***@HiLo48:I doubt he was talking to you specifically, other opposes here are based on an illusionary US-centric posting history here. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
***@HiLo48:I doubt he was talking to you specifically, other opposes here are based on an illusionary US-centric posting history here. [[User:RxS|RxS]] ([[User talk:RxS|talk]]) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
****Perhaps then he should have used more cautious language than "''Opposes here are completely based on...''" Nah. Typical post of a paranoid American attacking any foreigner who dares to suggest that other perspectives are possible. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
****Perhaps then he should have used more cautious language than "''Opposes here are completely based on...''" Nah. Typical post of a paranoid American attacking any foreigner who dares to suggest that other perspectives are possible. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*****Hilo48, your racist anti-Americanism is getting tiring.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak|talk]]) 03:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
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).
Both articles need updating 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: Article hasn't been updated yet; the 2011 Super Rugby season article on the season is basically just a big table, so it might be easier to update the Queensland Reds article on the team. I don't have time to do an update myself right now Modest Geniustalk 00:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 FIFA Women's World Cup
Germany loses in the quarter final of the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup making it the first time ever that the team fail to make it to the semifinal. It was the first losing match for Germany in the FIFA Women's World Cup since 1999. Germany lost 0-1 against Japan on overtime in the FIFA Women's World Cup hosted by Germany itself. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as nom, historic event in womens football as Germany is a superpower which is expected to atleast make the final in each tournament.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems reasonable to cover women's football as well as men's football, even though the latter is more high profile. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should cover more women sports, put this was one of (I assume) four quarter finals. Mtking (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would we really be posting the result of a quarter final match, even at the men's world cup? Modest Geniustalk 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was similar story yes with historic significance for the sport. Unfortunatly its still a bit of "women sports arent important" bias here.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait till the final. Mtking (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an historic event beyond this tournament itself in history, Germany hasnt lost a World Cup match since 1999 and it is the first time ever that they misses the semifinals. Historic event for womens football.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the current blurb. Try again with the final; what matters is who wins, not what stage their opponents went out. Modest Geniustalk 21:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that 'first losing match for Germany in the FIFA Women's World Cup since 1999' in the blurb in fact means that they didn't lose during the 2003 and 2007 tournaments (6 games in each), and in their first three games of this one. That's 15 games unbeaten, including games against such footballing powerhouses (sarcasm warning) as Japan, Canada and North Korea. Whilst certainly an achievement, that's not as impressive as the nomination made it sound. Modest Geniustalk 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No doubt Germany not making the semi-finals on its home turf is significant within the context of the tournament. But I struggle to see how anything other than the tournament's winner is so significant as to be ITN worthy. It's not getting much international coverage. It's a very minor "headline" on BBC Football. Same goes for ESPN Soccernet. The lack of headline coverage even in international football media is fairly telling. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Oppose I don't think this is exciting enough to warrant additional coverage beyond the final of the tournament. Its not India vs Pakistan in the Cricket World cup. I will support the final however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you basically changing your stance according to the majority instead of having your own opinion. Just pointing out no criticism.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet Post a link to an excellent article on the whole tournament once it's over, obviously highlighting Germany's demise as one of the surprises. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only at this stage, but real doubts about scale of event being adequate for ITN. Apart from the matches involving the hosts, average attendance is 20,700, and stadia are only 70-80% full, even with tickets available from €10, which is about the price of entrance to level 6 matches in England. While it would be good to be able to feature more women's sport, it is not for us to give sports a profile that they do not have in the news, or among the paying public. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sports at the last Olympics were very poorly attended. Will we stop mentioning them too? HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The final result of the tournament is justifiably an INTR item. However this strikes me as sports stat trivia - every tournament has similar records broken, particularly when the tournament is of as comparatively recent origins as the women's world cup. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. Just what is significant here? A team lost a quarter final. Get over it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well known singer in Latin America. Famous for No soy de aquí ni soy de allá, and was named Messenger of Peace by UNESCO in 1996. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would support if the article was in better shape... But at the moment, it needs lots of work first. --Tone 19:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wait and see. So someone made a new Facebook page? Seriously though, I don't think a protest of this scale in the Middle East is significant enough "in the grand scheme of things". If it develops into something more than a Facebook page and a few thousand protesters, then maybe. Also, more coverage of the demonstration in question would be needed. Mocctur (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been updated yet; Im working on it. If you opened any of the sources, you would have known that hundreds of thousands of people protested in Tahrir while millions elsewhere in Egypt. Also today is the second day of the sit-in and major strikes that has started since friday :-) PS: The picture was taken on the 8th of July -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera just says "thousands". Which source says hundreds of thousands? Mocctur (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support when updated definately in the news and its an extension of the revolution (2.0 as you internet kids call it ;)). could be the ouster of 2 regimes ina year.Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wives of politicians are not sufficiently important—she never held any office in her own right. (would we include the death of the wife of a former President of France, Italy or some other European country, or for that sake, India, China or Brazil?). Mocctur (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in the cases of France or Italy, which wife, and why stop with wives? I wouldn't dream of posting the passing of a wife of an ex-Prime Minister of my country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And back here in little old, irrelevant Australia, our present PM doesn't have a wife. She doesn't have a husband either, but we do have a first bloke, who is, fortunately for him, still very much alive. Do you reckon he'd crack a mention here if he carked it? I guess many of us are highlighting that this would be a bad case of applying US values and centrism to ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those who say she's "just the wife of a president" were too lazy to read the news articles or the article here. Grsz11 03:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grsz. Most of the comments so far have nothing to do with the subject of the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb says "First Lady of the United States". We have, logically enough, responded to that. Why should we assume the article has a different emphasis? HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try actually reading the article, not just the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try fixing the blurb, and admitting error, and finding some manners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All you had to do was read the lede. This is a no-brain support, based on her impact on global society (not just US at all). Grsz11 03:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All you had to do was write a better blurb. You see, that's still a US-centrism problem, with Americans assuming that it's enough to mention first lady status to get our positive attention. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the original blurb didn't assert her notability; but it's not unreasonable to expect people to at least have a look at the relevant article before passing judgement. As mentioned above, one only needed to read the lede.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ONE ONLY NEEDED TO FIX THE BLURB, rather than argue!!! I tried, and succeeded! It really wasn't too hard. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Notable and important ITN-worthy blurb. Big news around the globe. Clinic named after her is notable in its own right. (And to some of our opposers, for what it's worth I was a harsh critic of her husband for his pardon of Richard Nixon.) Jusdafax 03:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There, I've fixed the blurb. Much less US-centric now and actually justifies this item. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how "Co-founder of the Betty Ford Clinic" makes her sufficiently notable for the main page. She's the wife of a politician who was the co-founder of a hospital. That's all fine, but she's not globally important. Mocctur (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was the wife of a president (saying politician is a clever way to belittle her) who's death is being reported worldwide. Hot Stop(c) 04:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly, silly, silly. Especially because of the bad original blurb, that argument will get you nowhere. Stick to her non-wifely achievements and you will have a much stronger case! HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even with the new wording (which is better) this is still two US-centric, HiLo48 point about the wife of any past PM or president outside the US would not get a mention does it for me. Mtking (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not of serious international importance. Owen (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you: if the wife of a non-US head of state got as much coverage on her passing, I assume it'd get supported. And as for it not being of int'l importance, that's not a criteria (int'l interest is a criteria, which the sources I provided account for). Hot Stop(c) 04:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Very little coverage internationally, contrary to claims above. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a ITN critria? RxS (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but it contradicts what some supporters have said above.
Here are the criteria for deaths. Either she must have been in a high-ranking office of power, or she was an important figure in her field of expertise, or her death has a major international impact. Which one exactly do you think she fulfill? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an outrageous claim to say it isn't getting coverage abroad. In addition to the stories above, she's already on the German, Spanish, anf Norse wikipedia front pages (under recent death sections). As an aside some of those sites are much cooler looking. Hot Stop(c) 04:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely support her being on the Recent Deaths section if we have one. Meanwhile, tell me exactly which criterion she fulfills for the ITN section. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the page for Google News French. You won't be able to find any mention of Betty Ford anywhere in the front page. In fact, you have to search for it and then only four articles will turn up, two from Canada and one from Switzerland. The claim that this is worldwide news is simply false. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"International coverage" doesn't mean coverage in every country in the world. It's been established that this is getting coverage abroad. As for which ITN deaths criteria she meets, as teh founder of the Betty Ford Clinic, she may meet #2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only used the French news as an example; she is not on German-language or Italian-language news either. Just because Al Jazeera wrote an article about it doesn't mean it's big news worldwide. As for the criteria, she has to be an important figure in her field of expertise. Co-founding a hospital using her fame is a great deed, but it has nothing to do with expertise, and it really is nowhere as important as thousands of similar acts that happen every day. How many hospitals are there in the world? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said very little, not none. About 1,000 articles are published every minute in the world online, and having four of them about one person's death in one day does not make it among the most important news in the world. Go to Google Italy, Google French or Google German. You will find about three to four times as many articles about the latest Ford vehicle than her death. The little international coverage she has received is simply not a valid reason for appearing on ITN. You'd have more credibility if you cited her acts for breast cancer awareness. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more...there's no strict need for widespread international coverage here but this story is getting it none the less. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]RxS (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a couple of articles is nowhere near widespread international coverage. The latest Ford vehicle has gotten at least 100 articles in German alone. If you insist on going through the international coverage route, then come back with that many articles about Ford's death in German. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting on it, my first comment was basically pointing out that widespread international coverage isn't a ITN criteria. You think it's important so I'm pointing out that there is indeed widespread international coverage. The fact that some other topic has more widespread international coverage doesn't disqualify this nomination. wp:Otherstuffexists etc...RxS (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. I was assuming that we can all agree that the latest Ford vehicle does not have widespread international coverage (I haven't even heard of it before I googled for Ford). And yet there are more articles about it than Betty Ford's death. That says something. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a couple of articles is nowhere near widespread international coverage. The latest Ford vehicle has gotten at least 100 articles in German alone. If you insist on going through the international coverage route, then come back with that many articles about Ford's death in German. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her death has gotten well more than a couple of articles internationally. Since when is '100 articles in German' a benchmark of significance at ITN? (I'm currently getting [64). You're greatly exaggerating in saying the latest Ford model is getting 4 times more coverage 1.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please drop that first one. (Or move it to the end.) I am supporting this now, but it seems that some of you Americans will never get it. Stick to the arguments that have a chance of working internationally. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Support Arguably more well-known than her husband. The Betty Ford clinic is notable in its own right. N419BH 05:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High profile figure that our readers will be interested in. Certainly known for more than her husband (as other have pointed out). Opposers that base their arguments soley on the fact that her husband was president are missing the point a little, she accomplished a lot outside of that part of her life. RxS (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was she known for before Gerald Ford became a successful politician? I'm sympathetic of what she did, but she is no Hillary Clinton; the only reason she got famous was because she was the wife of a notable politician who later became president. Using the fame of your family members to do something is not on its own notable, even though I very much appreciate her acts. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter how she was able to accomplish so many things? The fact is that she did. RxS (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I restate the ITN deaths criteria: "The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such." Fame is not expertise. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious oppose per precedence. not intl significant and large amount of WP english readers are outside the US.Lihaas (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well known, connected to well known organizations. She was well more then just the wife of a president. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She was one of very many people involved in the foundation of a 100 bed medical centre, and lent her name to that institution. Do those proposing the inclusion really think that she set this place up single handedly: she gave it some publicity, some impetus and some money, but no medical expertise, by no means enough funding for it to become entirely a charitable organisation, no contribution to whatever status it might or might not now have as a centre of excellence. There are untold clinics of similar size in the world: this might be better known than most (but not than all: will all the co-founders of the Priory centre be ITNworthy? My local hospital is several times bigger: the bureaucrats involved in setting that up should be a shoe-in), but not essentially different. So we have the widow of an accidental and unelected president, who had some role in the foundation of a small medical institution that has gained fame disproportional to its importance because of celebrity culture. