:::I believe Netball was added in the very early days of the ITNR page and was put in as an attempt to get more women's sports.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak|talk]]) 17:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I believe Netball was added in the very early days of the ITNR page and was put in as an attempt to get more women's sports.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak|talk]]) 17:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BabbaQ- no major world interest ''at all'', and I would certainly dispute its inclusion at ITNR in the first place. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BabbaQ- no major world interest ''at all'', and I would certainly dispute its inclusion at ITNR in the first place. ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]</sup> 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BabbaQ --[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BabbaQ --[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because including it would give us something to hold up as a counterexample everytime people oppose an American sport. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 19:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' because including it would give us something to hold up as a counterexample everytime people oppose an American sport. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 19:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
:: and you hope that would make a difference to people who oppose American sports nominations ;)--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
:: and you hope that would make a difference to people who oppose American sports nominations ;)--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BabbaQ and for the exact same reason as cited by Jayron32. The vast majority of the readers are not interested in sports at all, sports items posted here should at the very least be of supreme importance in the sports world and widely known internationally. Sports only played in certain countries don't belong here. [[User:Mocctur|Mocctur]] ([[User talk:Mocctur|talk]]) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per BabbaQ and for the exact same reason as cited by Jayron32. The vast majority of the readers are not interested in sports at all, sports items posted here should at the very least be of supreme importance in the sports world and widely known internationally. Sports only played in certain countries don't belong here. [[User:Mocctur|Mocctur]] ([[User talk:Mocctur|talk]]) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Only a major sport in very small corners of the world -- I believe every single team in the tournament is a Commonwealth country. The national broadcaster of the country at the head of the Commonwealth [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport doesn't seem to care]. Despite what ITN/R says, ITN/R shouldn't bind us to support events. ITN/R is a much-less trafficked forum than this. Consensus here should drive ITN/R, not the other way around. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Only a major sport in very small corners of the world -- I believe every single team in the tournament is a Commonwealth country. The national broadcaster of the country at the head of the Commonwealth [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport doesn't seem to care]. Despite what ITN/R says, ITN/R shouldn't bind us to support events. ITN/R is a much-less trafficked forum than this. Consensus here should drive ITN/R, not the other way around. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::: The same kind of traffic stats would apply to talk pages of most policies on WP. should we ignore those also ;)--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::: The same kind of traffic stats would apply to talk pages of most policies on WP. should we ignore those also ;)--[[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Probably :) --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Probably :) --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 21:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's ITNR. Yes, I've made multiple support posts, entirely to balance the stupid, misplaced Oppose posts. (Can people not read?) This is my genuine Support post, for the obvious reason that it's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:48, 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).
The cruise ship Bulgaria sinks in the Volga River near Bolgar, Russia. At least 110 of the 196 on board go down with the ship and drown, while 80 were rescued alive. (BBC Europe)
100 people are missing after a ship capsizes in Tatarstan, Russia.- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not sufficiently important (we did not post Hewa Bora Airways Flight 952 with 127 dead), not many readers of the English Wikipedia will be looking for information on this. Also, the article is a stub. Mocctur (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated large amount of casualties. Mocctur's argument that English readers will not be looking for information on this is not credible as English-language bias in ITN has never been allowed. The article leaves some to be desired, but when/if it is updated I think this is important enough to be posted. Not everyday does a ship carrying 100 people sink. --PlasmaTwa2 20:33, 10 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.
