June 11, 2011 (2011-06-11) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Law and crime
Politics
Siege of Jisr ash-Shugur
Nom. Most important development in the region right now. --bender235 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Major refugee crisis is unfolding. ~AH1 (discuss!) 13:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This new article on the seige needs more work.--Chaser (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Start of the 24 Hours of Le Mans (15:00 CEST)
Nominator's comments: The finish is ITN/R, but I don't see why we shouldn't be posting the start too, seeing as the event is over 24 hours long, and all the interesting things about it are pretty much over once the race actually finishes (or at least by the time we normally get around to posting the fact that it has finished). In addition, they've been playing around with the traditional start time in the last few years, so posting the start/finish time will be useful for casual fans of the race, aswell as complete newcomers. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like an interesting idea, and then replace it with the results? Like it.. RxS (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Chance for us to be ahead of the curve, post when the race starts, amend when the race finishes. Mtking (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very good idea assuming we get an update and not a second nom when it ends. μηδείς (talk)
- Support Provided it is updated and not bumped when the result is known. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Support based on same reasoning as above. --Kslotte (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sounds like a good idea frankly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Vroooom!! and per above--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, at risk of having already been snowballed. This is a radical departure from convention, and introduces a whole new approach to ongoing events. That is not necessarily a bad thing, it should be properly discussed as a matter of policy, not introduced ad hoc. I fear this being claimed as precedent for announcing start of voting, beginning of trials, first stage of competitions, etc. Our objective is not to be the first port of call for those seeking news updates, it is to highlight Wiki articles that refer to current events: this appears to be an attempt to be first reporters. Kevin McE (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Our objective is to direct people to articles they might be interested in. And this is ITN, ad hoc judgements are its stock in trade. I could care less about setting a precedent, people are well able to resist such claims here, as they often do. Sure, we can have a 'discussion' about this 'ground-breaking' change, but with the race due to start in an hour, making that request here would seem to be pretty pointless, designed to do nothing but torpedo a nomination that was getting snowball support, for purely bureaucratic reasons. And we don't do pointless bureaucracy for the sake of it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really mean you could care less, or do you mean you couldn't care less? It's so often misused these days. 80.42.155.205 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose mostly per Kevin. It seems that the reasoning "all the interesting things about it are pretty much over once the race actually finishes" holds true for most sports events. Would we post the beginning of the Masters or Wimbledon? To me, the news is that a competition has ended with so-and-so victorious. When we do post the start of an event (e.g. the Olympics), the beginning has a newsworthiness that this event's start lacks. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This a continuous 24 hour endurance race. A single event. It's not a series of golf rounds, it's not a tournament of tennis matches, and the 'start' is not a distinct 'ceremony'. As has been suggested above, when it finishes, we wouldn't be posting that as a separate 'event', but merely modifying the hopefully already posted blurb with the winners name. That's obviously not going to be desirable or practical for weekend long golf tournaments, or 2 week long tennis tournaments. The correct analogy is to continuous events like the royal wedding and space missions which we do post when they start, not other sporting events. MickMacNee (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, it's started. Wikipedia strikes again. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait for final results, for the most part I agree with Kevin McE. The race starting isn't news; its finish and winners are. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The most popular endurance race in the world, and one of the pearls of the racing sports is by far sufficient to me. I also agree that should be posted only the final results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The final result is already ITNR. MickMacNee (talk)
- Support posting now, I like the idea of highlighting an ongoing event as it's ongoing. C628 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as 'the news' goes, which ITN supposedly isn't, barring a worse major incident happening, the main event of the race that the news reports will be focussing on after the finish, has already happened within the first hour, which is what? 25-26 hours before Wikipedia will ever get round to posting even the final result. MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment I just wanted to make a point that nothing's precedent unless we want it to be. The format of the race is as interesting to non-race fans as the final result. None of the other examples given above in opposition have formats exotic enough to be valid comparisons. Hopefully this is a step in the direction of ITN being a little less rules bound and pedantic. RxS (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm not sure I like the idea of sporting events being posted at their start. The article is already going to be suffering from lots of edits and edit conflicts, putting it on the front page is only going to make it worse. Very little will be written about the race itself, and I'm not fond of people attempting to start writing a race report now when the race still has 23 hours to go. Further, I'd argue the article is not really good enough at the moment for something to be listed on the front page. The359 (Talk) 14:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exposing it to people who might want to read/edit it is the whole point of ITN. Opposing it on those grounds is completely irrelevant and invalid, as it goes against the whole point of Wikipedia. If you feel uncomfortable with people editting it, I'd suggest that's an issue for you not ITN/Wikpedia. The article looks fine to me, and any deteriation in quality due to poor edits can be dealt with in the normal way using reversion/protection/education, as happens every day on all the other articles posted to the Main Page. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN is not to expose people to articles, it's for notable news items. The winners are notable, the start is not. Claiming this is an attempt to WP:OWN is just down right silly. There is not a problem with people editing it, the problem is with people attempting to turn the article into an up to the minute live update and trying to cover any and every moment. Wikipedia does not need an instant updated race report, there is nothing wrong with having a race report wait until after the race is over.