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update please The Betty Ford article has one sentence on her death. This needs more than that. -- tariqabjotu 10:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Kevin and per precedent. The fact that I've never heard of her aside, her article doesn't substantiate much notability except by association. Nightw 11:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support given large amount of international coverage of her death. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The clinic may be notable in its own right, but it's unlikely it would have been so had she not been first lady or the wife of another important politician. But more importantly, she was 93. As sad as it is that she's died, a death at 93 is far from unexpected, and the article says she was far from being in perfect health, and her death doesn't appear to be having a significant impact on current events. Whether The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such is open for debate, but that would be the only criterion she met if consensus judges that she was. This, although sad, just isn't that significant. If she was still first lady, I'd support, and I'd probably support if she was still an active public figure, but she wasn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've gone both ways on this and in the end I'm uncertain. I find HJ Mitchell's view above close to on the money for me. Though I would add that in addition to the clinic she was notable on several other fronts. I actually found her most interesting for the remarkably liberal stances she took publicly (and aggressively) on numerous social issues that went against the Republican Party. The lede section of the article cites historians who rank her as the second most important First Lady of the United States in the last 60 years (though I imagine Hillary Clinton will be reassessed as time passes). The US First Lady is a position of importance unique to the US I think--I don't believe the spouses of heads of state get the level of media attention, or influence, that the U.S. First Lady does. I would rank the US First Lady in importance as similar ot a very high-level British royal. Betty Ford inherited a position of significant power and was able to have a significant impact.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'll have to be neutral in this case as well. Being First Lady is not enough, I agree, while all her awareness work is significant. Actually, all has been said here already, not much to add... --Tone 13:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: (1) lack of international notability - there may have been a few news articles but no headlines; (2) HJ Mitchell's reasons. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while this is covered nationally, I don't think it is worthy. It is not unexpected and she did not do anything new recently. Mamyles (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HJ Mitchell a few points above: death not unexpected, has no impact on current events. More significant than most first ladies, but still not significant enough for ITN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This woman is only famous because of who her husband was. Her own achievements were minor at best. Not significant enough to meet our death criteria. Modest Geniustalk 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We posted the death of Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu who was "considered" the first lady of South Vietnam because she influenced their fashion. Opposes here are completely based on wishing to counter a perceived US-centrism, and are frankling complete bullshit. Grsz11 02:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a silly post is tempting me to swing my vote away again. My earlier opposition had nothing to do with US-centrism (bad as it is here at times, usually due to ignorance). It was the fact that the blurb gave her claim to fame as simply being first lady. (Until I fixed it!) That's clearly not enough. And either you're far too young or haven't actually read Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu. (A bit silly, since you're using it as justification for your position.) She had a massive influence on the politics of Vietnam, pushing legislation of her own interest on many occasions. She just about ran the country at times. Much more than a typical American first lady. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First Ladies in presidential systems seem to have a bigger profile than their parliamentary counterparts. I'd argue the first ladies in Latin America are more well known in their respective countries than the wife of prime ministers. (Evita, anyone?) So the U.S.-Australia comparison doesn't really hold. –HTD 03:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evita? Also, like Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, far more involved in her country's politics than Betty Ford ever was. Bad examples folks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Evita Peron. You know, Madonna starred on her biopic? (And why is that disambiguated? ugh). The point still stands on the US-Aussie comparison doesn't hold. Ngo Dinh Nhu and Evita may be have been more influential than Ford, but simply dismissing Ford and comparing her to wives of prime ministers is gross oversimplification. –HTD 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48:I doubt he was talking to you specifically, other opposes here are based on an illusionary US-centric posting history here. RxS (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then he should have used more cautious language than "Opposes here are completely based on..." Nah. Typical post of a paranoid American attacking any foreigner who dares to suggest that other perspectives are possible. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hilo48, your racist anti-Americanism is getting tiring.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of thousands of people are expected in a rare protest in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, today. The comprehensive article explains just how significant this is and what it is all about. I don't propose putting it up now -- let's wait a few hours to see how many people turn out (it'll just be starting as I write). But it would be good to get an "in principle" feel for support/oppose and some attention to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to format this properly but it looks huge.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support major breakthrough in organ transplant. Crnorizec (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I tried writing a blurb. I guess it is hardly a transplant if there isn't a donor...? Is transplanted the right word? Thue | talk 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implant? Replacement? HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need more of an update. Apart from the fluff, the current update is basically that it happened, but nothing else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Mitchell. The article needs more material on this and it also needs to demonstrate the significance of it in terms comprehensible to the non-specialist readers. Mocctur (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you dont need to oppose for update... it wont go up without it. if anything put conditional support if you see merit in putting this up but article still needs update. you opposed below for similar reason, in future please avoid it. -- Ashish-g55 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word is implant, not transplant. This is a little more significant than that of an ear Pinna which happened a few years back. Obvious support unless you are in favor of throat cancer. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Check the definitions at implant and transplant. It reads like a transplant to me, since it is biological (implants are not), and the raw material originally taken from the patient's own body. I had written implant first in the blurb, but changed it to transplant later. Thue | talk 10:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the literature, it's always transplant. Narayanese (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if something is sufficiently updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 2nd worst accident in Congo - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support major commercial airline crash with significant casualties--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently 127 deaths now. Regardless, the article needs work. More information on the accident, as and when it becomes available, is needed and I left a [citation needed] tag. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as there is no suitable article. Mocctur (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about?! The nonminated article is the "suitable article". StrPby (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs more work, as pointed out. Mocctur (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support 127 dead, high death toll. --Kslotte (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is a little thin for starters, and there isn't a great probability that the subject will support a great deal of expansion. In addition, this is one of those hard newsy kinds of stories that I don't think have a regular place at ITN, I don't believe a significant number of our readers will be looking to access information about this story. If there's something about this crash that sets it apart and has some sort of affect on commercial aviation I'd reconsider...RxS (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with RxS. Mamyles (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree as well. SwarmX 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Weather is currently "go" although no call has yet been made. Scheduled launch is 15:26 UTC. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly ITN worthy, but let's wait until the shuttle actually launches before posting this item. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. We should also have a separate news item featuring the Space Shuttle retirement article once the shuttle lands. Thue | talk 13:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support per above, also supporting posting the event at T-0:00 of exact second of the launch. Historic event, definite ITN:R . ~AH1(discuss!) 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment personally I do not support this as an exception to ITN/R, since in this case it is clearly the landing that will be the historical element book-ending the the Space Shuttle project. However, I realise that I'm going to be in the minority there. Definite oppose to too speedy a post - zero time means zero updates after all, and that is something that ITN/R does not short circuit. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy support per above, also the count down has started. in will lunch in 30 seconds -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shuttle lifted off more than 30 seconds ago! ~AH1(discuss!) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but over twenty minutes after takeoff we have had zero in the way of a substantive update. All we have so far is changes in tense of old content. That does not fulfil our minimum update citeria. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support A historic event. Please post ASAP. --hydrox (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please update the article with information about the launch first. The usual minimum is five sentences of prose and three references. At the moment the only information about the launch is a line in a table. Modest Geniustalk 15:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. What information can there be about a launch to cover five sentences? Core temperatures? Maximum velocity? I think we can make exceptions. The article is in a great shape and the lead sentence tells the reader it has launched. Its purpose, its goals, and literally every other aspect of the shuttle is there. Could we please post this? It's been under an hour now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's all kinds of stuff that could be posted in due time. Reaction to the launch, it reaching orbit successfully, new references. The fact that no fresh information is not available now does not mean that it will not be in the future. Rememebr the core purpose of ITN - to point users to newly updated content pertinent to what is in the news. It is has never been intended to be a news source in itself. There is little substantive new content yet and few additional references showing that it is even in the news. I am not disputing that it is, but the refs are what show that to be the case as per WP:V. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Go to any news site, and you'll find a report which says more than just 'it launched'. For a start, an explanation of the unscheduled hold at -31 seconds, and the clearing of the weather which had earlier made the launch look unlikely, should be added. I'm sure there are also various reaction statements that could be quoted. Modest Geniustalk 16:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really surprised when I checked Wikipedia just now that the last ever shuttle launch wasn't mentioned on the main page. This and the independence of South Sudan are today's pre-eminent historical events (and I'd put South Sudan first by the way). I always remember Wikipedia being much more clued up about science and technology than the ignorant mass media, so what's happened? 82.32.186.24 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absurd that this is not on the Main Page. Glacial pace on posting this story is inexplicable and inexcusable. Post the dang thing! Jusdafax 17:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
POST NOW. I've added another sentence and some references. The 5 sentence update is not a minimum; the criteria at WP:ITN says that 5 sentences is more than sufficient. I normally prefer a better update myself but given the strong consensus here and the historic nature of this moment, let's go ahead and post it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is minimally updated. Not much, but just about enough for our purposes. Marking ready. Modest Geniustalk 17:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think more than one section is updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attention administrators, we have a go for posting (can't resist).--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: South Sudan will become independent at 2100 UTC today (midnight July 9 local time). As we've previously extensively discussed, this is a definite posting for ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly ITN worthy, but we should wait until 21:00UTC today before posting. I also think that either of "country" or "state" is better than "nation" for the blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - definitly for ITN. huge historic news.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also support changing "nation" to "state". Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious it should be ITNR. though remove "becoming the worlds newest nation" that pretty ovbv ious too. maybe wikilink secession?Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think be need to wait until mid-night for this one. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Internationally-recognized new independant countries are a rare occurrence. The last one was Montenegro IIRC. ~AH1(discuss!) 15:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Creation of a new country is a significant event. Dough4872 15:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I question the assertion this is an ITNR item. The only possible criteria I could see is the succession of head of state but that seems to be pushing credibility. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Strong support. An obvious one - it will be major worldwide news tomorrow, and it's only the third new state created this century (the others being Timor-Leste in 2002 and Montenegro in 2006 - clearly a very significant event. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but also agree that waiting until the declaration occurs is prudent. Jusdafax 17:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suggest that "sovereign state" be used instead of just "state". --~Knowzilla(Talk) 18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The split occurred at 22:00 BST. Therefore, it's ready to go. --Marianian(talk) 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]
Obvious Support, but I feel the blurb could and should be a little longer. What about,
Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain still in the news. calls for a million man march in Cairo today. and also calls to continue democracy protests oin Morocco despite referendum.Lihaas (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What major new developments have there been? If there is a notable large march in Cairo, that should be nominated as a normal item. Otherwise I see no reason for another sticky - the last one was removed for good reasons. Modest Geniustalk 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Shooting made international headlines as shown above, being cited by media throughout the U.S., Canada, and the UK. Dough4872 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that this probably leads headlines in the US, but it's not something remotely ITN-worthy. Shooting sprees are common globally; that one particular one (almost always in the Western world) is picked up on by news media doesn't mean we need to give it coverage. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, for reference, I also opposed Alphen aan den Rijn. I would've supported Tucson because of Gabby Giffords, personally. Circumstances matter. And this shooting has nothing outstandingly newsworthy about it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, same reason as Strange Passerby. At this moment there is very little international coverage. I've checked French and Chinese news sources and neither of the country's media seems to consider this remotely close to being headline material. The 2011 Tuscon shooting, in contrast, did gain international attention very quickly. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the story wasn't quite there yet. Not everyone jumps on it straight away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tragic, but not really notable in the grand scheme of things. Doubt it will get much international coverage. Grandmasterka 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support shit its on the front page of Xinhua. That well known American news source. Guess which other story I saw on the front page of Xinhua while I was looking Casey Anthony - several days after the event. There really is a lot of whining opposes going on at the moment. Its vastly reducing our flow and makes the section untenable. Editors who continually oppose every item nominated are basically being disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that being on Xinhua.net = automatic ITN. There are literally dozens of articles on Xinhua at any moment. Here are a few examples: Harry Potter premiere held in London, U.S. obesity epidemic continues unabated...Do you think all these should be put on ITN?