The game was remarkably close, too. –HTD 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a major sport in the world. No major world interest at all. I havent heard anything about it for example in any of the national news outlets.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Netball was added in the very early days of the ITNR page and was put in as an attempt to get more women's sports.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BabbaQ- no major world interest at all, and I would certainly dispute its inclusion at ITNR in the first place. SwarmX 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because including it would give us something to hold up as a counterexample everytime people oppose an American sport. --Jayron32 19:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and you hope that would make a difference to people who oppose American sports nominations ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BabbaQ and for the exact same reason as cited by Jayron32. The vast majority of the readers are not interested in sports at all, sports items posted here should at the very least be of supreme importance in the sports world and widely known internationally. Sports only played in certain countries don't belong here. Mocctur (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only a major sport in very small corners of the world -- I believe every single team in the tournament is a Commonwealth country. The national broadcaster of the country at the head of the Commonwealth doesn't seem to care. Despite what ITN/R says, ITN/R shouldn't bind us to support events. ITN/R is a much-less trafficked forum than this. Consensus here should drive ITN/R, not the other way around. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same kind of traffic stats would apply to talk pages of most policies on WP. should we ignore those also ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's ITNR. Yes, I've made multiple support posts, entirely to balance the stupid, misplaced Oppose posts. (Can people not read?) This is my genuine Support post, for the obvious reason that it's ITNR. Take it up there if you want to oppose on grounds of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
This appears to be worse than GAA events -- only >2k views during the final? Heineken Cup is just as bad, too. –HTD 10:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the article for the 2010 version. It wasn't even nominated, despite ITNR status.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are sure? The final section has prose so it must've been nominated or else that was all for naught (if you're into shiney ITN medal/icons)... –HTD 15:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would've been an easy ITN blurb for whoever wrote the prose. :P –HTD 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it looked on June 1, three days after the final. No prose update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well... maybe the person wrote it weeks/months after the final. Must've been a lot of motivation lol. Anyway, as this is an ITNR item, I won't oppose, but the lack of page views, ergo, interest, seems to be the problem. –HTD 16:45, 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]
The three countries you mentioned there are perfectly respectable opponents in Women's football. The fact that their men's teams are weak (although Japan is on the up) shouldn't be confused with their women's prowess.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA Women's World Rankings: Germany #2, Japan #4, Canada #6, North Korea #8. These four teams are women's football powerhouses. –HTD 13:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, though note that there are only 25 ranked teams. But that means Germany weren't even the world number 1... Modest Geniustalk 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article only lists the Top 25 (as it should) -- there are 126 ranked teams, and while Germany wasn't the #1, they were only one of two nations to be the #1 team and they were the current defending champs. –HTD 18:46, 10 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]
Average attendance of 20000 isn't that unremarkable. Some of the matches have been over 70000. You can't compare it to a league match, where every match is a home match for one of the teams. Men's world cup matches often don't sell out.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:19, 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]
I find this an interesting nomination as it at least provokes some discussion on the relative notability of women's sports, which rarely even get discussed here, let alone posted. Ultimately I feel that we have a pretty consistent policy of waiting until the final to post the results of sports tournaments barring exceptional circumstances and I don't see that here. It's not as if they went out in the first round. There are a number of possible analogies to men's sports. One could argue that this compares to Brazil losing in the quarterfinal in 2006, after having made the final in three straight world cups; however I don't think it was regarded as particularly notable outside of the context of the tournament.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not significant "in the grand scheme of things." Mocctur (talk) 10:13, 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]
I was considering nominating this myself, then I saw the article. It needs serious work. Lots of POV; It needs references. I don't know how notable Cabral is, but the fact that he was shot in Guatemala (outside his home country) certainly adds his death's notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fail to see how this guy is more notable than Betty Ford. Hot Stop(c) 05:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was shot dead while on a tour; that's very different from dying of old age.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And his fame was based on his own achievements, rather than the misadventures of his spouses ex-boss and lending his name to institutions built on the expertise of others. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support as notable law and order problem in guat./hond. less covered region + red timer + though wed need a good articleLihaas (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient stature. Mocctur (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on this baseless and opinion-driven claim. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only 8 interwikis (a tell-tale sign of him not being terribly important), I've not seen any significant coverage of his death in English language newspapers, the article is fairly short and in a poor shape with several maintenance tags, lots of unsourced material and only four references, there is no separate article on his death, the bio article does not in any way demonstrate that he is sufficiently important for being posted on the main page ("Argentine singer and songwriter" [...] "enjoyed popularity in his home country during the early 1980s"), and quite frankly, I've never heard of him; he's no Michael Jackson. We just decided not to post Betty Ford (30 interwikis and much longer and better article, and more extensive English language media coverage), as pointed out. Mocctur (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many interwikis should an article get? Betty Ford has more than 10 (got lazy counting). And this guy's article has been viewed 269k+ times in the Spanish Wikipedia. That would've been in the top 40 most viewed articles there (In this list, the 34th most-viewed article had 271612 views in that month. –HTD 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that, but i guessed that its his opinion/view that hes entitled too???Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but it would be nice to have people back them up. We can't see inside their heads. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Important figure, and not dying of old age. Thue | talk 11:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article had been viewed 269k+ times in the Spanish Wikipedia. That's like 1 million in the English Wikipedia (also viewed 50k+ times at en.wp). –HTD 15:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per insufficient notability for the front page, as well as state of article. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 16:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Article has been updated. The blurb can be changed if necessary. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:32, 10 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. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]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]