- The article completely lacks any discussion of the race weekend, no test day coverage, no practice, no qualifying coverage except for some tables. In fact there's very little prose in the article at all. This is not what passes for ITN quality. The359 (Talk) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are completely wrong. ITN does not require articles to be fully complete before posting, and ITN is not the news - it exists to draw readers and editors into articles on current events, the very people who might expand it beyond what it already is to include the things you mention. The idea that Wikipedia has to wait until the race is over before anyone can start adding info to the article is utterly ludicrous, and the idea that we prevent articles from going on the main page to make it less likely they will get poor updates is equally so. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, we don't require articles to be fully complete, but we do require a substantial update before posting other than in exceptional circumstances, and that's a good reason against posting it right now. If it was updated, it would be a different story. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it had started was already updated, and now that's been missed, so has the race summary with the first major event. God knows what else you think needs to be there to make this a 'substantial' update, but please let's not pretend that you are suddenly going to support this if it arrived. You think that the race is only 'news' once its finished and thus doesn't belong until then, even though ITN isn't 'the news' (and the fact of the matter is that in the real world, the coverage of the race doesn't peak at all after the event, certainly not in these days of instant coverage, and in the case of the live TV coverage, that shuts down just 15 minutes after the end - that's how much they give a shit about telling people about the race after the event). So, you'll have to strike that view if you want me to believe the above and put any more time into this nonsense. As always, pissing around with ITN/C has already substantially ruined my own personal enjoyment of the actual event itself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN does not require articles to be complete if they're brand new articles on sudden events. This is a planned event and an article that has existed for a year now. That it completely lacks much of the background for the race does not make it something we should be promoting on the Main Page. Hell, the 2010 24 Hours of Le Mans was never even posted on the Main Page after the race because it was equally poor and not truly up to date. Again, please read what I said: I have no problem with people editing the article, but the article should not act as a live race report. The359 (Talk) 15:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. Please point me to any wording that remotely says articles on planned events need to be complete before going on ITN, or anything like it. It doesn't exist. You don't spend much time at ITN/C, and it's showing. You do however spend a lot of time patrolling and reverting race articles, so please, just stop pretending that your opposition is gounded in anything other than the completely invalid and totally unwiki reason of not wanting people to see the article, and thus edit it as it happens. That is not Wikipedia and that is not ITN. Accept it. The 2010 nomination was opposed (including by me!) because it didn't have a single referenced update, even after it had finished! In contrast to your non-reason for this race (and your opposition to the 2010 for not being 'complete'), that's actually a valid oppose. And not posting the 2011 race now only makes it more likely that this will be exactly what happens again. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said complete. But the article now is inadequate and not up to date. There is a major difference. Wikipedia:In the news#Updated content seems to quite clearly state that the article needs to have some sort of major update in order to qualify for ITN. Your proposal is that the article should be put in ITN before any update has occured.