Also, I don't have any empirical data here, but I highly doubt that the "flow" of news items onto the ITN has decreased in the past few years. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I checked the main version (i.e. simplified Chinese) of xinhua.net and the news about the shooting is nowhere near the headlines. It is in fact the 12th news item in the "international news" section. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. US domestic news. Mocctur (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making an argument that you've already lost before you even made it? Its being covered by the Chinese state media thus refuting your point completely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still primarily domestic news. Lots of people get killed around the world every day; such an incident is not really significant "in the grand scheme of things". Mocctur (talk) 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They don't normally make the front page of Xinhua. And plenty of things we post aren't "significant in the grand scheme of things". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust a source published by the Communist Party of China. Mocctur (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you trust the specific writing of Xinhua is irrelevant, the sheer fact that they are covering it proves that its internationally notable. Clearly they meet the reliable source criteria as they are used by other reliable sources all the time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An American gets a gun and shoots people. What's special about that? HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any shooting spree with more than six deaths is usually ITN material, while there was a police standoff and hostage crisis involved. We almost posted the Discovery channel hostage incident a year back. ~AH1(discuss!) 15:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only on the condition that WP:ITN doesn't report any more suicide bombings with casualties less than 100 people, bearing in mind that "international significance" is not a criterion for inclusion.--WaltCip (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A man holds thirty children and teachers hostage in a kindergarten in the city of Muar in Malaysia's Johor state; the hostages are all later rescued when police storm the classroom. (Edmonton Sun)
Humberto Leal García, a Mexican national, is executed in the US state of Texas despite concerns over whether the circumstances of his execution would breach international law. (BBC)
Casey Anthony is sentenced to four years for lying to law enforcement regarding the death of her child Caylee in the U.S. state of Florida but after credit for time served will be released on July 17. (Orlando Sentinel)
Support, high-circulation (CNN says highest, we don't even rank it) English-language newspaper brought down by a giant scandal. --Golbez (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: before the Americocentric brigade come in, this is the second highest circulating newspaper in Britain (after its sister paper), and the scandal is front-page news in America. Sceptre(talk) 16:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I saw this coming, and it wasn't a matter of if, but when. The magazine is 170 years old and plummeted in light of the scandal, which was very highly publicised around the world. Large repercussions as per nom, seeing as News Corporation is a huge company. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that isn't true - the Daily Sport closed just over three months ago, not that I think the whole "last time" thing is a particularly significant point to make. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article has to be updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait until Sunday when the final edition of the paper appears. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suport, but wait - I am in agreement with Mjroots to wait until Sunday. Given the economic incentives and questionable character(s) involved, let's see if anything develops further. Jusdafax 17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a significant story both in the UK and for a global media company. Bobtalk 17:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wide in impact and coverage. Wow. Severe repercussions were the only logical conclusion to this affair. Why did they do it? MarcusQwertyus 18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we can always post it again on Sunday. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, major scandal and the end of the UK's highest-circulation newspaper. I'm happy for this to be posted either immediately or on Sunday. The former would be better from a timeliness standpoint, but the latter would allow the article to be further improved first. Modest Geniustalk 18:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has a clear consensus and I think the article is ok to go up. I'm tempted to phrase the blurb in the passive voice, as the sources differ between whether News Corp or News International announced the closure, and because who announced it really isn't important. How about:
Support Definitely, per above. SwarmX 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as previous respondents. I see no reason to wait til Sunday and indeed it would be undesirable to do so. ITN reflects items that are in the news, not things we believe may be regarded as historical events. It's in the news now so why wait? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Posted the above blurb but please suggest any changes that might improve it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion to amend wondering if the wording might be tweaked to something like "The closure of News of the World is announced amid allegations that the British newspaper engaged in phone hacking, police bribery and a cover up". The story is also developing to draw and implicate a wider group than just the notw which might be looked at too, but I'll just offer the above as my suggestion for now.--Joopercoopers (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UN calls for two trillion dollars to avert 'global catastrophe'
Oppose "According to the study, $1.9 trillion per year will be needed over the next 40 years for incremental investments in green technologies, and at least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be made in developing countries to meet increasing food and energy demands." What's the major news here? That humanity is approaching a carrying capacity quite rapidly? That isn't really ITN-worthy news. Google News puts the number of articles reporting on this at ~20. NW(Talk) 12:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The news is that the United Nations is endorsing a two trillion dollar push toward green technologies to avert major planetary catastrophe. Didn't you read the blurb? That's plenty notable in my view. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What's news is that the UN and its Secretary General are saying so bluntly. Of course, a story about the UN urgently noting the need to avert planetary catastrophe may not sell as many newspapers as the latest sensational murder trial. But this story is in the news and it could be considered of importance, in my view. Jusdafax 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the UN is calling for spending more money. So what? I would support if a country or countries actually backed the initiative, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Hot Stop(c) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; nothing groundbreaking and no new factual/scientific breakthroughs on the issue. Juliancolton (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a significant announcement by a significant organization. How to actually accomplish it is different chapter. --Kslotte (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The UN regularly makes calls for various good causes, and those calls are just as regularly mostly ignored by the public, the newsmedia and the politicians. Unless there is an indication of this particular story taking off (e.g. extensive international newscoverage or the political leaders actually acting on this plea by the UN), this item does not belong in the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless that money is actually pledged. 'Calls for' isn't enough here, serious as the problem is (but then that's been known for decades). Modest Geniustalk 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing groundbreaking, as noted. Mocctur (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No real action yet. UN has been involved in this for years. The IPCC won a Nobel Prize, this doesn't compare. — Yk3talk ~ contrib 10:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not too often now-a-days that international borders change. In this case, of course, it is just the settlement of a never-agreed-before sea border, but still - the sea border line will now be shown differently on Russian (and, presumably, Norwegian) maps from how it has been shown before. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support border disputes are highly notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose, first off, the article is totally unsuited for being featured on the main page (it's a stub). Secondly, this treaty has been known for a year, and enters force as scheduled, nothing groundbreaking in that. It's not a real (land) border dispute, but a dispute over the marine border in some faraway place. Mocctur (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the WP:STUB tag. It clearly is not a stub anymore. The article isn't long but it certainly is long enough to feature on the front page. The update could be a bit more substantial though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is clearly a stub, it's less than one page of text. The material on the marine border and the treaty from last year, which is the issue here, makes up only one short section. This is in no way sufficient for the main page, in order to be main page material the article would need significant expansion (10 times longer?), including significant expansion on the treaty in question (there is not a separate article on the treaty, just a short article on the Norway–Russia border. Most of the article's contents deal with the land border and are unrelated to the issue being discussed here.). Mocctur (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:STUBis an article containing only a few sentences of text. 'One full page of text' is far more than needed for the article to not be a stub. Heck, new articles for ITN only require three paragraphs. Also, saying the article needs to be expanded 10 times longer is waaaaaaay over ITN standards. Again, three paragraphs is considered sufficient. The article here is well over that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a stub as far as ITN is concerned, and it's a stub because it's very, very lacking. There are less then ten sentences on this not-so-new treaty from last year. The rest of the contents have little (actually nothing) to do with neither the marine border nor the treaty. Three paragraphs are certainly not enough for an article to be featured on the main page. If there was an existing, in-depth article on the marine border and/or treaty in question, that would be a different matter. Most articles featured on the main page are indeed roughly ten times longer. Mocctur (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who had had no contributions to this page until 5 July, you claim to know a lot about what is "a stub as far as ITN is concerned". As far as ITN is concerned, this article isn't a stub — 24 January 2011 Iraq bombings is shorter than this and was posted, because it met the requirements. If it meets the update requirements and has the support, it'll be posted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of interest and significant news. Jusdafax 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article needs more work on the section of the sea boarder, may be some art work. Having explained the two parties negotiating positions, no indication of the outcome is given. Mtking (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious support coming into force of an international treaty, particularly to resolve an intl dispute. It should be ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support'. An economically significant treaty which ends a 44-year old border dispute. It will make it possible to exploit huge oil and gas deposits in the area. I have added more content to the article. A map about the new border would be great to have. The border could be simply drawn on this map - any volunteers? Nanobear (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The article has been improved, the event is significant. GreyHoodTalk 08:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The marine border section does need a map, to be in balance with the other maps in the article. I did find it really confusing at first look. And, linking directly to section to clearify.
