it?) - no deaths, not even remotely comparable to the Russian meteor incident...--85.210.102.19 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think *anything* that's happened in the last year is "even remotely comparable to the Russian meteor incident". If you want to talk about jokes, using a once in a 10000 year event as the standard for ITN would certainly qualify. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support There is no such thing as "minimum deaths". We posted a bunch of school kids in china being injured by a reckless driver, so I think this is worthy of consideration. The thing is, I can't find any decent update for it. --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since there does not appear to be sufficient support to post the accident, I have separately nominated the Daytona 500 itself above to stand or fail on its own merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose while I agree that in terms of Canada's internet internal security it's rare for them to ratchet up the fear machine like this, there has been no plot either uncovered or actually executed, so for now, oppose. --IP98 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No actual act of terrorism to hang our proverbial hat on; warnings like this are fairly standard. The Ontario plot was seven years ago. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This item is indeed 11 days old, and out of the news. It is also marked "updated" even though only two sentence have been added. I placed a note on Kotjap's talk page about this yesterday after I noticed he had marked his two prior noms updated when they weren't. I suggest an admin close this, and I have started a discussion of this on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Same plane has just returned from a several week grounding. 787 has scheduling implications: its removal from service affects several thousand journeys every day, its military analogue has no impact on ordinary life. Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article says the plane's introduction is "after 2016". The temporary grounding of a plane still in testing/development is a non-story. Thue (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Thue says, the aircraft is not technically in service yet; and this sort of thing is normal for aircraft still in development. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin McE, Thue and 311dot. Interesting though, no question about that. No international issue requirement here. --IP98 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty aware that some european countries plan to purchase the Lightning.But the number of them in my opinion is pretty low.Morever, considering the aircraft is still in developmental phase, grounding is not surprising.F-35B and F-35C has been had issues for some time now anyway. TheStrikeΣagle13:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Three missiles launched by the Syrian army crash into residential areas of Syria's northern city of Aleppo, killing at least 29 civilians and injuring 150 others. (Reuters)(BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Currently leading Google news for countries across the world including U.K., U.S. and Australia. In the U.K. it has been the front-page story for mid-market papers like the Evening Standard for the last four days solidly. Also provoking comment pieces on the state of contemporary South Africa such as this in the New York Times, or this in the Baltimore Sun. A worldwide story. --Jheald (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if his arrest for suspected murder didn't make ITN, I can't really see why we should advertise his bail. Shelve all this and wait until the actual trial concludes, and maybe then we have a story for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there's also a requirement for Wikipedia to be encyclopaedic which sometimes conflicts with reporting news early. Right now we just have to wait until the trial concludes. Which may be a year away. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the story will likely be front page news around the world for weeks to come. The verdict will likely get posted, but no other development is ITN worthy (unless something really bizarre happens). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The final verdict will probably be ITN worthy, suggest wait until then. We can't post every new development in the trial. As a side note, I also think that unless and until he is proven guilty, we should be careful about the risk of putting details of the trial up on the front page and (accidentally) portraying him as a criminal. ChamalT•C02:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree that we TOTALLY dropped the ball by not having any blurb about this, despite the fact that the Pistorius article is very high quality, and this has been top headline news since it happened. That being said, screwing this up before doesn't mean this is the way to correct that. We should definitely post this, but now our only next logical opportunity will be the conclusion of the trial. --Jayron3202:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only element of this case that will have any long term significance will be the verdict and if found guilty the sentence, the granting (or otherwise) of bail is just part of the process of the trial, what next posting every time there is a objection sustained ? There is a long way to go on this one and it is going to be a news editors dream, I am already getting the feeling that this will be to the 2010's what OJ was to the 90's. But we should remember that the wiki project for news is Wikinews and we need to keep this story in perspective. LGAtalkedits02:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that he may yet walk is not necessarily a reason to withhold an item that shows the presiding judge doesn't expect he'll run. Nevertheless, it pains me to agree with our neutral voter. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and call for a SNOW close. As the last time this was discussed, when this story broke, nothing should be posted unless he is convicted of a crime in this case. If we aren't going to post his arrest(and shouldn't), we shouldn't post this. Even if we were posting some bizarre aspect of this event, being granted bail doesn't mean anything in relation to the trial, and as such does not qualify. 331dot (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
