*'''Very weak support'''. Because we really should post something about something at some point. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Very weak support'''. Because we really should post something about something at some point. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not the first time he has left a particular format only to return at a later date. Maybe when he retires from all forms of the game. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 11:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Not the first time he has left a particular format only to return at a later date. Maybe when he retires from all forms of the game. [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]][[User talk:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Grey;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Caldron</span>]] 11:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
:: I'm also not supporting this story being posted (see below), but could you please tell me when Sachin has "left a particular format only to return at a later date"? I've been following cricket, especially Indian cricket, since 1992. I cant seem to recollect this at all. [[User:Chocolate Horlicks|Chocolate Horlicks]] ([[User talk:Chocolate Horlicks|talk]]) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' When he retires from the first-class game completely, yes. Now, no. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 11:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' When he retires from the first-class game completely, yes. Now, no. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 11:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'm very much of the view that he deserves a place on the front page, as highly regarded and notable that he is. But as has been said, he needs to retire from everything before we nominate him 'properly'. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 12:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I'm very much of the view that he deserves a place on the front page, as highly regarded and notable that he is. But as has been said, he needs to retire from everything before we nominate him 'properly'. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 12:34, 23 December 2012 (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).
Support; while I know little of the world of cricket, this person seems to be regarded as one of the greatest players ever, so his retirement is notable. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that Test cricket is considered to be the superior form of cricket, the fact that the greatest player in a particular format has retired is definitely noteworthy. If we look at his personal achievements, Test records are not so impressive as ODIs. One can say that he was the best ODI batsman ever, but not Tests/First-class cricket. —Vensatry(Ping me)12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the first time he has left a particular format only to return at a later date. Maybe when he retires from all forms of the game. Leaky Caldron11:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not supporting this story being posted (see below), but could you please tell me when Sachin has "left a particular format only to return at a later date"? I've been following cricket, especially Indian cricket, since 1992. I cant seem to recollect this at all. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm very much of the view that he deserves a place on the front page, as highly regarded and notable that he is. But as has been said, he needs to retire from everything before we nominate him 'properly'. doktorbwordsdeeds12:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further details emerge on the suicide yesterday of Irish government minister Shane McEntee; he breakfasted with his family, took his dogs for a walk and was later found dead. Friends blame the pressure he was put under by his party to vote in favour of the country's latest austeritybudget. (The Irish Times)(Irish Independent)
A British court rejects an attempt by the son of a man killed in U.S. drone strike in Pakistan to force the UK government to reveal if it provided intelligence to assist US action. (BBC)
Weak oppose. From what I can read, it seems like this resignation was planned ahead of time(he said he would do so after the budget passed) and not precipitated by a scandal or alleged illegal activities. That knocks it down a little on the notability scale for me. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We're gonna post the results of the election per ITN/R, so I don't see why this needs to be posted twice. It's the new government that will be newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the BBC article "President Napolitano accepted the resignation and called on Mr Monti to remain as head of an interim administration until the elections, which analysts say will most probably be held on 24 February." Unless I'm reading that wrong, he's still prime minister, at least in everything but name. Hot Stop(Talk)16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Gangnam Style (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The music video for "Gangnam Style" by South Korean musician PSY becomes the first internet video to reach one billion views. (Post) News source(s):[4], [5] Credits:
I would love to support more light-hearted ITN's like these, but I know that one really can only oppose currently. (And I would have used the point where it surpassed the highest-view video that was about 2 months ago as the key factor, since I'm sure there were people page-spamming to trip the counter) --MASEM (t) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighthearted, yes, but not really news. It's an internet phenomenon (we've already known this) being an internet phenomenon. DYK if there's an eligible article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exceeding a milestone of one billion visits is a remarkable achievement, but not a world record of a very big importance as mentioned above. There are plenty of such consuming records that happen every day in different industries, while this one has never been considered something so special in music. Yet, it's even hard to classify it being a news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "A bit silly, perhaps". Yes, quite. It's very easy to press F5, and for that matter programme a computer to do so, making the 1 billion figure (or 1 thousand million in the UK ;)) is just an arbitrary mark without any real hard evidence. On top of all that, it's just no important enough for the front page. We always, rightly, reject this sort of tech buzz and I can't see why this is any different. Utter candyfloss. doktorbwordsdeeds19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems newsworthy to me. We post sports records all the time: most football goals in a season and batting 100 centuries to name a few (the latter being totally arbitrary). This video went ultra-viral, and that's a major achievement these days, I think everyone here recognizes that. If there is room for a blurb about a million year old sitar player, there is room for Gangnam Style. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It might be notable, but ITN is not the "world records set" feed. Putting this would set a negative precedent to have all sorts of world records in ITN. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Since a billion is beyond the realms of human comprehension, has this particular t'interweb virus now become quite meaningless? Surely its cultural significance now lies purely with its parodies, many of which are clearly better: [6]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Although I find the video awesome, I have to agree with 331dot that it might lower the bar for less serious news in ITN in the future. (And if any single performance would be responsible for any end of the world, I think it would rather be Friday or Baby.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose especially as much of that "billion" was achieved by Internet and social media spamming. At one point, around 10% of all Twitter postings containing currently trending hashtags were spoof ones sending people to this video. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment Seems to be a pretty huge scientific achievement and MIT is surely a party that lays a strong scientific verification, but on this stage it's difficult to judge whether it's generally accepted or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The article is incomprehensible to layman. The lead should at least attempt to address the matter in a more layman friendly matter. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scientists discover that they can create something that is a bit different from anything else. Mutual back patting among those involved, who I'm sure must be feeling very clever, but until there is any practical application, or evidence that it has entered into the non specialist public awareness, it is not of sufficient interest or import. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and comment: As far as I can tell, this isn't really a new state of matter. It's a new type of magnetic organisation within an existing state of matter (a crystal, which is a type of solid). It seems a bit technical for our readership - more like something you would read in New Scientist or Physics World. Interesting, but not sufficiently wide-ranging to interest the general wikipedia reader. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment I can't support. Modest Geniustalk19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One of the few things I do know about particle physics is that if you describe a solid using the word "liquid" it is still a solid, so "new state of matter" is possibly a little misleading. In any event, the bolded article is impenetrable and the herbertsmithite article is a stub, and I predict neither of those things will change in time to post. Formerip (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is undoubtedly a major discovery with big implications for physics. However, it's disappointing that the main-stream media managed to miss this one, and as such I do not think we will be able to justify it's presence on WP front page. SPattalk07:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per above. We have never posted a failure of a doomsday theory, so no way it merits exception now. The calendar has reached its ending day but nothing special that can be classified as an important news has happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's notable, it has widespread coverage, it is of international interest, and is essentially a minority topic (religion/culture). What more is needed? Use Eugen's blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have we gone completely mad? We've had TWO Featured articles on this already, by the way, and in any case, if you want to start a precedent which requires us to put onto ITN every world calendar changeover, go ahead, but I won't have anything to do with it. This is just flash in the pan nominating which shouldn't make it to the front page doktorbwordsdeeds14:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This overblown nonsense over the basic misunderstanding of how calenders work has already been given over to two TFA slots this week, let's put the crop down and let the horse be buried. GRAPPLEX15:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was already TFA yesterday, and is still listed on the Main Page under today's blurb (which was also chosen with this date in mind). At best it's a light-hearted 'aren't they stupid' kind of story, which isn't the best choice for ITN. Nothing has actually happened. Modest Geniustalk15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. Since 2012 phenomenon was an FA, yesterday or today was really the only reasonable time to put it on the main page, so I've no problem with that. And I actually kind of like the choice of today's TFA. But that's more than enough about this ridiculousness; it got old about a year ago. Let's not put it in ITN for a week, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Oppose for all of the reasons above and every other reason you can think of. It's already (still) on the main page once; can't that be enough? -- Mike(Kicking222)18:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interpretation that there is no evidence anyone ever intended as a prediction didn't come to pass. Let's treat our readers' with a bit more credit for their intelligence. Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been in the news for years, is all over the popular culture, and is happening today. Wikipedia is all our readers. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it was in the news for years through a misunderstanding and mickey-taking and hyperbole and fiction and most other such things. There was no "end of the world", there was a calendar changing, and we can't go putting calendar changes on ITN every few months. doktorbwordsdeeds18:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "every calendar change" comment is fatuous. This one is quite notable notable, having had even a blockbuster movie filmed about it. Our opinion of those who are interested in this phenomenon is irrelevant. Get back to me by 14.0.0.0.0 μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On This Day Actually, this would make a whole of sense in the On This Day section at the end of the line on the Solstice. How does one nominate that? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Julian Assange issues a statement to supporters from a balcony of London's Ecuadorean embassy, in which he refers to the U.S.Pentagon's recent description of the existence of WikiLeaks as an "ongoing crime" and suggests it is the intention of WikiLeaks to release a million more documents in 2013. (BBC)
A U.S. soldier who urinated on the corpse of a dead Afghan combatant is sentenced to 30 days in jail after admitting his action at a court martial. Reports suggest he will not be sent to jail because of a plea deal reached with military prosecutors. (BBC)
Laos denies knowledge as to the fate of missing activist Sombath Somphone, who disappeared last week in the capital Vientiane. (AFP via Google News)
Two people are injured in two blasts outside al-Amin mosque in the Somali-dominated Eastleigh district of Nairobi during the evening rush hour. (Al Jazeera)
Banking giant UBS is fined $1.5 billion for attempting to manipulate the Libor interbank lending rate, becoming the second international bank, after Barclays, to be fined over the Libor scandal. (Al Jazeera)
The Pollard report into practices at the BBC is published, and finds there was a “complete inability” to deal with the Jimmy Savile crisis. (The Independent)
The South Korean electoral commission declares Park Geun-hye the winner of the presidential election with 84% of the votes counted and will become South Korea's first female president. Moon Jae-in has conceded. (Yonhap)(BBC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
...and wholly without importance for the front page. We wouldn't accept him as front page nomination material normally, certainly not with the fixed, fudged and wholly unworkable ticker system. A very clear and obvious oppose from me . 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Support- I would normally oppose people like this, but because of the unique position of the IDF in the world as both pioneering in military technology and constantly involved in actual fighting, the chief of the IDF is one of the most important figures in Israel and in national defense. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: My second recent death nom this week. While I was sure that Inouye deserved to be posted, Bork is definitely more marginal, but I'm nominating anyway. His nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States was pretty landmark, and it paved the way for more contentious SCOTUS confirmation hearings that continue today. He was also involved in the Watergate scandal. --– Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Is everyone involved in the Watergate scandal going to be on the ticker then? Why are Americans, especially politicians, judges and celebrities, getting such an easy ride on the death ticker? That's Daniel Inouye, Dina Manfredini, Dave Brubeck, Jenni Rivera, Marvin Miller, Joseph Murray, Héctor Camacho (spent first three years of life in Puerto Rico), Larry Hagman, Jacques Barzun, Russell Means, George McGovern in about seven weeks, routinely with about two at the same time in quick succession. Some of these should certainly be there but it's just too much. Anyone from anywhere else has to prove beyond all doubt that they're important enough. Has any other part of the world had even more than one? India might have had about two, maybe Britain. The remainder could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Have the standards been lowered or something? --86.40.195.205 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I was about to say that the proponents of the ticker would've never thought that it would be swamped by Americans. –HTD19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone was going to bring up the AMERICAN BIAS argument. Wasn't sure who it was going to be, though. This oppose vote has no comment on Bork himself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination has next to no comment on Bork for crying out loud! U.S. Supreme Court nomination (one of many) + involvement in the Watergate scandal (one of many)? That's nowhere near enough. The oppose "Is everyone involved in the Watergate scandal going to be on the ticker then?" is just as worthy as the support for him getting a U.S. Supreme Court nomination and involvement in the Watergate scandal.
Uh, the nomination is all about who Bork was, what made him notable. I suppose I could've described him as a leading conservative scholar on originalism, but you can see that in the article as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the nomination says with parts relating to Bork in bold for emphasis:
My second recent death nom this week. While I was sure that Inouye deserved to be posted, Bork is definitely more marginal, but I'm nominating anyway. His nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States was pretty landmark, and it paved the way for more contentious SCOTUS confirmation hearings that continue today. He was also involved in the Watergate scandal.