I would have opposed that too, if I had been involved in the discussion. Modest Geniustalk 17:24, 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]
Off topic discussion Hot Stop(c) 14:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@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]
I am not anti-American in the slightest. I love many things about the country and its people. But I have trouble with uninformed paranoia. Wise Americans should be proud enough to not need to be that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
another paranoid American; you Americans will never get it. That's just from this conversation. If 'American' were substituted with 'Jewish' there would be no argument.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read them IN CONTEXT and my reasons for such language will be clear. I will attack poor logic and posts based on unacceptably poor knowledge no matter who they're from. Let's return to discussing the topic now please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't return to the topic. Did you just call me a paranoid American? RxS (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then it was directed at Grsz 11 or HTD, in any case it's completely inappropriate. RxS (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even recall who it was directed at, but I can recall getting sick of some American editors here accusing non-Americans of being anti-American or calling "US-centrism", when in fact what they were doing was suggesting that being a first lady alone did not make someone notable. This was made worse in this particular thread by an appalling start where the blurb originally claimed notability for Betty Ford purely on the basis of being a first lady. It was never going to be enough. In support of the claim, I ended up expanding the blurb (because nobody else would), to give Betty a chance of being noted here. Several editors behaved as if they believed that Americans were somehow being attacked when others suggested that being a first lady (in America maybe) is simply not enough for being listed here. That's what I described as paranoia. America is a great country. Being offended by a suggestion that American first ladies aren't all that notable globally is just a tad over-sensitive, and quite unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why was this discussion collapsed? Betty Ford was famous both for being quite an atypical First Lady and for the Betty Ford Clinic. I don't think that the age at which she died is relevant - what should matter is her notability - and I believe that anti-American bias demonstrated by quite a few of the opposes above should be discounted. Note that pagesviews for the Betty Ford article show 234K views on July 9. By comparison, the space shuttle article, STS-135, even though it is currently listed on main page, got 41K views on July 8 and 27K views on July 9. While pageviews aren't everything, they do indicate a degree of interest and importance that WP readers attach to a particular item and should be taken into account. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some people here, particularly those who cite US-centrism as a reason to oppose, also won't accept those view stats. Heck Casey Anthony trial got one million and that is no closer than this on getting posted. –HTD 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to this counter[9], Casey Anthony got only 180K on the peak day (July 5, the day of the verdict), comapred to 234K for Betty Ford. IMO, pageviews stats are one factor (but not the only factor) to consider in such cases. I opposed inclusion of the Casey Anthony article into ITN because, in my view, the other factors were not present in that case - there were no inherent reasons, apart from the tabloid hype, for the story's importance. The Betty Ford case is different. She is popular not just because she was the First Lady, but because she was quite unusual and atypical in her role as the First Lady, in that she was an active and outspoken advocate for various controversial political causes while being the First Lady (such as her support for the Equal Rights amendment and for abortion rights). In this way she considerably influenced the public policy and public debate in her own right. She also made significant public impact for her work on the Betty Ford clinic. Such factors were absent in the Casey Anthony case. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try Death of Caylee Anthony as that was the original title before it was moved. That registered 1 million hits. A redirect getting 250k "views" is a significant achievement in the lonely world of redirects.
I tried doing a head count -- valid oppose: 10, explicitly U.S. biaz oppose: 2, support: 7. Didn't include the neutrals or those that didn't put (strong) support/oppose words at the beginning. –HTD 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well since its not a vote head count doesnt matter either. In any case from beginning there was never really any consensus to post. Its way too late now anyways. -- Ashish-g55 16:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why's it too late? It's newer than at least four of the items currently on the template. Hot Stop(c) 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has any of the opposes been discredited? It's futile engaging the opposes anyway especially in blurbs relating to the U.S. The opposes seem convincing though, unlike the Casey Anthony one (such as it being a "domestic" issue has been thoroughly discredited after links of coverage outside the U.S.). –HTD 16:22, 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]
I agree that aircrashes aren't guaranteed an appearance on ITN. Given the limited info that comes out of that part of the world, the article is in fairly good shape. At the time it occurred (and currently) it's the second deadliest to have occurred in the DRC. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 10 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 blurb is always in present tense. –HTD 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Is launched" would be present perfect tense, which is acceptable, but I think "launches" is fine and doesn't need changing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing into "is launced" will change it into passive sentence. Kenrick Talk 15:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's REALLY annoying: I bothered to correct the bad grammar, yet you post it up regardless. So I've looked it up in my online dictionary, which confirms what I said. Transitive. Can you tell me what the shuttle is launching then? Another shuttle?
launch 1 |lôn ch; län ch |
verb [ trans. ]
1 set (a boat) in motion by pushing it or allowing it to roll into the water : the town's lifeboat was launched to rescue the fishermen.
• set (a newly built ship or boat) afloat for the first time, typically as part of an official ceremony : King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden launched a huge new warship.
• send (a missile, satellite, or spacecraft) on its course or into orbit : they launched two Scud missiles.
• [ trans. ] hurl (something) forcefully : she launched a tortoiseshell comb.
• [with adverbial of direction ] ( launch oneself) (of a person) make a sudden energetic movement : I launched myself out of bed.
• utter (criticism or a threat) vehemently : scores of customers launched a volley of complaints.
2 start or set in motion (an activity or enterprise) : she was launching a campaign against ugly architecture.
• introduce (a new product or publication) to the public for the first time : the company has launched a software package specifically for the legal sector.
It's embarrassing on the main page. Not happy. Tony(talk) 10:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
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]
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)