2011 Egyptian revolution: A court in Suez upholds the release of police accused of killing 17 people during the popular revolution that ousted the regime of Hosni Mubarak from power; family members attack police cars and the court building as a result. There is a call for 1 million people to demonstrate in Tahrir Square on Friday. (BBC)(Al Jazeera)
5 Belarusian journalists are sentenced to administrative arrests ranging from 3 to 12 days for attending unsanctioned rallies in Minsk and other cities. (RIA Novosti)
Irish government lawmaker Denis Naughten votes against his own government over cuts to a hospital, amid protests by hundreds of people outside Dáil Éireann; he now faces expulsion from Fine Gael with the hospital's emergency department to close on Monday. (Irish Examiner)(The Irish Times)(RTÉ)
The French ship Dignity Al Karama is reported to have successfully reached international waters and is heading for the Gaza Strip, with hopes expressed that the remaining unsabotaged ships currently being held by Greek authorities will soon join it. (The Voice of Russia)
Israeli officials are reported to be boycotting a United Nations official over an unpublished report concerning the part played by Israeli forces in the recent deaths of 7 Palestinian protesters during the annual Nakba commemorations. (BBC)
Support pending expansionCan some one with Knowledge on Bollywood expand the article? I would like to support this but the article could use some work. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 23:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Death is of little international interest. Article is in terrible shape. SwarmX 02:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--based on the current state of the article. His entire career is summed up in 6 short paragraphs, 2 of which are only one sentence.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not widely known, article too short. Mocctur (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hardly even see any national coverage on this on any of the news channels amidst all the temple treasure, corruption and doping news reports. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tragic, but he was 83 and, according to the article He died in Rome after being hospitalized for several days, and had cancer for many years. Not exactly a household name and not a sudden or unexpected death, so not suitable for ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The host city will be announced tomorrow. As far as I remember, we post such announcements. Provided the article update and other regular stuff... --Tone 20:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is in good shape and will draw plenty of interest. Contingent on an update of course. RxS (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in the instructions at the top of this page, Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot, creating them manually breaks this process. The last time someone did this it made a complete mess of the page. The correct place for this nomination would be WP:ITN/FE (where it has already been nominated); however for the moment I'll move it down to July 5 until the bot has been through. Modest Geniustalk 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- As nominator in WP:ITN/FE. Maybe Pyeongchang if they are elected needs improvement.Hektor (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note2018 Winter Olympics doesn't seem to mention that South Korea won the bidding process. The timer's red, so it would be nice to get this posted, but wee need an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it does mention South Korea won the bid. GreyHoodTalk 17:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sting cancels a performance in Astana, Kazakhstan, in support of striking oil and gas workers and calls for "the spotlight of the international media [to be shone] on their situation in the hope of bringing about positive change". (The Guardian)
British tabloid the News of the World faces fresh allegations linking it to hacking activities, this time after it emerges that the mobile phone of murdered 13-year-old schoolgirl Milly Dowler was interfered with and messages left by relatives were deleted. This gave relatives the false impression that Milly Dowler was still alive when she was not. (BBC)(Al Jazeera)
Colin Stagg, the man who was falsely accused of Rachel Nickell's 1992 murder on Wimbledon Common, is informed that he too had his phone hacked by the News of the World, as many as six years after he was acquitted. Robert Napper later admitted responsibility. (The Guardian)
In an unusual move, House of Commons Speaker John Bercow allows an emergency debate to discuss the possibilities of a public inquiry and of a cover-up, occurring in the House of Commons tomorrow. (The Guardian)
Both The Sun and Daily Mirror tabloid newspapers are accused of being in contempt of court for publishing articles about the arrest of Christopher Jefferies in relation to the murder of Joanna Yeates; Jefferies was later released without charge. British Attorney General Dominic Grieve is seeking to bring charges against the newspapers. Judges will make a decision on the case at a later date.(BBC)(The Belfast Telegraph)
13 UK Uncut activists appear in court on charges of aggravated trespass after peacefully occupying the luxury London food retailer Fortnum & Mason during a protest against tax avoidance in March. More than 100 other activists are also expected to be put on trial later, with Labour MP John McDonnell claiming such a trial would be "outrageous" and "fly in the face of public opinion". (The Guardian)
25-year-old navy medic Michael Lyons is found guilty in Plymouth of refusing to attend rifle training; Lyons says he developed a moral objection to the war in Afghanistan due to revelations made public by WikiLeaks. (The Guardian)
Nominator's comments: Obviously needs an article first, if it's decided to be notable enough. I'm concerned it may not be notable enough, but 200 deaths is pretty high, even for a boat sinking. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when we have an adequate article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Will help out as much as I can with updates tomorrow if an article is started. MarcusQwertyus 01:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - Were they really illegal immigrants? All of them? Are we sure? Racists in my country love to rebadge asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. They didn't actually arrive anywhere, so calling them immigrants seems doubtful anyway. We can't ask them or read their minds. Best be certain here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we ever get to posting this, it's probably best to simply say 'migrants'. I believe the BBC used that term.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No article, and probably (sad to say) not a lot of ongoing interest. ITN is not a headline news service and all that... RxS (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watch for developments this has potential to develop into a sorta-fleshed stand-alone article. –HTD 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not normal to name an article about a ship sinking after the name of the ship (which I'd have to look up), rather than the place it happened?--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was reading about this on the BBC today, seems like a very high profile story with very high interest. Yes its overblown media hype, yes its "not notable" blah blah blah, but it is certainly of interest to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go! :) Seriously though, 147.5 views on the day of the closing arguments, God knows how many people would go there now. –HTD 18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article with three cleanup tags is not appropriate for the Main page. Even if this was not the case, the DSK story has bigger coverage and international significance as well, while the latter is not the case here. 147.5 k views or not. It's just a proof that people are able to get to the article even if it is not featured on the Main page. --Tone 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all or nothing here. If there'll be half a million page views today, there's a strong case for this to be included. If it's less than 250k, not so much, and if less than 100k, close to nil. –HTD 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as the article contains several tags as mentioned above. --candle•wicke 20:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if this article were an FA, I don't think I would feel comfortable supporting. This is simply an offshoot of missing white woman syndrome; I don't see any reason for us to promote that. Yes, I read Eraserhead1's argument; I simply disagree entirely. NW(Talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing to add to NW. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support this, it is current, but it will interest many readers and get them hooked. It is notable, watch any news station or any news website. It's not that hard. JoeGazz ▲ 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
God No! The media created and perpetuated this spectacle. This not Micheal Jackson, OJ Simpson, or other notable figures. This poor BLP1E woman who obviously has serious issues not the least of which that of Media howling for blood. Lets not further her suffering. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been called numerous times the biggest televised murder trial since OJ Simpson, and it has received attention from all over the world. Certainly notable and certainly of interest to readers. I don't see any problem with promoting a concept that NW fabricated. SwarmX 21:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something that I fabricated? How long have you been on Wikipedia? By now, you surely know what a wikilink is, right? NW(Talk) 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should limit ITM items to only those you've heard of? RxS (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Definitely not. Equally, we should ignore claims of the form "certainly of interest to readers". This "news" is tabloid sensationalism. The arguments in support are on the same level. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it has had 147,500 views today its obviously of interest to readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloid media gets big ratings too. Doesn't make it newsworthy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being discussed internationally by reliable sources does though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Than why did you have a one word oppose comment consisting of "who?". And by the way, topics "of interest to readers" is the reason why ITN exists. We are here to provide articles on topics people are interested and that are both updated and in the news. I have no idea why that concept is so hard to remember... RxS (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is tabloid fodder, and an item of little encyclopaedic or enduring interest which will be forgotten in a few years time. Page view statistics are irrelevant, since popularity does not indicate importance. Modest Geniustalk 22:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds similar to the OJ Simpson case, which shit, is still being discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, OJ Simpson was notable as football player before and after the case. This woman was not notable before the case and few will be discuss the case in months time. Media frenzy does not mean it is ITN material. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about OJ Simpson's football playing now, and they certainly never cared outside the US. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big news (#2 story on BBC), although it looks like the article needs a very good polishing before we can post it. N419BH 00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC tailor's its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page in your country does not mean it is anywhere else. Seen from South Africa (where I am currently) it's nowhere to be found on the front page, not even in the 'US & Canada' section. Modest Geniustalk 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's very good to know, thank you. I continue to support the inclusion of this item. It's not just the tabloids (though they've definitely had their sensationalist stories with this one). It's been all over cable news, national network news, and local network news here, as well as the mainstream papers. Perhaps the coverage internationally is more tabloid than mainstream. Here it's most definitely both. If anything, the entire case now speaks to the dangers of coming to premature conclusions, as most of the media, including mainstream media, seemed to decide the woman would be found guilty. This is more than just a story of a dead two year old. N419BH 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has international notability. Tired of real news anyway. MarcusQwertyus 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article is in deplorable shape. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Oppose, mostly per NW. This whole trial has been about the sensationalist media more than the case itself. Were this actually to hit the main page, we would be just as bad as they are. I get why people think it's notable or noteworthy, but last I checked we don't succumb to tabloid fodder on here. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nowhere else in the world does a murder case get this much coverage. The fact that it's happened in the US and was covered by tabloids means that much of this global media coverage is simply hyped up and I'm not buying it. This is not ITN material. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In our place, the Vizconde massacre is in the news for 20 years now since it started in 1991. Twenty years. (The slow justice system also has to do with it, but still.) The U.S. is not the only place such events get coverage. As stated below, the Dutch politician was also posted with no opposition. If ITN only "temporarily" opposed that, why is it heavily, and with no good reason, opposing this one now? –HTD 05:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or there's the Soham murders, which still provoke extremely strong feelings today though it doesn't get much worse than murdering defenceless 10-year-olds, or the Murder of Milly Dowler or any number of other sickening crimes that people commit. I'm not !voting either way, but just thought I'd point out it's not just the American press (or even just the tabloids) that get themselves worked up about horrible murders (particularly those of middle-class, young white women). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, media frenzy, and it seems the sensationalist tabloid media got it wrong anyway, pre-convicting someone later found not guilty. Please let's not feed that frenzy. It should be beneath us. I can only suspect that those supporting this have been swept up in the frenzy, and can see no harm in it. Frenzy is not news! HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You already opposed once. I would kindly ask you to remove the oppose vote from your comment. Truthsort (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ironically because it is in the news. All over the news. To the point of absurdity.--WaltCip (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, a U.S.-centric item was bombarded by knee-jerk opposes. Where were you during the Dutch politician was adden in ITN? Doesn't mean that he's Dutch means it is more "international" which no longer is part our criteria. How about the Vizconde massacre? It's nomination only got one oppose, and "temporarily" if I may add. No one screamed "who?" there.