Probably shouldn't have said "more marginal", but I meant in comparison to Inouye, and I'd say that Inouye's clear passage to recent deaths than this nom proved me right. His nomination was landmark, and probably made him more notable than he would've been if he had been confirmed. My statement was merely an opener, and if you had read the article, you would've seen what was "landmark" about the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how his failure can have made him more notable. There is nothing in the article and nothing has been presented here to suggest this is the case. --86.40.195.205 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to 86.40's question " Why are Americans...getting such an easy ride on the death ticker" is because you, 86.40, haven't improved an article or nominated one to ITNC. Give us a non-American to put up there. Improve their article to where it is main page worthy. Show us sources that consider the death to itself be noteworthy. Or, you could just complain and never see the problem fixed. That could happen too. Oh, wait, that just did. --Jayron3219:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know me and you don't know what I do or don't do so I'll ignore the personal barb. The oppose asked if everyone connected to the Watergate scandal was going to be put on the ticker. The oppose wanted to know why Americans whom not everyone has heard of are given little detail and how these are expected to be judged by non-Americans, when non-Americans have to go through such forensic detail to get close. A nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and involvement in the Watergate scandal. That's all anyone has to go on. And when anyone questions this sort of thing, who isn't an expert on U.S. politics and courts, who isn't interested in U.S. politics and courts, they're looked down upon at best, maliciously attacked at worst. --86.40.195.205 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was most notable for the way he was rejected from SCOTUS. He was a United States Circuit Judge, Solicitor General, and acting Attorney General. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What way was he rejected? This has been made completely unclear in this nomination. It is as if everyone is supposed to know about it or something. A "Circuit Judge, Solicitor General, and acting Attorney General" is not much more convincing than a Supreme Court rejection. --86.40.195.205 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How is anyone who doesn't know who he is supposed to be convinced by this? The article doesn't even make it clear. "A hotly contested United States Senate debate", some "strong condemnation" from Ted Kennedy, his video rental history(?!) and lots of uncited material about a rejection. How can this have so much support? Is everybody blind? --86.40.195.205 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They won't be convinced by the way you lay out your arguments. Those two articles are certainly much more barren than Bork's, suggesting they've made far less impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bork has a ton of uncited material. His claim to fame seems to be his failure to reach high office. He was an old man. The nomination was very poorly laid out for anyone who was not familiar with him. Is that laid out a bit better? It's as if these people are just expected to walk onto the ticker with no opposition or something. Then when somebody does oppose it's a massive shock and the fireworks start. --86.40.195.205 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination placed emphasis on Bonk's unsuccessful court attempt and an involvement in the Watergate scandal. This is hardly the sort of thing a leader is known for. At least he has his own verb I suppose. --86.40.195.205 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This whole circus is really getting draining now. Here's a suggestion: scrap the ticker, and never give any deaths a full blurb either. I don't care if it's Obama committing suicide on live television on Christmas Fucking Day – if we don't post deaths, we won't have to go through this pathetic rigmarole on an almost daily basis. There is other news to report apart from minor-level American politicians snuffing it, and these arguments are not worth having. 87.114.90.71 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly agree. This is another example of a completely ludicrous sideshow where pigeons are fighting over crumbs for the sake of boasting about getting a bit of crust. Since the death ticker took over ITN/C, I've noticed that valid nominations are being sidelined or allowed to go stale, and all for the sake of admins (in particular) to rub themselves into cheap thrills. We've had enough time to see the damage the death ticker is doing to ITN/C, let's abandon it now, for the sake of the entire project. doktorbwordsdeeds23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Coming from a culture without a "supreme court" equivalent I have to profess ignorance as to their importance. However, I am knowledgeable as to Watergate, and Bork's role there was pretty minuscule in the wider picture—I certainly wouldn't have supported the posting of John Ehrlichman or H. R. Haldeman, for example. Liddy's another matter given his media prominence but that's a whole other kettle of fish. From the seems of it, Bork had a relatively high number of almost-achievements—acting Attorney General, nominated for Supreme Court, marginally involved in Watergate—but nothing that outright says "Look at me, I mattered". GRAPPLEX00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker. This guys' considered one of the leading legal scholars of the last century in the US, was a best-selling author, and just under the supreme court when nominated. Opposes above based on opposition to his politics and calling him a washed-out politician are ignorant in the extreme. BTW, I though the guy's judicial philosophy was extremely flawed, opposed his nomination, was glad he dropped out (but not for the reason why) and think his actions under Nixon were awful. But yes, I think a serious encyclopedia would bump a 13-day oldest person listing for Bork in a heartbeat, and call upon an admin to make a judgment here to post based on the seriousness of the man's role in modern law. PS, none of the other current nominees/listees has a word coined after him: to Bork. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker - Not just anyone can claim to be a verb, as in Borked. And if you don't know that, you just don't know history, and I can't help that you are uninformed. Arguments against posting are in that category, in my view. Jusdafax08:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think we can seriously regard 'to bork' as a widespread word; and it's highly confusable with the hacker-slang term 'borken' or 'borked' for 'broken'. And in any case, that's a lousy claim to fame. This is of purely local interest; and by 'local' I mean the Beltway. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely important legal scholar, and his nomination changed the Supreme Court nominating process. Wouldn't support for a standard blurb, but appropriate for the deaths ticker. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (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.