- WP:AGF clearly needs mention, and it's completely moronic to claim that I don't want people to see an article, or to claim that I am here under some sort of false pretense. Don't even begin to start to lecture someone on "what ITN is" while you want to twist around the very basic criteria for it! The359 (Talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course the article can be updated enough to be posted on ITN after the race. See 2007 24 Hours of Le Mans or 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans. All it requires is people to take the time to work on it, which did not appear to happen last year. If it's posted on ITN several hours after the race ends, it's not a problem. The 2011 Indianapolis 500 certainly was not up on ITN when the race ended. The359 (Talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're just flat out bullshitting. I have not once proposed the article be posted before it's updated - I was the one who made sure it was up to date in the first place. If you want to be a pain in the ass about it, I can easily go and update it right now to meet the letter of the requirement and add a couple more sentences to make it 5, and add 1 more reference to make it 3, there's plenty more to say from sources already, but I'm not going to because it's clear that's not what's behind your opposition. I am not going to be fucked around here and waste time doing this when that's not the real objection. The real issue here is your complete lack of clue that ITN exists to draw the editors in who would make the updates of the size you wrongly think ITN demands. You wouldn't have a problem with that if you were not planning to do the update all by yourself, and were concerned about people messing it up before you can do it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What update? That the race started at a certain time and Audi was on pole? That's an update? Certainly one could have ascertained the pole position just by looking at the qualifying results table further down the article. You did propose that the article be added to ITN at the race start, at which time there was no major update. This was the only update after it started, an hour and a half into the race. What sort of piss poor writing is this? Nothing about the race start but as soon as there's a wreck, the article's suddenly updated with two sentences!
- And now you're claiming that you have more than enough time and ability to add to the summary of the article and include references, and you're not going to do it because I'm opposing your ITN nomination? How is that "The Wikipedia thing to do"? How petty and paranoid to claim that I have some sort of hidden motivation.
- Since you seem to be so adament of what ITN demands, here's sentence one: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Emphasis mine. ITN is not to draw in editors in order to make the substantial updates, the substantial updates must come first.
- Certainly if I were WP:OWNing the article, the article would be empty. Because User:Danny93 added the qualifying results, User:Vikirad's been on the ball about updating the entry list over the past few months, and an IP editor added the entire section on regulation changes! Just because I've written the bulk of the race reports in the past does not mean it is something I demand, it's simply been I've been the one of the only people to bother to attempt to write a race report for a 24 hour race. The359 (Talk) 17:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm certainly not the only person opposing this bold move to change the criteria for ITN, so your hidden motives claim holds no water. The359 (Talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When was the last time you actualy contributed to an ITN/C discussion? Or to any of the many 'what is ITN for' type discussions on the talk page? On what basis do you claim to have a clue what ITN is for, beyond repeating the 1st line of the page to me as if I'm some kind of twat, who had somehow missed it all this time, even though I am ITN regular myself? Unbelievable. I know what its for and I know what the specific reqirements are. You most certainly don't. Yes, you're goddam right that one accurate and well referenced sentence is enough of an update, certainly to kick off the discussion of the nomination at ITN. It's the sort of 'piss poor' writing that ensures people reading an article on a current event get the very basic level of information you would expect. And yes, your goddam right that I could quite easily update it to the letter of the update requirement, if I remotely believed that a) you had had a clue that that was what the requirement was before you opposed for not being 'complete', and b) you would acknowledge that it was 'sufficiently updated' per the requirements if I did. The thing that makes your position so ludicrous, is that as an ITN/R item, the only thing needed for it to go on the Main Page, even if waiting until the finish, is for someone to add 5 sentences and 3 refs to give the name of the winner, and then it will go up, whether you like it or not, whether is has a nice long race summary and is complete with all other sections, or not. You're showing your complete ignorance of how ITN works if you remotely think that's not the case. The only 'bold' move I was going for here is to see if people might understand the basic point that the current 'event' that we are informing readers of here is the whole 24 hours, not the finish. That reflects the coverage and reality. It seems it was a reach too far with all these ludicrous claims that it would lead to the sky falling in if we actualy bothered to start catering for readers in a timely and relevant manner, rather than what will probably happen now, where the final result probably won't even make it up, as the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, per much of what's already been written above. The section is not a news ticker or entertainment guide. Its purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles that have been newly created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events of sufficient note.