Seriously, U.S. items here aren't getting fair treatment. If this was an Irish girl we'd be screaming at the absence of admins.
One million views, that's more than the World Cup. It'll be an absolute travesty if the won't get posted unless someone comes up with a better reason why this should not be posted, aside from "who?", "it happened in the US", and "this is tabloid fodder" n(as it has been covered by serious media). –HTD 03:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media frenzies should be ignored wherever they're from. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ignore media frenzies during sporting events or when they Dutch politician was acquitted. –HTD 04:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this Dutch politician you're obsessed with? HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I can't help you (LOL). All I know was that Dutch guy was also acquitted and the ITN/C nomination was never opposed. You just gotta trust me on this lol –HTD 04:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that I can't remember it nor you haven't screamed "Who?" at that nomination further reinforces my point. –HTD 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for not commenting on this hypothetical Dutch politician is almost certainly that I missed seeing it when this page dropped off my Watchlist for a few days. I have no idea of the merits or otherwise of his case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change things. That guy got a free pass. This one, because it originated in the U.S., doesn't. –HTD 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons have nothing to do with the country of origin. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This case has been oversimplified as "tabloid fodder" when it isn't. –HTD 05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently HTD is referring to the Geert Wilders case. This was big news in the EU. The differences to this case are obvious: Geert Wilders is the leader of the third largest party in Holland, a member of the parliament and a well-recognized politician in Europe, and to some degree even worldwide. The general feeling was that the result of his trial had much wider political effects EU-wide than just dropping the criminal charges. This woman, meanwhile, is only known for being accused for the murder of her child. If you opposed the Geert Wilders nomination, why didn't you open your mouth back then? It is perfectly okay to comment on the nominations after their posting as well. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Irish Times or any of the sources listed above has the same track record as the National Enquirer.
Seriously, WP:NOTNEWS is the most misquoted policy, especially on AFDs. Not because it's in the news means you can invoke WP:NOTNEWS –HTD 04:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the more mainstream media is really covering here is the fact the sensationalist, tabloid media got it wrong when they created the earlier media frenzy about this case. Did the BBC report on the child's disapearance when it first happened? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there is coverage, yes? By mainstream media, yes? So what's keeping us from posting this? –HTD 04:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the real news is that this was a misdirected media frenzy all along. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your a media critic now? Eight hours after not having heard of the subject? RxS (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has a point though. But doesn't change things. Can someone one brief me on the criteria that we use? I tried reading it but couldn't make sense of it. –HTD 05:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I disagree, or at least find the point irrelevant. Media frenzy (whatever that means) can only survive when there's interest in the subject. I'm wondering why we feel like we need to filter what people read at ITN in terms of the seriousness of the subject. ITN criteria doesn't speak to media frenzys. RxS (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We gotta filter something though. My "personal ITNR" for potential ITN blurbs is that when it has more than 250k views (the number of views during the World Cup), that should be posted as long as the article is tidy and updated. Then I saw Jamie Lynn Spears page views when she announced that she was pregnant hovered around 300k so we should probably filter a little. Is this one of the times we should filter? No, as it has been covered by mainstream media, in depth. –HTD 05:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, well... a mother allegedly abuses and then kills her daughter, is hauled through the courts and is found not guilty is, well, pretty sad, but unfortunately happens all over the world on a daily basis. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 03:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant media coverage worldwide. Nevard (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we have is that the news today, widely reported in reliable sources, is that Casey Anthony has been found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer, and nothing else. That is apparently major news because the tabloid media earlier effectively convicted her of murder. So, unfortunately, does our article. Now that she has been found not guilty of murder, a lot of that article can be seen as speculation, and possibly close to breaching our guidelines on WP:BLP. For example, why on earth mention garbage in the boot of her car that somebody thought smelt like a dead body? Given today's finding, the article is a disaster. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's something that can be remedied ("the article is a disaster") unlike the earlier point that you really can't do anything since it is the subject of the article. Well... it still is, but at least that can remedied. But we all know even if it's an FA (as stated by someone above), people would be still be opposing (LOL), so we'd need an admin that has the balls to post this once the article is cleaned up. –HTD 05:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I still oppose it on the basis that the claimed major news coverage is actually coverage of the fact that someone has been found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable. It's ONLY notable because of an earlier media frenzy that did not involve reputable major news services. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in the criteria, and whether or not mainstream media did not care about this in the early part of the case is immaterial. What matters if if it's getting coverage now and if people are interested now. We don't have to be philosophical about it. That's the concern of the pundits. –HTD 05:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand as to how simply being a media frenzy disqualifies this on being placed on the front page. This has been building up since 2008 and the verdict made it even more notable. I would also like to comment that the article is in much better shape now. Truthsort (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And last I checked the BBC, New York Times and other sources listed above are fairly reputable. Hot Stop(c) 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's getting as much attention as the DSK saga. Why it's getting that attention isn't our concern. Hot Stop(c) 05:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready?], the article has now been cleaned up. The viewing figures are well over the point where the fact that its celebrity gossip counts against it, and it has been covered internationally by reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Counting down before someone removes [Ready?] in 5... 4... 3... –HTD 06:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ignoring what I have posted. The attention it's getting from reliable sources is that someone was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable.
Oh, and re the DSK comparisons (is he the mystical "Dutch politician"?), surely he had a more significant role in world affairs than Casey Anthony, i.e. already notable without tabloid attention. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not DSK. Everyone knows who DSK is when he got arrested. Nobody seem to remember who this Dutch guy even after he was acquitted. –HTD 06:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HiLO48: The attention it's getting from reliable sources is that someone was found guilty of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That's NOT notable. The charges of lying to an officer are not the notable charges in this trial, it is the other three charges that are more significant and have shown to be notable enough to receive international coverage. Truthsort (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is that discussion. For the record I would say getting acquitted of murder is more notable than beating hate speech chargers, which apparently you don't agree with TS. Hot Stop(c) 06:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the comment I wrote in italics came from HiLo48 and if you see the part not in italics, that is my comment respoonding to him and arguing that this case is notable. Not sure you saw but I am the nominator of this. Truthsort (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that there was zero opposition on that one too. Imagine if that was a U.S. politician who died that came from Massachusetts who was an assassinated president's brother.
Hey can someone look at what's trending in Ireland on Twitter... –HTD 06:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People get acquitted of murder quite often around the world, and, quite rightly, most cases don't appear here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But a murder trial in Orlando usually doesn't trend in Ireland on Twitter, right? –HTD 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And get international coverage around the world? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Screw international coverage. If it trended in Ireland it's something. :P –HTD 06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys really do struggle to get your heads around the two levels of activity here. First we had sensationalist tabloid media frenzy creating an expectation of an exciting murder trial with all sorts of soapie style action (something not relevant to ITN, or it would already have been here), then we had responsible journals reporting a not guilty verdict, reporting only made necessary by the earlier tripe. What the responsible journals have reported is not notable news. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The media in Malaysia and China don't have to follow a US tabloid frenzy... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone in the U.S. who usually supports news items solely on the basis of the amount of coverage, I feel obliged to morally oppose adding this per most of the opposes above. Grandmasterka 07:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't mind U.S.-centric items from time to time, and I occasionally enjoy reading tabloids, but I will have to agree with HiLo48. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of people are following this story in America, Europe and Asia- yet it's dismissed as "U.S.-centric" and "media frenzy"? God forbid there's a royal wedding or a former crown prince dies, but actual international news? Hell no. Why would we post that shit? A Habsburg has died! Maybe someday we'll actually post news according to its professional coverage, rather than relying on a few people with nothing better to do than to declare what is and isn't important in the news. I doubt it though. SwarmX 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The stated goal of WP:ITN is to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. The view statistics of the article, combined with the worldwide mainstream media coverage, demonstrate that this story is of wide interest. It should not be the job of ITN editors to decide what our readers should be interested in. I sympathize with Hilo's concern about the way this story has been reported in the media and how the woman has been convicted by said media, but ultimately, ITN is not an online newspaper and does not have to follow, or be judged by, the same ethical standards that news sources do. The main concern is--is the article up to date and in good shape, and does it pass concerns related to WP:BLP? If it does, I'm fine with it. As there appears to be a consensus that the article is indeed in good shape, I'll go ahead and mark this ready, despite the opposition. As always, an admin will ultimately have to decide on this one. Regarding two specific objections: a) Missing white woman syndrome-- I always cringe at this objection. It's basically playing the race card. It has dubious academic credibility. (the WP article does not cite a single academic source) It also implies that if the victim were non-white it would be notable. Obviously, the case shouldn't be more notable because of someone's race. However, I have no objection to a story being more notable because the victim was a young girl. A young girl is the most helpless of victims and there's nothing immoral IMO that such a murder generates greater sympathy. b) 'Tabloid fodder'--Frankly, we crossed that line when we posted not only the royal wedding but the engagement as well. I realize that for many people the wedding of a future head of state is not 'tabloid fodder' but I guess one man's tabloid fodder is another man's serious news story. True crime is a topic of very wide interest and also a subject of serious study.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly what "true crime" do we have here? Making a false statement to police? Murder has not been proven, except in the sad minds of the manipulated tabloid audience. HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The victim was found dead in a plastic bag with her mouth duct-taped; it goes beyond reasonable doubt that some crime was committed by someone. True crime does not necessarily refer to solved crimes with the criminal convicted; it refers to the investigation and possible trial as well, which there certainly was. Many people are just as fanscinated by unsolved murders (e.g. the Whitechapel murders) as they are by ones resulting in a conviction.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. In case this gets posted it will immediately get pulled because of a clear lack of consensus. And pulling items is not something we want on ITN. (I opposed posting the royal engagement as well but this story is far less relevant in the wider picture). What would make it relevant would be triggering changes in the law of something of that scale. --Tone 12:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The now multiple, then reverted declarations of Ready on this topic weaken the the case even more. On each occasion it has been done while ignoring valid criticism. More like bullying than discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, marking [Ready?] when there is no consensus makes little sense, therefore I removed it. And however I look at the case, I cannot see a consensus here. --Tone 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear. I support your removal action. It's the unjustified, unilateral action that led you to it that's the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood, I just wanted to make it clearer. --Tone 13:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I marked it 'ready', as I stated above, because I felt there was a consensus that at least the article was updated; I conceded there was opposition but it's not a !vote. Marking it ready doesn't put it on the front page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has had too much publicity IMO and is serving more as entertainment for the media and U.S. rather than having a significant impact globally.--NortyNort(Holla) 12:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (not that it means too much now) - we're not some sort of tabloid-battling force, it's not as though us posting this is tantamount to "becoming one of them" or whatever the reason is for people opposing this. Listen. I don't like US-centric stuff on ITN, but this is certainly an exception. The fact that it's been floating about globally as well as across the states is proof it's at least remotely interesting to a wide audience, and that is what we're for - showing off stuff that's in the news. Whether or not a tabloid or three have also been reporting on it is none of our concern. 狐 Déan rolla bairille! 18:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Worldwide coverage and widespread interest around the world for this mind-bending case stranger than fiction. And with a surprise ending to boot. To all who claim this is sensationalism: you're idiots. This was not some ordinary murder trial. If it was, it would not have captivated people at the level it has captivated. People simply do not get this interested for murder trials.