The sections for nominations of the main parties a a bit long and could be split to seperate articles maybe? Otherwise post once all the numbers are in as per ITN/R. --LukeSurltc17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for impact. No industry changes will likely occur, and this type of "company fined for regulations violations" is something that is becoming routine. Also, I'd like to add an extra oppose to the nomination for the laziness and deceitfulness of portraying a single article as two different sources. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support if we didn't post anything else yet on the Libor fixing scandal. It's a big deal. Musicians goonna die, that's not going to change, politicians gonna get elected, no change their either, and banks gonna get fines for being criminals. Shouldn't ignore their crimes. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Libor scandal is an exceptionally good article, and the issue is of pretty huge magnitude (in that strange shadowy realm of international finance which basically rules the world). Quite technical tho, but that's where an encyclopaedia like the one we have here can be of most use to readers. --LukeSurltc00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. "Agrees to pay" seems like odd wording, although I notice it's how UBS put it in their press release. Is paying the fines voluntary? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and his production team are freed after 5 days of captivity in northern Syria. They were captured by what Engel claims were members of the shabiha, a plainclothes militia loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. Rebel forces at a checkpoint freed the men after a firefight that killed 2 of the captors. (NBC News)
A coalition of rebel groups called Séléka take over the Central African Republic mining town of Bria, killing at least 15 government soldiers. The group is spearheaded by UFDR forces and has already taken five towns in its two-week offensive, which it claims is because of a lack of progress after a peace deal ended the 2004–2007 Bush War. Following an appeal for help from President]] François Bozizé, the President of ChadIdriss Déby sends 20 vehicles of heavily armed troops to help quell the rebellion. (ABC News)(AFP)(Reuters)
Nominator's comments: 55 deaths, generally of the magnitude that warrents an ITN posting. Article seems well-sourced and of sufficient extent. --LukeSurltc23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the third time this nominator has put this story forward. I sympathise with his frustration in trying to gain support for a worthy campaign in the face of what seems like incredible commercial insensitivity to history and culture, but as previously, there is no news story relevant to the date of the nomination. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin's reasoning. I would suggest a SNOW close since this isn't going to be approved until something happens there. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow nothing has changed since the last two times this was nominated. I sympathize entirely with the subject of the blurb, but ITN is a profoundly bad place to try to gain the sort of visibility that (I assume) the nominator wants. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Update looks solid. I would've preferred if the earlier section in his article had been longer, but I'll see if I can find further information to add there myself. SpencerT♦C17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclone Evan hits Fiji with winds as high as 230 km/h, amid reports of flooding and structural damage at resorts and private homes. More than 8,000 people spend the storm in emergency shelters, including many foreign tourists. (Reuters)(AAP via SBS)
At least 18 people drown after an overloaded boat sinks north of Benin's commercial capital Cotonou. (Reuters)
The Parliament of Libya orders the closure of Libya's southern borders with Chad, Sudan, Algeria and Niger while declaring seven southern regions restricted military areas to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and goods. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: If "recent deaths" is indeed supposed to focus on the biography rather than the specific update, Inouye has a bio to honor. And if it's also a matter of update, well I'm updating on his hospitalization of 11 days ago, which I hadn't heard about until now. --– Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD ticker. One of the longest ever serving United States Senators in history. Canuck89 (converse with me) 23:23, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Support Never heard of the bloke, and have no interest at all in Hawaiian politics, but seems like he should be there. Sampling random months, daily hits are rarely less than about 600, often much more. Kevin McE (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A President Pro Tem, has represented Hawaii in Congress since they got statehood, Medal of Honor recipient. Certainly worthy for the ticker. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lukewarm Support once updated, not a back-bencher, long significant career, not like he'd be pushing anyone else off the ticker now. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both/either - It's quite clear that his achievements go far beyond his long and distinguished political service. I'm content for his name to stay on the ticker, but I'd be pleased to see a full listing instead. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb - I think the ticker is sufficient. Career was extensive but generally national in scope. Death, though occurring while in office, was from natural causes and somewhat expected. LukeSurltc10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion has suggested full blurb in cases of natural death should really be reserved for international household names, which is not the case here. LukeSurltc13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be clear consensus in this area, at least not at a glance: no formal position on its implementation has been adopted by the relevant guideline and multiple attempts to hash out the ticker's scope have failed in just the past two weeks. — C M B J17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to have been a pretty serious misunderstanding on my part, so I'm withdrawing the above comment and collapsing this thread to focus on more productive discussion. — C M B J16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CMBJ seems to have demonstrated this is being covered internationally (even Iran, hardly a fan of the US) which would suggest there is some level of international recognition. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That a story is covered to a basic level on many websites internationally doesn't really much nowadays, as it is very simple to port a newswire story into a basic web posting. Many websites will translate and write up Reuters et al. stories as a simple matter of course. As a more instructive yardstick, see what level of prominence a story is given in the bulletins of the major international news services (BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN etc.) --LukeSurltc14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In no particular order: NBC - 2x home page; CSPAN - home page; Press TV - home page; NHK - 3x in world news; Yahoo News - home page; NPR - home page; USA TODAY - home page; Chicago Tribune - home page; NY Times - home page; TIME magazine - home page; The Guardian - home page; The Atlantic - home page; Washington Post - 2x home page. — C M B J17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are US (I assume you're seeing the US edition of the Guardian front page, because I don't see it on my UK version. I can't see it on PressTV front page at the current time). The exception is NHK, which has placed it into the world news section. This just isn't an international story of the magnitude than warrants a full blurb for a recent death. LukeSurltc17:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is US as well — I assumed that you were speaking of placement on any site with a substantial international readership, which is an equally important metric for ITN inclusion. — C M B J01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Though I understand the reasoning given by the oppose voters, Inouye was the second to last WWII veteran in the US Senate (New Jersey's Lautenberg is the last) which marks a fundamental generational shift in the Senate and politics. [14] I think that aspect pushes it over the notability threshold for me. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the short discussion that did take place at WT:ITN, only those with the very highest global profile, whose death would trigger a major global media circus, should now be blurb deaths: he does not have such a profile. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, there is lengthy, ongoing discussion about whether the ticker should even continue to exist. We shouldn't be categorically excluding this (or any) nomination under the given circumstances. — C M B J14:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb. The person is notable without doubt, but that notability is not that significantly based on his death, and therefore this event is not meant for a full blurb in the template. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Like many interesting astronomical observations, this is a mere curiosity compared to other news. Also, this does not appear to be fresh: our article on 4179 Toutatis says the flyby was on 13 December. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First we are not talking astronomical observation, we are talking astronautics. Otherwise I thought that space firsts were valid entries. This is the first time a Chinese spacecraft observes another object beyond the Moon at close distance (i.e. 3.2 km) ? Similar feats by Japan (Hayabusa) had been ITN I think. Hektor (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a milestone in Chinese space exploration, but I think the blurb should be reworded to focus on that aspect and less on the asteroid itself. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question': What did this discover? Was it interesting? Currently 4179_Toutatis#Exploration merely says that the flyby happened with a few numbers, which to me is a an insufficient update for this event. Also worth noting Alex's point that this occurred 13 December, so even if we do post it will be quite far down the list. LukeSurltc11:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on evidence so far about what brings it to a notability threshold. Am I right in surmising that the only first is that probes from that country</u\> haven't done it before? I don't think our threshold has dropped that low. Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This was unexpected, and kept secret in case of failure until after the accomplishment, which is major, and a first for China. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify to Luke and others, this was a moon-orbiting probe that complete its lunar mission and was retargeted to Toutatis only after the fact. The mission was not planned ahead of time, and it was not announced until after it was a success because it was risky and uncertain. It's actually quite a development, and has no parallel. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Kevin. Fortunately these flybys are happening more and more often, and I don't think it's necessary to highlight every individual first that comes along with this fact. Especially when the "first" has been done before. Space knows no borders... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)04:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that the update is pretty darn thin, but I expect that to change rapidly. This is a fascinating article on a topic in the news. The Chinese first is appealing as well. Overall a fine candidate. Jusdafax05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support if the article incorporates the points made by Medies above. I'm weary of the petite nationalism that says we should post accomplishments based on the actors, and not the accomplishment itself, but if this event really is the first impromptu mission change ever then I would support it. 130.188.8.27 (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get the pictures taken into the article? Would they be licensed in the same generally free was as NASA pictures? Currently my support hinges on the quality of the update, which I do not think is presently sufficient. Also note that if this is posted, chronologically it fits between the knife attack and the Tallow Candle items. LukeSurltc10:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To support my clarification above: "Chang'e 2 was launched in 2010 primarily to serve as a lunar orbiter, but after a successful mission at the moon, the $132 million spacecraft was repurposed as a deep-space explorer. The encounter with Toutatis had been planned for months, but Chinese media kept mum about the results until Saturday."NBC News It should be noted this is the first time a moon orbiter has been repurposed to visit an asteroid. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose, WaitSupport ticker. Curiously, her successor Jiroemon Kimura will break the male longevity record (currently set by Christian Mortensen in 1998) if he lives for another 11 days. Seeing as the "world's oldest living person" title changes hands quite frequently, I think Kimura would be a bit more interesting to ITN editors. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is he more noteworthy? The title and ranking does not change all that frequently – there is just a recent cluster. Any change in it is quite an accomplishment, and, I believe, newsworthy. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note further that, just a few hours after her death, there are hundreds (maybe thousands – hard to tell) of sources reporting it in many languages. It's a big story. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't think of the ticker when I opposed, so I'd definitely support that, but considering the fact that she only held the title for a few days, I'd be inclined to say that her tenure was pretty non-notable. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)04:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not the oldest person ever, just the oldest currently. Since people do tend to die quite shortly after becoming the oldest currently living, I don't think we should be posting every one of them. If/when the oldest person ever record gets broken, that would be more appropriate. Modest Geniustalk21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RD Ticker: Looking at Oldest people, it seems the average "reign" is about a year. That's probably borderline on an acceptable rate for recurrence of largely identical ITN stories. Using the ticker means we are using less space to tell the story. LukeSurltc21:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker only: achievement is by default, record is only ever discussed when it changes hands, record holder rarely does anything to support a public profile other than breathing (possibly with assistance). Ticker ready for some change: Rivera's and Ahmed's deaths were over a week ago, all three are older stories than bottom one on template. Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Pretty absurd given Jiroemon KimuraBesse Cooper, the prior world's oldest person had died only 13 days earlier. This is an event that usually happens many times a year. While I won't argue this should be pulled, Inouye's death is far more notable. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, copied wrong name by mistake. The point still stands, an under-two-week record holder is absurd, and this sets a terrible precedent. Admins should do a little research. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched how ITN/C operates for a week or so, I think fears of a "terrible precedent" are unwarranted. There are bigger issues than whether we're going to put Mr. Kimura on the ticker in the future. Maybe dial down the near-constant hyperbole a notch? Then, when you actually do think something is absurd, people might take your comment seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, the posting was simply not justified, and I am quite sure you didn't realize it was being put up less than two weeks after the last oldest person in the world had died. The fact is, admins need to pay more attention, not less attention. That being said, who cares, the listing isn't keeping some more important person off ITN, so I certainly don't. Perhaps we should add this to ITNR? μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the first ITNR ticker item. I think such deaths would be a good fit for the ticker. We should probably consider the omission of Besse Cooper an oversight. When Jiroemon Kimura becomes the oldest living man ever, I think that may be full blurb material, but that's a somewhat different story. --LukeSurltc10:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pull As has been said above, this "title" changes regularly and the notability question is far more complex than just passing a baton between each elderly person fate and fortune deigns with longevity. It's potentially bias, as records are more accurate in the developed world than elsewhere, so we could be opening ourselves up to a real problem of precedent. Pull this from the front page whilst we fathom out a solution doktorbwordsdeeds05:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All or nothing. I see no particular basis to pull, and would have been neutral on a full blurb had I seen this before I posted. That said, RD seems the worst of all worlds in this situation. Sometimes we post people who were huge in a few countries and relatively unknown in others: for them, RD works reasonably well. But Dina Manfredini was not a household name in any part of the world. We should therefore either have posted a full blurb to explain that she was the world's oldest person, or not posted at all on the grounds that she wasn't well known enough. —WFC— FL wishlist09:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, WFC. We have an RfC recommending the insertion of random links throughout WP. If people click on them, they can find out what they are about as well. Kind of viral and all Third-Milleniumish. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philippine authorities announce the death toll from Typhoon Bopha has reached 1,020. Another 844 are still missing, most of them fishermen lost on boats out at sea. More than two weeks after the passage of the storm, nearly 27,000 people remain in emergency shelters. (AFP via Yahoo News)
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.
Support re: notability as per WP:ITN/R, but the article is far from ready, and is very much in a "pre-result" state at the current time. I've done a little bit on reactions/analysis prior to my bedtime here, but a lot more needs to be done. This is an election about who runs the world's third-largest economy so we should aim for more than the bare minimum. There should be plenty of sources around. Indeed, as an experiment I'd recommend that ITN/C readers, even if one does't have time to edit the article, collect sources which can be used by other editors and place them in the template above. (This seems like a good use of ITN anyway). --LukeSurltc23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR. The post-election update is sufficient, although hopefully some of that will make its way into the lead in the near future. —WFC— FL wishlist08:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is something of an oddity of a tournament (rather like the FIFA Confederations Cup and the FA Community Shield and its equivalents in many countries) whereby winning the event that qualifies a team for this is a massive goal for the teams involved, but this is itself not much more than an overblown friendly tournament. Although they were guaranteed a place in the semifinal against opposition they should beat 19 times out of 20, winning this will have been at best fourth in Chelsea's priorities this season behind the League, the FA Cup and the Champions' League. Kevin McE (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated. Really, with Corinthians beating the UEFA champion I think the arguments that this tournament doesn't matter to the teams playing should be ditched. Both teams played full strength squads and it clearly mattered a great deal to both teams. All statements by the team officials indicate that this tournament is one of the teams' significant priorities. It probably matters more to the South Americans which I think accounts for the European perception that this is a second rate tournament. I also think it's time to post this to ITNR. However, the article needs more prose so I'm marking it 'not updated'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have quotes from the beginning of the season saying that, I'll withdraw my oppose. But comments in the immediate run up to the event or immediately after by the winners are slanted by circumstances, and any comment that says "it is an important competition, honestly" is only necessitated by widespread opinion to the contrary. Articles on all but one of the other previous winners have it at the very end of the listing of achievements in the opening paragraph, suggesting that to fans of those clubs (let's face it, most club articles are largely fan written) it is less important than the others. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Kevin's right. I'm sure FIFA would like this to be considered important, but the simple fact of the matter is it's a glorified series of friendlies. I'm not as well-versed in non-European football, but I can guarantee the Champions League is considered vastly more important than this by Chelsea. Johnsemlak may be right that the non-Europeans care more, though I'm not aware that anyone really believes this is the top achievement in world club football. LukeSurltc14:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there's a championship parade at the streets of Sao Paulo once Corinthians arrive. Otherwise, oppose. –HTD14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- A huge upset in the most underrated football tournament in the world. The fact that Corinthians can now call themselves FIFA World Champions should mean something. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it isn't. As Kevin said above, although a European side needs to win the Champions League to qualify, no-one (in Europe certainly) considers this a more important competition. Compare media coverage if you're not convinced. LukeSurltc16:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Champions League may be more popular, but it's organized by UEFA and only European clubs can compete there, while the tournament in question is a FIFA-run Club World Cup, where all clubs compete as the name suggests. I watched the final match and both teams played at decent, non-friendly level, with one red card and nice defense by Cássio. Brandmeistertalk16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose recurring event, not on ITN/R, and nothing particularly notable about this occurrence of the event. There are already nine association football items on ITN/R. Lets stay with that list please, so that we don't randomly post sporting events based on the whims of whomever happens to be participating at ITN at the time. In the name of consistency, stop this madness please. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of whether or not this should be a recurring event should take place over on that page, not here. This page is just to talk about the event going on ITN. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're very wrong about the "nothing particularly notable about this occurrence of the event" claim. Rarely does the European team lose the final. Also, I think this should be ITN/R, and as far as I know it has never been up for discussion, so the fact that's not on the list means nothing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There really should be some sanction against the posting of blatantly untrue claims in the hope of swaying the opinions of the uninformed. S American teams have won 4 out of 9 editions of the competition: that is as near as is possible to equalling Europe's success rate. European teams have lost 38% of the finals they have reached (and once didn't even reach the final). 38% of the time is not rare. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, I note, with no apology for attempting to mislead. Your opinion as to whether it should be at ITN/R is not relevant here, and it has been discussed there. Kevin McE (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Based on the discussion above, this doesn't appear to be a particularly notable event. In addition to the opposition, I take note of Bzweebl's comment that it's "the most underrated football tournament in the world" — an acknowledgement that it isn't among the more highly regarded association football championships. It's not our place to promote sporting events that we believe should be considered important. —David Levy18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a glorified friendly tournament that no-one takes very seriously. There's very little interest except from fans of the teams taking part. Modest Geniustalk19:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a friendly tournament between just four clubs, two of whom are perennially pointless, and a needless distraction mid-season for the European club involved. Who won it last year? Not a clue...... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A recognised FIFA event organised to showcase the best teams from recognised regional competitions, with the two finalists having amongst the best players in the world on their teams doktorbwordsdeeds21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support because "World Cup" mean a lot specialy when champions from the 6 populed continets are in, and 16M US Dollars is the money price to split betten the 7 teams for play and win this playoff. Become the real World Champion is the news. --Feroang (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is sorta not correct. The AFC Champions League is basically a closed system (think of it as like the US/Canada and Australian sports leagues where there is no promotion and regulation). This means not all of the members of the AFC can participate in the AFC Champions League (unlike UEFA's competition which allows even shitty leagues such as those in Northern Ireland and San Marino to participate). I dunno about other leagues, but this brings to question that all leagues pitch in. –HTD05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing can disguise the fact that this match was a glorified friendly. Not the trophy, not the title, not even the formalities that were the semi-finals. In fairness South American supporters do tend to care about the competition somewhat more than European ones – win or lose – but only a particular year's winners would ever claim that it came anywhere near the Champions League or the Copa Libertadores. —WFC— FL wishlist08:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article:Jalsha Movies (talk·history·tag) Blurb: This television channel is going to be launched today (16 December, 2012). Article created: Today. It is being expected (by different Bengali film personalities) that this channel will be the biggest Bengali movies channel Ref If article length is going to be an issue I can try to expand it a bit more, but, all the information I have at this moment is on the launch. It is difficult to write on the the channel without knowing the structure and even program schedule (before the official inauguration) --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC) (Post)[reply]
Oppose for now. This is going to sound like a crap reason, but here goes. I think we need to leave the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting up for a while more before an update. I will rethink this oppose sometime late tomorrow or Monday, but I do not think the time is right now to bump the massacre down on ITN. I have no prejudice against this however. gwickwiretalkedits04:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming nomination in good faith (so is the above oppose). it would probably be best to close this per WP:SNOW rather than opposing it 50 times. This just doesnt meet ITN criteria and is not of enough importance/interest. Please read WP:ITN for general guidelines... -- Ashish-g5506:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is without a doubt in good faith; there's no reason for that to be questioned. However, the news is simply not important enough on an international level to warrant inclusion on ITN. I would suggest SNOW closure. -- Mike(Kicking222)14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this nom and support a closing of this per WP:SNOW. Seems like an advertisement more than anything; certainly not a news story. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2012 (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