While some ongoing occurrences are sufficiently noteworthy, we include few sporting events in this category (with those along the lines of the Olympics and FIFA World Cup — for which the opening ceremonies are notable in and of themselves — as the rare exceptions). An event's duration isn't the material distinction, so simply being long doesn't somehow qualify one for special treatment at ITN. —David Levy 16:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your either arguing that it's not a current event, that it's not been updated as one, or that it's not of sufficient note. All of which are wrong. You surely cannot be meaning to insult me by suggesting that through this nomination I think ITN is supposed to be a news ticker, when I've said the exact opposite many times already in this exact section, and a million times before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be taking this way too personal. Levy's opinion seems to be quite clear to me - 2011 24 Hours of Le Mans has not been sufficiently updated and therefore does not qualify for ITN. How this could be "wrong" is beyond me. The359 (Talk) 16:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he's said a lot more than that, but he can speak for himself, or not as the case maybe. On the issue of the update, as I said above, if people want to take the piss, I can easily go and add the necessary 2 sentences & 1 ref to technically be 'sufficiently updated' for ITN, but I am not going to be fucked around doing it when this is isn't the actual reason for opposing. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, I don't believe that the article can be updated to the section's standards until the race's conclusion. For almost all sporting events, we wait until the winner is known. Mick cites this race's 24-hour duration as a distinction, but I don't see the relevance. —David Levy 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. As I went on to note in great detail (even citing exceptions and explaining what sets them apart), I'm arguing that most sporting events aren't worthy of note in ITN until the winner is determined. This is not merely my personal opinion; it's how the section routinely operates.
You contend that this race is materially different because it lasts 24 hours, and I disagree that this is relevant to the matter at hand.
2. No, I don't seek to insult you, so I worded my message carefully (and avoided mentioning you by name) in the hope that you wouldn't take my comments personally.
I realize that you don't believe that such an item's inclusion would constitute treating the section as a news ticker, but I disagree; it would serve primarily to report the event's commencement/schedule, which you cited as a benefit ("In addition, they've been playing around with the traditional start time in the last few years, so posting the start/finish time will be useful for casual fans of the race, aswell as complete newcomers."). This is why I noted that the section "is not a news ticker or entertainment guide."
3. I also realize that you want the section to function as a means of attracting users to articles to perform edits. This, however, is not (and has never been) its primary purpose. It's entirely reasonable to propose that this become the section's primary purpose, but you instead claim that it already is. You then indignantly deride and ascribe bad-faith motives to those who dare to express disagreement, invariably citing an outcome contradicting your preference as evidence that the section (or Wikipedia itself) is broken. Frankly, this has grown quite tiresome. —David Levy 18:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
June 10, 2011 (2011-06-10) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
Ex-Irish finance minister dies
Nominator's comments: Quite an important figure in Ireland's financial crisis, and although he was no longer in office at his death he remained his party's finance spokesman so still held an important role. I think this meets the death criteria and is worth posting. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - not all politicians deaths are worth posting even if he was an important figure for Ireland. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I would think it quite rare that we would post the death of a former Cabinet-level official of a country of Ireland's size. I appreciate the argument that Lenihan's case is different, but in my view, not different enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bahrain Grand Prix cancelled
- Support As the Nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article looks ready, however I would prefer a shorter blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any Suggestion? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Although it is part of a notable series, the Bahrain GP itself is not noteworthy at ITN, so it is not necessarily the case that its cancellation is ITNworthy. The event has only been held seven times: it is not an historic tradition. Given the current leaders' margins in the drivers' and constructors' tables, the loss of one race is likely to be irrelevant in determining the outcome of the series. The event was pulled from the schedule months ago (without, AFAIR, ITN announcement): all that has happened now is that that postponement has been changed to a cancellation. Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - per above. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, so what? Big deal. Agree with Kevin McE: nothing new here per se, something that's been expected for a few months being confirmed is not news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even tho the Bahrain GP itself is not noteworthy, The cancellation and the reason behind is tho. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. This was always on the cards, it being official isn't news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, that's the antithesis of most other arguments that appear on this page, in that we generally don't note news "on the cards", we note it once it's official. The fact that the unrest there has not subsided, and has this international implication confirmed today, is the sort of thing we often use to update an ongoing event. Abrazame (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Kevin McE's reasons are convincing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think editors here are focusing on the narrow aspect of the impact on the racers' overall event scores, when the real story is that safety concerns arising from the country's sociopolitical unrest have led it to lose a major international event that brings tourism, revenue and positive attention. This isn't sports news, it's news news. When was the last time we noted the unrest in Bahrain is still ongoing, with ongoing repercussions, despite Saudi Arabia's actions intended to tamp it down? I took the liberty of editing the blurb for length, per BorgQueen's comment, but welcome any revert or other rework. Abrazame (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a desire to propose an update on the current situation in Bahrain, then that, or the re-introduction of the Arab Spring sticky, needs to be proposed. The cancellation of a sports event at the end of October, even if ultimately caused by events in early June, is not a comment on the situation in June. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the blurb "2011 Bahrain Grand Prix is cancelled after months of popular uprisings." μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect, it was not cancelled because of the uprising. The original postponement was because of the uprising but the cancellation is purely procedural on the teams' part, at least officially. Oppose such a blurb. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Medeis' blurb is too vague, leading one to guess that it was cancelled by Bahrain themselves. The point is that when legitimate popular uprisings don't result in meaningful concessions but rather in military strikes against your own people—and from foreign countries, to boot—free people from around the world don't want to go to your country to engage in sport. The cancellation, then, is pretty much as the blurb read, isn't it, that the teams did not wish to go? I mean, that is the lead sentence in the article cited. Abrazame (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I frankly think we should post things early as that's generally when they are "in the news" and not be too obsessed about waiting for confirmation. On this item I think I have to oppose as not really being big enough to cover now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The view stats support this notion that it's not big enough now, as only 400 people cared to look at the article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Definitly a story for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak
Nominator's comments: We covered the break-out In The News; we should wrap it up too. It does not seem too likely that more conclusive evidence will appear, so I think this is the right time. Nø (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose already featured. --hydrox (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, notableOlegwiki (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a bit - Is this certain yet? The article describes the "likely" source. That's what was said about the Spanish cucumbers! I'd like to see a much greater level of certainty before posting it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose not worth a sticky or a second go around, tens of thousands of times less important than the flu. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No feelings on yes or no, agree with HiLo48 about need for a greater level of certainty, but if yes, please can the blurb be in English :
- The E. coli outbreak in Northern Germany that has
sickened affected over 3000 and killed over more than 30, mostly in Germany, is attributed by German authorities to raw sprouts produced at a farm in near Hamburg
- Mtking (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, wait for more development in the case and a clear confirmation of the source. --Kslotte (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator: The article may not be perfectly clear on this, but what appears from news sources is that German authorities do not expect to find conclusive evidence, but based on what they have conclude that the sprouts are the source.--Nø (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: we deal with the news of what happens, not the analysis of how/why it happened. However, should this gain approval, can I point out for the blurb that the produce of farms is generally raw food, so that qualifier seems redundant, and that at least in UK English, sprouts, without a qualifier, is usually assumed to mean Brussels sprouts. The food in question was bean sprout. Kevin McE (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
June 9, 2011 (2011-06-09) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science
Sport
Flooding in China
Not tried nominating a topic before hope I've got this right
Nominator's comments: flooding seems pretty major not to be listed under ongoing disasters
- Support 54 people seems enough for posting, but the article needs expanding. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- fresh wave of flooding reported today so another 33 deaths I've changed 54 to 87 in the itn canditate bit above EdwardLane (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Mississippi floods were not featured either, and they were historically large. --hydrox (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support death tool of 87 is enough, but article needs to get into better shape. --Kslotte (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A major continuation of last year's flooding, including significant landslides. ~AH1 (discuss!) 13:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] E3 again