And yes, it has been highly publicised. Does that make it any less notable? Hell no! It makes it MORE notable for the reason I just stated. The opponents here who make you think the opposite are simply hardcore non-conformists who simply hate anything mainstream, and are using ITN as a medium to express this. We saw it with the Charlie Sheen affair, with the Lindsey Lohan sentencing (which I opposed as well, FWIW), and anything after the 15th nomination for the Arab Spring. These people seem to want to look better and more sophisticated than everyone else, claiming that these types of stories are just "tabloid fodder" and are therefore meaningless. But get this: they then turn around and oppose any death not sensational enough for their standards!
I'm sorry if this looks like a personal attack, but it's extremely ignorant and it had to be said. It's disrupting the process here at ITN and it's the main reason this section is dying slowly out of existence. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are posting a hell of a lot more content now than we were before and there have been substantial improvements - in June we posted 54 items, or one every 13.3 hours on average, between the 24th October and the 25th January only 100 items were posted which is a rate of one every 20.6 hours. I agree though about there being some issues, such as the way this has been discussed still remaining. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking [Ready?] given the strong arguments at the bottom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (already !voted) Newsworthiness and significance are both factors for ITN. This has none of the latter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-read ITN's purpose. I don't see significance mentioned anywhere in that. Additionally you can't !vote twice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - forgot I weighed in here. "Significance" has it's own heading under "Criteria" on the ITN page. In any case, editors are entitled to take their own view on what they consider ITN's purpose should be - that's why things get resolved by consensus on this page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong support - the biggest trial since OJ simpson, and the sentence itself makes it itn news.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a local news story in significance only, no matter what the trainwreck aspect of it. 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Local story? have you been sleeping in the woods for the last month or so? haha.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I have to say it again. It's been tabloid trash for most of its life, much like the love lives of footballers and movie stars. Quality sources got involved for the trial, at which someone was found guilty of lying to police. I really didn't think that two stage process was too complicated, but it clearly is for some. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johnsemlak made the most constructive comment in the conversation so far. The purpose of the WP:ITN section is: a. "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" / b. "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events" / c. "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" / d. "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource". This was obviously big news worldwide, as nobody expected a verdict of "not guilty." Thus, it fulfills a, globally. Wikipedia article is extensive, and although it had some tags this was, and is, receiving so much visibility even without ITN, that article is already up to standards (kudos to contributors). Fulfills b & d. I conclude with: we shouldn't too much select stories based on our own likings here (notable/not notable, yellow/white press), as ITN is not part of the encyclopedia content, but a web portal for users and editors to find current content. Sometimes enough press is just enough, even if it's yellow. --hydrox (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason "nobody expected the not guilty verdict" was because of the earlier "who's kissing who in Hollywood" type coverage from the tabloid press, stuff that would be unacceptable here now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't have been that significant without the "not guilty" verdict. Another pathetic criminal sent to prison, who cares? This is a very interesting case from the legal perspective as well. I had never heard of this case before opening the local newspaper this morning, several thousand kilometers away. Actually, the "not guilty" verdict makes this case so peculiar, that it is easily of random interest to the readers. I feel like it fits all the four purposes of the ITN now. --hydrox (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - After a careful re-reading of the criteria outlined in the 'Significance' section (italics are mine) at WP:ITN:
"Unlike the TFA and Did you know sections of the Main Page, ITN rejects items deemed trivial. The criterion was previously written as "a story of international importance or interest". This standard is highly subjective and the focus of much of the disagreement over particular candidates. The most common form of opposition on this ground is that the news is "too local" and not of interest to people in the commenter's country of origin." (End ITN quote) Please note that I do not Oppose because this is a USA-centric story, but because the story is trivial compared to our standards. I am unswayed by arguments that the story is famous for being famous, while at the same time I find I'm unmoved by many of the opposes which seem to be WP:DONTLIKEIT... indeed, I am dismayed by what I view as the low quality of reasoning on both sides. Jusdafax 02:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I remain in support of the nomination, I accept this as a valid objection, as I can see how someone may view this as 'trivial'.
That said, I find that criterion somewhat troubling. The term 'trivial' is, in addition to being rather subjective in application, is mildly derogatory and IMO an unhelpful descriptor of ITN criteria, particularly with no examples given. I think we can all agree that we want to exclude 'trivial' events from ITN, but getting everyone to agree on what is trivial is a common source of debate on this forum. In this example, we have an otherwise non-notable event that has been given extensive news coverage and notoriety--and in the opinion of many editors here--notability. In many ways here we are debating, not for the first time, whether a human interest story is suitable for ITN. One could compare this story to the recent Strauss-khan case, where person was charged of a crime, subjected to intense media scrutiny, and then relieved of all or most of the charges. One example is 'automatically' notable because the person was notable in their own right, or a least in charge of a very notable organization. The other person had no such notability, the kind of 'ordinary' person unworthy of their own Wikipedia article; and yet the trial has captured the interest of many people for whatever reason.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnsemlak, for the obliging manner in which you term my objection as "valid" which I take as quite a compliment, given that such acknowledgment is rare from a !vote at odds with one's own on this page. In fact, yours was the opinion that resolved me to refresh my understanding of the actual criteron at ITN. Regarding your last sentence, my personal views of the international media are, or should be, beyond the scope of this discussion, leaving us to debate, as you note, what we find to be "trivia." I agree that it may not be the the best operative word as ITN policy, but at the moment it is what we have. Jusdafax 07:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose there are large amount of interesting cases that get a lot of worldwide media attention. atleast at minimum ITN should focus on cases in highest courts such as supreme court... which may in some way change the law of a country. this case does nothing to anyone. yes its a sad crime by whoever committed it but not for ITN -- Ashish-g55 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting way to look at it but I think there are other ways a trial can be notable besides being in a high-level court. The article asserts the case broke new ground in forensic science which is a notable aspect.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but will this be posted as legal item or scientific item? i would support if idea behind it was new forensic science techniques or something similar but i dont think thats what others are looking for here... -- Ashish-g55 11:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ordinarily I believe that we should largely defer to the judgement of reliable sources about notability and significance of particular events - and there is certainly plenty of coverage here. However, for ITN inclusion one does need to draw the line somewhere: there needs to be at least some inherent significance and importance, based on our own subjective judgement, for a particular event to be listed as an ITN item. For example, the murder of Matthew Shepard and the trial of his killers significantly advanced gay rights debate in the U.S. and resulted in much new hate crime legislation. The O.J. trial became a significant moment in terms of the race relations in the U.S. In the case of Casey Anthony's trial I just don't see any inherent significance - no political or social or international importance of any kind, as far as I can tell. Just a sad story overblown by tabloidish U.S. media for no rational reason. Deserves an article on WP but not inclusion in the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. US domestic news, not significant. Mocctur (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Same as what many users have said above. Tabloid material, no international significance at all. I don't care if this case gets as many hits as Britney Spear's latest single, it is not encyclopaedic material. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable. A separate article, however, would be wellcome.Olegwiki (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, drought cannot be the focus article. Support in principle. --Tone 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be sensationalist with nominations. Section title "At least 9 million people" and drought as the target article? What? Are we in a game of charades? What's next, a death of a VIP in San Marino and we'd have "history" as the target article with the matching "An entire country mourns" as the section title? I know selling an ITN blurb and its corresponding cute little notices on user talk pages are really sought after by some of the people here (probably the Wikicup or something) as if they're FAs, but this is bordering on being sad and pathetic. –HTD 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horn of Africa#Drought was what I intended actually. I should have checked again after I saved. I'm not sure it's much better either but I couldn't find anything else. Maybe someone else can. And yes, at least 9 million people. The source says at least 9 million. I don't think there is any other way of saying that apart from saying that it is at least 9 million people. It isn't often that a nomination is made involving 9 million people. On the other hand, the blurb says "millions of people" but that seems a bit vague. I'm sorry to have made a nomination at all if it is considered "sad and pathetic" by some, any or all. --candle•wicke 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Horn of Africa article: "Drought is a predictable event in the Horn of Africa's semi-arid and arid climate"... it loses notability if this is the target article, but a separate one would be better. SpencerT♦C 00:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's a massive drought in Texas too. That would never make it. Hot Stop(c) 13:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support noone's going to die in the Texas drought as everyone there is rich enough to buy food from elsewhere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If an updated article/section can be worked out. I'm not sure the target section in the blurb focuses enough on the point the blurb is trying to make. RxS (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We're not crusaders for under-reported news stories; we actually want to present an encyclopedia article for the headline. No decent article content covers this thing whatsoever. SwarmX 08:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Now the prosecutors are withdrawing the charges. Crnorizec (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support internationally significant person and highly publicized charge. Watch out for Tristane Banon.--NortyNort(Holla) 13:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just as the arrest and charges were significant, the withdrawal of the charges is just as significant in this long-running saga, and it is most definitely "in the news". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: "An unnamed senior investigator said the eventual dismissal of charges was "a certainty", according to the New York Post"— I agree that the conclusion of this incident should be covered but lets wait till it is official. jorgenev 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because WP jumped the gun by announcing mere charges, journalistic ethics require us to tell the rest of the story. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense whatsoever. An allegation is not news; official legal proceedings are. --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when officially withdrawn - And I'd support mention of new charges, if they are filed in France. Jusdafax 18:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong oppose because we don't post things on ITN on the basis of comments by an "an unnamed senior investigator" Have our verifiability standards fallen this low, people? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Mkativerata. --candle•wicke 20:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Mkativerata who almost took the words right out of my mouth. Even if this was attributed the comments of a single individual outside of court do not amount to a formal dropping of the charges. Without attribution this is altgoether more speculative still. Let's wait for this to happen instead of crytal ball gazing and reporting what might happen, shall we? Crispmuncher (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose as premature. Wait until it's official. N419BH 00:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Syrian uprising: Government troops arrive in Hama in buses to raid houses and arrest civilians following the mass popular anti-government protests there on Friday. Tanks laying siege to the city move north to other villages. (BBC)
Sony Corp. says that it will fully restore all the PlayStation Network videogame services in Japan, which will complete worldwide restoration of those services, disrupted in April. (Reuters)
Ratko Mladić is removed from his hearing after he is ruled to have spoken out of turn while asking that he have his own lawyer instead of one appointed by the court, then quarrelling with the judge to be allowed speak. (BBC)
Sir Hugh Orde, President of the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers, announces that key policing services are being left "unfunded" as a result of cuts. (BBC)
At his trial Japanese man Tatsuya Ichihashi admits to killing British teacher Lindsay Ann Hawker whose body was found in a bathtub in 2007. (BBC)
Karim Wade, son of Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade, issues a strong denial of speculation that his father plans to pass on power to him as if he were a monarch. (BBC)
President of the United StatesBarack Obama is falsely declared dead by the Twitter account of the U.S. broadcaster Fox News in a series of messages stating, "@BarackObama has just passed. The President is dead" and "BREAKING NEWS: @BarackObama assassinated, 2 gunshot wounds have proved too much". Hackers are blamed though the messages remain online several hours later. (BBC)(AP via The Sydney Morning Herald)(CNN)
Thousands of people turn out to cheer on Hugo Chávez upon his return to Caracas; he vows to win back his health and describes the support of his people as "the best medicine for whatever illness". (BBC)
Are we going to post him everytime he gets convicted for something? :D He is not going to serve his time anyway. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. As long as this is in absentia, it does not contribute much to the overall story. --Tone 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article should be Telangana movement in this case, specifically the April-July 2011 section, which has a three-sentence update. However the article is in poor shape in terms of the prose. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if/when the new state is created. This would be an important event in India. --Tone 19:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A highly influential figure in post-WWI Europe. Article needs updating though. Nightw 10:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important royal and political figure of the 20th century. We usually omit posting deaths of royal members, but this one should be excluded by the virtue that von Habsburg pretended the throne almost 40 years, afterwards was active in politics and received highly notable acknowledgements.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A crown prince pretender 1921–1958 and a Member of European Parliament 1979–1999 (and as such one of the most senior members of the said body), multiple honours and a seemingly noted and active European political figure. None of these would probably alone merit ITN, but together they just might. --hydrox (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I think we should mention his time spent as an MEP. Hot Stop(c) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure of his significance, being from across the pond and all. But the article is certainly not well referenced enough to be featured on the main page in the absence of significant news (not just his death). NW(Talk) 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More references added. Update done. Nightw 03:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose non notable death of a notable royal.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a "wow" factor is required to publish deaths on ITN, you might as well abolish the death criteria completely. This is a very lacking argument that has been gaining much usage recently, and I cringe every time I see it used. Who care if the death is notable? What's notable here is that this "notable" person is no longer physically able to contribute to society in the way that rendered him notable in the first place! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His death is extremely notable, a one-in-a-century, and I figure we will soon have a separate article on his burial. His mother received a state burial worthy of an Empress (she was one). Mocctur (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not such a groundbreakingly notable life as should warrant posting his death at such an old age. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He was 98. People do tend to die when they're 98, and I don't see what makes him so important that we should post his hardly surprising death. C628 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter how old he was? A person's inherent notability isn't subject to age. Are you saying that if he was 34 and died from a drug overdose rather than old age his death would automatically be more notable? Nightw 02:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@NightW and Eric Leb--ITN traditionally considers deaths due to old age to be less significant than deaths of people who were still active in their careers. One of the factors is whether the death has an impact on current events. Many people don't want ITN to be an obituary section.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we seem to automatically post the deaths of former heads of state no matter how old. We've somehow come to believe that the deaths of these people are inherently notable yet those of others, even those that were perhaps more influential in there time, are not. Seems a bit of a narrow-minded tradition, don't you think? Nightw 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I consider the tradition narrow minded; however it surely can have exceptions, as Doktorb points out below. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support. Otto von Habsburg has been a hugely influential political figure since the 1930s. He is the former Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary, one of the world's maybe five great powers in its time, which ceased to exist almost hundred years ago. Otto was destined to become the Emperor. He was later (1961) offered the Crown of Spain, but turned it down. His political role in many of the countries of former Austria-Hungary for many decades cannot be underestimated. If anyone is worthy of inclusion on the main page, it's Otto. He's like a person from a different century altogether, it's almost like Napoleon dying—the man was exiled in 1918! If Bill Clinton died, it would not be nearly as important. Mocctur (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally, I'd be meh about something like this but he was last of the Habsburg line, which is a big deal. And just to comment on the whole expected death/old age thing. I don't get that at all, ITN exists to provide access to Wikipedia articles that documents items in the news. Whether someone is old or not doesn't make any difference if people are interested in the deceased. It's not logical at all...RxS (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fully understand why people are opposing, given that precedent suggests that it would not be front page material. However, exceptions come along to prove rules, do they not, and this is on exception. Given the historic importance of a) this man specifically, and b) his family and genealogical line, it would be highly unusual for Wikipedia to consider his death not to be notable. I can only think of the death of the current Windsor line as a contemporary example, albeit slightly different in context. doktorbwordsdeeds 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The death section should be expanded further. Standard obit details such as 'survived by 22 grandchildren' aren't notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the deaths of much less notable people on the front page, including American TV hosts. Otto von Habsburg is a one in a century kind of person, there will not be any similar cases for the next hundred years. Mocctur (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One More Thing This has no place on Wiki, I know, but it made me laugh. Otto von Hasburg was in an office in the Berlayamont building during one of the World Cups, and a young Eurocrat, not knowing who he was, tried to strike up conversation by asking, “Did you see the Austria Hungary match last night?”
“No,” replied His Highness, “Who were we playing?” doktorbwordsdeeds 08:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it was he was the record-holder of being pretender-reversionary claimant to a monarchy; had things gone differently he would have been the longest-serving monarch - 89 years is unlikely to be improved upon in a #very# long time; UK Prince Charles is now the current holder of the 'reversionary royal' claim. 94.195.193.37 (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Ready] 3rd bombing in the Arab Gas Pipeline this year
Support as the pipeline has been shut down and it is an international incident. --candle•wicke 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. This is getting boring. GreyHoodTalk 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No significant major coverage about its impact. If it's the third such bombing, surely this is more routine than not now, and there's no real story here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support good updae on the article.Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the Dutch-Italian vessel issue an open letter to the Greek prime minister Georgios Papandreou following the alleged sabotage of two ships and the prevention of the rest from setting sail for Gaza. (Al Jazeera)(Malaysia Star)(ABC News)
Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking on radio, welcomes a diplomatic victory after its attempts to stop the flotilla from setting sail to Gaza are assisted by the Greek ban on the ships from leaving port. (The Daily Telegraph)
According to reports in the Toronto Star, the flotilla is to make an attempt to set sail on Monday. (Toronto Star)
At least 5 people are killed and at least 10 others are wounded in a bomb attack on a bar in Maiduguri, Nigeria. It follows a bomb that killed 25 people this day last week. (BBC)(Reuters)(Al Jazeera)
Support Of course. Looks like you beat me up in nominating it. The conclusion of the strongest continental championship in women's basketball is worth posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is no more WP:ITNR than the WNBA championship is. Which is to say, it isn't. I'm inclined to oppose unless we get a particularly good, prose-filled article written within the next couple of days. NW(Talk) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the section about the final inserting some prose to report the timeline of the game with additional information for the both teams.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the most important international competitions in women's basketball, a big sport in Europe. Article has been sufficiently updated with prose. Nanobear (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure how much interest there is among our readers, and the article is in terrible shape. It's all tables and lists with very little actual prose content. And there's one sentence about the final that I can see. RxS (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a situation seems normal for sports articles. And actually there are three paragraphs about the final down the page. As far as I remember, this volume of prose was just enough to be posted on ITN few months ago. GreyHoodTalk 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded intro a bit, so that there would be less confusion about whether and where the article was updated. GreyHoodTalk 19:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should modify the wording in the blurb to include both, the main article and the section about the final. Sounds better to me something like:
I've changed the blurb according to your proposal, however if someone feels it is overlinked feel free to amend, of course. GreyHoodTalk 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... 5,000 people watched in an arena with the capacity of 13,800? I don't think people here would like to post any event from this list save for the NBA, NHL and Euroleague. zzzz –HTD 22:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the guys here would post the Olympics (this is a qualifying tournament to that) either. –HTD 10:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the World Championships also are some kind of qualifying tournaments, so should we post every Olympic competition alone?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World Championships are not "some kind of a qualifying tournaments" as it already is the world championship so it won't make sense for a world championship to be a qualifying tournament, although in FIBA's case the world champions qualify for the next Olympics, while the Olympic gold medalists qualify for the next world championship (think of it in the old FIFA World Cup format where the defending champion doesn't have to qualify).
And Olympic basketball would never be posted as long as the USA wins -- we'd settle for the next best thing, the Worlds, where the best players didn't play the last time around, but that was also laughingly opposed.