- As we agreed to post it on closing. The article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a major expo in this field and which garnered international attention for followers of this. -- PopularMax (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with major announcements including PlayStation Vita and the Wii U. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article needs more prose updates. SpencerT♦C 04:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Posting this as "news" discredits the seriousness of both the In The News section and the articles listed there (although, after the posting about M. F. Husain, it won't be THAT much of a stretch). I really think this section is losing the plot on what is news. 80.42.155.205 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an ITNR event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We post entertainment news about movies all the time. The video game industry is an entertainment field now rivaling cinema as a money earner. I think it's reasonable to post the single most important video game fair in acknowledgement of this. E3 gets reported in mainstream news sites like the BBC; it's not like it's that far off of what's news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love to post, but can anyone expand this section a bit more? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with alternate blurb. Like "Video Gaming Expo E3 2011 closes, having featured the next generation in console systems." Mamyles (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your blurb, but do you seriously think that the article is ready now? --BorgQueen (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has announcements on the new games and systems (though I agree, rather brief), which is what this news is about. The systems articles linked there are very well updated from what I can see, which gives plenty of browsing content. Mamyles (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an article! That's two lists (exhibitors and 117 "notable" games) and PR blurbs about four corporate press conferences. Please! This is not "news" or an "article". 80.42.155.205 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the lists have no evident inclusion or exclusion criteria, so the "notable" status of those included seems to be OR. Kevin McE (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wikipedia doesn't have to be all about things that only interest vocal cliques of wikipedians. That it is pre-approved is proof it is part of the problem. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a strong argument, considering that video games are a very large "clique", and a new article is 17 hours overdue. If you know of any more major news in the last 36 hours, feel free to nom it. This is impacting news for a large part, if not a majority of wikipedians. Removing a topic from ITNR simply on the grounds that one person is uninterested is a problem. Mamyles (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would hardly consider video game fans to be a 'clique'. This isn't a RPG convention we're talking about here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the update here good enough? One thing, the article will be more substantial when the Game Critics Awards, awards to games presented at E3, are announced on June 21.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes, I'm not sure I agree with the 'next generation' portion of the blurb. I know I wrote that in the update, but that was a quote from one newspaper; I'm not sure it's established that Wii U is an 8th generation console. I'm trying to think of a blurb besides 'E3 closes'...--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the BBC also refers to Wii U as a 'next generation' console. I'll add that source to the update. Sorry, I'd say leave the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, relevant discussion here--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] M F Husain death
- Nom. Highly notable and controverial artist. Lynch7 09:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, this is the first time I'm nominating something here, so if I've erred somewhere, I apologise. Lynch7 09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose What did this "Highly notable and controverial artist" ever piss on? μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
June 8, 2011 (2011-06-08) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters
International relations
Politics
- Indian social activist Anna Hazare begins a second hunger strike against corruption. (Al Jazeera)
- The British government has indicated it is rethinking its controversial proposal to offer 50% sentence cuts to criminals in England and Wales who enter early guilty pleas. (BBC)
Science
[Posted] Periodic table expansion
Nom. Epitome of encyclopedic relevance. --bender235 (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only is this a minority topic, it's on ITNR (Wikipedia:ITNR#Science). Therefore, there is no substantial discussion required here unless a user is opposing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that it is either. This is a science story - the closest minority topic category would be technology but in my view it doesn't fit in there. Similarly ITNR is very specific - this is not the initial discovery (that was a decade ago in both cases) nor have they been officially named - Ununquadium and Ununhexium are provisional systematic placeholders rather than final names for the elements. As such it is easy to overstate the significance of this - essentially all that has happened is that prior discoveries have passed the IUPAC vetting process. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Support. But I would reword the blurb to the more precise
- "An IUPAC committee acknowledges the discovery of the superheavy chemical elements ununquadium and ununhexium." (Maybe also add "by Russian scientists in 1999/2000"?)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as relevant. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mistake This should not have been posted until they were named. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Syrian uprising/Jisr ash-Shugur massacre
- Nom. The article isn't sufficiently updated as yet, but this event is definitely noteworthy. --bender235 (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest an alternative blurb as below, as I've updated the Jisr ash-Shugur article with coverage of this incident. We need to be careful about how this is reported, as it's only the (very unreliable) Syrian state-owned media that is reporting a mass killing; reports are unclear, and some of the locals are denying it. Something has clearly happened but it's not clear yet exactly what. Also, Great Britain is not the name of the country! Prioryman (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 120 people are dead. Neither the government nor the opposition denies this. What's in question is whodunit. So it's not an "alleged killing", but a killing.
--bender235 (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Very unreliable' Syrian state-owned media reports" did not prevent Naksafest 2011 from being posted to ITN. Nutmegger (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose either proposed blurb. This conflates two distinct issues - the proposed UN resolution and the killing of security forces. This creates the impression that it is the latter that has directly caused the former. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Those events are connected. The Jisr ash-Shugur massacre is the most recent peak of the Syrian uprising, and Syria's violent crackdown is the reason for the ongoing UN sanction initiative. BBC explains this pretty clearly. --bender235 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is you making that inference. The proposals are to censure the government. Therefore what is the relevance of the alleged acts of the protestors? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The notion is that the Syrian army executed 120 fellow soldiers who deserted. That is what happened in Jisr Ash-Shugur according to non-Syrian-government sources. Now the Assad regime started the crackdown. This should now be posted. --bender235 (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable as the event maybe, the blurb with calls for sanction for the usual lot is not notable. i would conditional support it without that blurb (the calls can go on the page, not the ITN)Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Support - Blurb needs to be ...call for, not ...are calling for. Marcus Qwertyus 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support assuming the article is improved sufficiently and updated and that the blurb is neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World IPv6 Day
- Support, IPv6 is important, and World IPv6 Day has been widely reported in the news. Thue | talk 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, news-worthy only for geeks. --Kslotte (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And everyone else who uses the Internet... Support the IPv6 transition is highly significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IPv6 won't in anyway change anything in normal internet usage. This is about the internet backbone that is essential for network administrators. --Kslotte (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It will actually, there are only 4 billion IPv4 addresses, and given there are 7 billion people on the planet, of whom a substantial portion have computers and smartphones these days that clearly isn't enough for future usage. IPv6 gives some ridiculous number of IP addresses which means that noone is likely to run out any time soon.
- One of the current problems is that even if you currently have an IPv6 address you cannot navigate to even websites like Google and Facebook as they only advertise their IPv4 addresses so that people with mis-configured IPv6 addresses don't have issues. World IPv6 day was designed to change that and see what problems there are so that websites can start to be also available over IPv6.
- With regards to issues affecting normal users, well for starters you'll have to go out and buy an IPv6 capable router, and if you want to connect to new users and new websites - especially in Asian developing countries, you might be unable to do so in the reasonably near future without an IPv6 capable router/ISP etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about the router thing, but this IPv6 day aren't targeting end-users (at least not yet). --Kslotte (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. We had the IPv4 exhaustion story. That should be enough for now. --bender235 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. As the article's length demonstrates, nothing really happened beyond naming the day. Mamyles (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened? Was there massive breakage? The article doesn't answer anything, so oppose based on an insufficient update. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
June 7, 2011 (2011-06-07) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters
International Relations
Law and crime
Politics
Sport
[Posted] Soyuz TMA-02M launched
2011 Chişinău explosion
- A car explodes in Moldova. Seems to be an attack - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason that "article" isn't even at AFD yet? Not an event worth an article, especially not one written like a news report! Hardly a mention in any major news source. Oppose, no way, and you need to stop nominating every non-event. StrPby (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please make your position more clear, StPrby? μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Julia Donaldson becomes Children's Laureate
Julia Donaldson becomes the new Children's Laureate [6]. Either her article or the one for Children's Laureate. Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Less of a story in Britain than the passing of Elisabeth Sladen. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 11 June 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