So we're stuck in a situation for basketball where the top international tournament where the best players play (the Olympics) won't be posted at the ITN, but the next best thing (the Worlds, in theory these two are equal) is posted with some opposition, and we post the EuroBasket (for men), an intercontinental championship that doubles qualifying tournament where oddly, the tournament where this year's champions go won't be posted (2012 Olympics). Almost the same situation for the distaff side, although it's worse as no tournaments are to be posted. –HTD 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article has almost no text, and the event is not very important. Mocctur (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: Preu Thai has won 249 seats -- they need 251 enough seats for an outright majority. –HTD 13:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took liberty to tweak the blurb a bit. --125.25.128.206 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno what's the benefit of adding "incumbent" as it's understood that by stating that he is Prime Minister that he is the incumbent. –HTD 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NoteWP:ITNR item – notability can be assumed established unless contradicted. --hydrox (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very important election, particularly given its decisive outcome and the fact that Vejjajiva conceded Yingluck Shinawatra's victory.[11]. So it looks like this election will result in resolving the long-standing political stalemate in Thailand. However, the article Thai general election does need to be properly updated first, before this entry can be posted. After it is updated, I believe that a speedy posting will be in order. Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yesss indeed. Red shirts rule! (modified blurb)--Ohconfucius¡digame! 08:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are so many things that were notable about these elections that unfortuately can't really be summed-up in one sentence. Failing that, can we at least mention that this is the country's first female prime minister? I hate that we just rehash the result and fail to mention what's notable about it. Nightw 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Story has been developing over the last few days. Now that we have Hezbollah's position (total rejection), the situation has come a full circle. --hydrox (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Objections to what? No-one has made a case for posting this. Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what exactly you mean, but I take that as a sort of "no comment", unless you are actually saying this nomination is somehow invalid. If no one else objects, I am going to post in a few hours since it is getting old already (June 30). The article is fairly extensive, and although it has one tag it doesn't appear to be a serious issue. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, this looks interesting, but who are the subjects of these warrants? If they're top brass whose loss would seriously hurt Hezbollah, I'd supportm but a little more information would be nice. Also, which part of the STL article has been updated? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The update looks decent and if these are, as the article says, the first arrest warrants against Hezbollah members, I'd say that's pretty significant. A blurb along the lines of Hezbollah rejects the first arrest warrants ever issued for four of its members would probably be better, but support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait.. where did you get all that "first arrest warrants" stuff? These are the first arrest warrants issued by the STL, a UN-backed criminal court investigating the death of former MP of Lebanon operating within the framework of Lebanese law but based in Hague, but definitely not the first arrest warrants against members of Hezbollah as an organization. --hydrox (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting topic, article is in great shape. RxS (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two votes vs. many questions is hardly a consensus, and the article is a mess... I have to side with all the concerns raised in the discussion above. Crnorizec (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit messy, I agree. I did not vote as nominator because I was hoping for 3rd opinion to help form my own opinion, and I was quite surprised that it got posted so fast actually (which, BTW, is good practice for less controversial, less complicated topics). Secondly, the blurb was hardly discussed at all. I would have preferred my original blurb that was purposely worded in the most neutral way, just stating the obvious fact recognized by all parties, while Hezbollah's position to "reject" arrest warrants is hardly well-received by the international community (terrorist organization according to US, UK, Israel, but not EU). Though, now that its been posted on the Main page for several hours, changing it serves no point, but I would kind of suggest letting this item go without faint of heart as soon as new materials become available. --hydrox (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. The event your original blurb describes actually happened on June 30; that is already too old now, which is why I had to reword it. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I do not agree that it "got posted so fast". It took more than 24 hours since your nomination. Perhaps we should wait for a week then? Please notice how often ITN gets criticized for being stagnant. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Tomorrow Djokovic assumes the No.1 position so the blurb should then be updated to include this information. Any objections?--Avala (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Changes in rankings are not automatically ITNworthy, that change in rank was not dependent on him wining this event, and the blurb would become too long. Kevin McE (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Klitschko won with a unanimous points victory. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs an update on the fight itself. Otherwise Support, as the fight seems to have unified all or most of the heavyweight titles, [POV]although these days the heavyweight division has about as much legitimacy as George W Bush's election in 2000[/POV].--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per its special significance as a match that led to the unification of the titles.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
228 people are arrested during a large demonstration in Hong Kong amid frustration with government policies and rising property prices. (AFP via Google News)(Reuters)
might be interesting with a Djokovic result tonight..Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb seems awfully vague. Is there anything specific and of significance that can be mentioned in the blurb itself?--WaltCip (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - political progress in the conflict. itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's a modest step in a long-term conflict. Serbian officials still publicly discuss about splitting of Kosovo, so this agreement is with limited political implications. Crnorizec (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Itamar Franco, former President of Brazil, dies
Comment I'm pretty new here at wp.en - first blurb I nominate - but I have some experience at wp.pt. I don't believe the death of a former president is something this wikipedia will see diferently than we do there. Since he "was in a high-ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region", being the president who launched the "Plano Real" in 1994, and stabilized a economy, ending a instability that begun in 1986, I think we should include him in the ITN. Brazilian real has been the currency since then - Between 1986 and 1994 the country had four different currencies, and inflation rates changed from one hour to the other. Franco and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Minister of Economy at the time and the president who followed him, changed that. This was announced about ten minutes ago, so I will update the nomination with sources from other countries as they appear - Maddox (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds significant, and he's the president of a major country. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually oppose deaths, but I'll give this one in principle support: he was the President of a large and significant country for a reasonable period and he was politically active at the time of his death. The article isn't perfect -- there are some unsourced sections -- but I think it is ok enough to post. There's little obvious POV.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Death of a president. Brazil is a big country. South America doesn't appear on ITN enough. --candle•wicke 23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The death section needs some more prose. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the details surrounding his death are there. What else should be included? Maddox (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded a bit more. Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Illinois abolishes the death penalty
The U.S state of Illinois abolish the death penalty effectivly shutting down its death row unit, with the governor of the state commuting the sentences of the 15 men on death row to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the state's had a moratorium since 2000 so this realistically changes nothing. Maybe if a state like Texas or Florida we could post it. Hot Stop(c) 13:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Oppose per lack of coverage even in Illinois (16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)). I was going to give stronger support, since abolition of the death penalty would seem fairly significant and capital punishment is permanently the subject of heated debate, both within the US and globally (or at least within what we call the "developed world"). Given there's been a moratorium for some 11 years, the effect isn't as significant, but I think the signing of a complete abolition into law is still pretty significant. The as-yet-non-existent-Capital punishment in Illinois or Capital punishment in the United States would seem like good places for an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, capital punishment is NOT permanently the subject of heated debate within most of the "developed world". Most of the developed world abandoned capital punishment long ago and the issue has faded from significance in most countries. This is an American issue, only relevant to the rest of the "developed world" in the way it might affect the image of the USA in the rest of that "developed world". Personally, I doubt that most of it will notice. I'm in no position to judge how significant it is within the USA. I'll leave that to the locals. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I would support this if only there were a more reasonable background to do so. But since it is valid only to a federal subject in a country with 37 others out of 50 tolerating the death penalty, I don't think that it'll quicken the abolishment on a higher level.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on timeliness grounds. Quinn signed the bill eliminating the death penalty in Illinois in March and commuted all outstanding death sentences at the same time. The fact that abolition takes effect today is not news. The Fox News story cited above describes this non-event the same way a lot of the press coverage does: "quiet". If we were going to cover this, we should have done so in March.--Chaser2 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a person residing in Illinois, this hasn't even made the local papers. I would be curious to see if it's been given any international attention. 75% of the states still have the death penalty, and there is also a federal death penalty valid in all states. However, as the United States is one of very few "first world" countries to still have a death penalty, there might be more international reaction than local reaction. N419BH 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Barely even news in Illinois (check out the online Chicago Tribune, for example). The more significant Illinois developments have already occurred. While I'm not alleging anyone here is motivated by POV, trumping up, on the main page, fairly insignificant "milestones" in abolishing the death penalty risks creating that appearance. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability considerations, however, I don't see a substantive enough update anywhere, and indeed adding sufficient coverage to either article linked would probably be disproportionate in context. Therefore in the absence of a more specific article it has to be an oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it doesn't appear to be featured in the local media according to the above and because other parts of the country are still killing. --candle•wicke 23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support billions of rupees is a lot of money and the treasure is supposed to be worth over $500 million. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly interesting item, treasure is always interesting. People will read this, and it's a pretty good article. Per nom, nice change of topic. Looks well updated, at least within in spirit if not letter (and it might meet the letter also) RxS (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I used to think that treasure is found only in the movies; this deserves to be in ITN. However, it would be good if we get an actual figure (however rough). Billions of rupees is kinda vague. This would be a nice change from the politics. Lynch7 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per MikeLynch. Good point. Maybe we could delay until we have a final estimate. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the alt blurb significantly, marking [Ready] as the article is suitably updated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any other sources (preferably the well-known, highbrow, reputable type) for the figure. I can live with using Google for the conversion to USDs (that'll be rounded for the blurb anyway), but if that were in an article about this find, I'd be happier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. But what does "unofficial estimate" mean? Does it mean they haven't finished the inventory or that it's just guesswork? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: It appears that the updated section has several issues. I removed [Ready]. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed most of them. It should be ready now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that Euro is used as a comparison? On the English Wikipedia, the USD or even British pound would be much better choices. Vrinan (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some English-language countries use the Euro (Ireland, Malta), but I agree that USD would be better. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google news searching Sudan and Libya isn't giving me very much right now. Wait till we see if the media makes a big deal out of this / if initial reporting is accurate? NW(Talk) 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. I think the media doesn't know what to make of it. I will take care of updating the article if there is a development. MarcusQwertyus 06:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If media mentions it big within the next 24 hours.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One country invading another country is a significant development. --candle•wicke 23:06, 2 July 2011 (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.
Nominator's comments: I know many will say that the posting should be delayed till the Men's finals, I believe that we should post this blurb and modify it after the Men's finals just like the 2011 French Open post because it is after one whole day. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I gave conditional support last time round on the proviso that it wasn't then bumped when the men's result was known. It was. That has the effect of prolonging the entry's feature on ITN, and given ITNR items receive less scrutiny in the first place, and there is at least some sentiment there is too much sport on there already, I would prefer waiting until the conclusion rather than have this lingering around at the expense of something else where there is a more substantial consensus. ITNR tag removed since ITNR is very clear that interim results are not ITNR items. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it bumped you have to do more than make a comment in the thread - discuss it on WT:ITN, its a legitimate point, but that's the home for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated event is a pre-approved recurring item, meaning it is considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN. If you wish to challenge the importance of the item that should be done so on the recurring items talk page.
Who wrote this? In any case, it clearly is not. ITNR is very specific: the head of the sports section states "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the tournament or series". The conclusion, not ongoing drips and drabs. The pre-existing consensus is therefore against posting. If you want to challenge that you take it up on WT but that is the situation as is exists now. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The conclusion of the women's series is today, and the men's series is tomorrow. This wouldn't be "ongoing dribs and drabs" if this was posted before the end of the mens event and it means items get posted promptly as well - I have no issue with your idea that the item shouldn't be bumped after the mens event, and frankly I think its a good one, but the place to suggest it is WT:ITN - I will do so myself if you don't after this event is over. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change it back to "no". If you want to challenge the importance of this, item that should be done so on the recurring items talk page. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - Reoccurring item. MarcusQwertyus 03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
npo it is not an itnr nowr is there precedentl . AFTER the mens fnal then it gets posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is ITNR, and should be posted after the Women's singles. However, after the result of the men's finals, the blurb should be updated to reflect both the results. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is that the winner of the women's final gets posted after the womens final if there is an update and that's what happened with the French open. If you guys wish to challenge that start at thread on WT:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It doesn't do our readers any good to wait. Why purposefully wait a day to post an item? Post it, and update it with the mens final as it happens. To wait is to value bureaucracy over the needs of our readers. RxS (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready, needs a 5 sentence/3 reference update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't three references or five sentences in the entire article. It's just a lot of pretty tables. This comes up quite often, and the best workaround seems to be to update the athlete's article (assuming it's in otherwise reasonable shape. NB: There is precedent for posting the women's ahead of the men's, but I don't see anything that obliges us to (ITN doesn't work by stare decisis). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need prose and references. Unreferenced prose won't be posted and nor will referenced tables with no (or very little) prose, and since this article is about the entire women's singles tournament, I'd expect to see decent prose on the whole tournament as well as a paragraph about the final and the winner. Like I said, probably easier to update the player's article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The player article is updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
