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).
A U.S. federal court judge dismisses part of a lawsuit brought by Lions Gate Entertainment against its shareholder, Carl Icahn, holding that Icahn had met certain statutory disclosure requirements. (Reuters)
Former Denis O'Brien employee and journalist Sarah Carey's "significant leaking" of tribunal information is judged by the tribunal to have been "irresponsible" and "not remotely justified". (The Irish Times)
At a previous discussion on the ITN talk page I had argued for the Japanese earthquake and tsunami sticker. Now that the events there appear to have receded in the news cycle and the events in the Middle East are picking up again, I would like to renominate the Middle East and North Africa protests as a sticky. This is particularly relevant, in my view, in light of the developments in Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and made out of the rationale that all four stories deserve separate ITN posts and this would prove otherwise quite cumbersome. Colipon+(Talk) 02:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WE obviously have three events that could arguably vie for the sticky spot
Support changing the sticky per Colipon's nom - The North Africa/Middle East issues have jumped over Japan's, in my view, and unless there is dramatic change we should switch back. As a strong second choice I'd go with two stickies, which also makes sense. Jusdafax03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a separate note, due to the recent prevalence of stickies, I will put forth a proposal in the next few days for ITN to adopt a 'permanent sticky banner' of the five or six most relevant news events of public interest. Essentially this banner would just include a bold link to the article which has been of recent public interest. This will allow much more space for the important news stories that we miss due to large 'controversial' discussions on this page - the Charlie Sheens and US Senator deaths that generate a lot of hits to articles but never get proper ITN coverage, and even the Tuvalu election might occupy a place as a unitary link rather than a 'blurb'. It will also allow for easier posting of 'deaths' and solve the debate of whether or not we should be posting the deaths of "important but not especially important" people on ITN. The purpose of this new addition would primarily be to showcase a wider range of Wikipedia articles and secondarily to solve the many 'undue weight' issues that we experience on ITN. I wanted to get a feel from other editors first on whether this would be a good idea, or whether it's been discussed before. Colipon+(Talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Highly interesting, and I'm inclined to support this also, at first glance. Care would have to be taken not to clutter the ITN box too much, but I think it could be managed. Thanks, good suggestion... since it is a broader policy call, should it be moved to the talk page? Jusdafax09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Cooper, special advisor to Baroness Catherine Ashton (High Representative of the European Union for political, foreign affairs and security), despite serious concerns over excessive and indiscriminate use of force expressed by UN Secretary-GeneralBan Ki-moon(UN News Centre), speaking to MEPs in the foreign affairs committee in Brussels after visiting Bahrain (Saudi News Today), defended Bahrain's protests crackdown: "It's not easy dealing with large demonstrations in which there may be violence. It's a difficult task for policemen. It's not something that we always get right in the best Western countries and accidents happen" (Guardian). Cooper's endorsement disturbed one MEP at the debate. "'Accidents happen?' ... I'm sorry this is a funny picture as you describe it," German Green deputy Franziska Brantner said. "What are you talking about? I find this very scary."
The Moriarty Tribunal, in investigating links between businessman Denis O'Brien and then government minister Michael Lowry, finds "beyond doubt" that Lowry assisted O'Brien in gaining a mobile phone license for Esat Digifone, saying Lowry's actions were "disgraceful and insidious". The tribunal has been happening since 1997 and has concluded that Lowry "engaged in a cynical and venal abuse of power, showed favour to prominent or wealthy individuals, and by his actions cast a shadow over this countrys public life". International coverage as well, including The Guardian, which describes it as "a sensational report, which is getting wall-to-wall coverage" and refers to O'Brien as "one of Ireland's best known businessmen". Not just known in Ireland though. He has a presence outside Ireland and even outside Europe, including the Caribbean, founder of Communicorp (which has radio stations all over Europe and the Middle East), aircraft firm Aergo (Chicago, Johannesburg, Nairobi and Santiago de Chile), Independent News & Media (which is involved in everywhere from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to Hong Kong and Indonesia) and so much more... --candle•wicke22:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the Google News results on this and found nothing outside Ireland besides the Guardian. It's not on the Telegraph's or Times' home pages. The context of the quote from the Guardian about wall-to-wall coverage suggests they were talking about Irish media. I'm not seeing international interest. What's the international importance?--Chaser (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is on the exact same level as the Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez politicians/business men of middle importance getting in trouble. I'm neutral to both blurbs, but if one is posted both should be posted. Passionless-Talk01:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. As detailed below, this is only the second time the Filipino House has impeached someone. That story also got more international coverage. Finally, impeachments are rarer than what happened here.--Chaser (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A plane crashed somewhere in the world, infact, in a part of the world known for unsafe airlines and plane crashes. Some people died, but not many in the grand scheme of aviation accidents. So what's new? What about this event is worthy of notice on the Main Page? What marks it out as significant in the grand scheme of things? What marks it out at all infact except as part of the never ending conveyor belt of aircrash articles created solely from news reports and aviation specialist sources of dubious reliability, and then abandoned. Even under the new critaria, ITN is for showcasing the best of our content as an encyclopoedia. These aircrash articles are not that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Planes do crash often, unless the people onboard are important, or if the fatalities are in the hundreds, than it isn't ITN worthy. Passionless-Talk23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The story says they cancelled a planned ceremony because of the quake, but I don't think that should dissuade us from merely reporting on it like other media.--Chaser (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good story in general and I was surprised to see things are still moving on in Japan. Obviously they are, but with all the news, it is surprising.--NortyNort(Holla)08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting indeed. Agree that it somewhat balances bad news from Japan. Also suggest the picture would make a nice visual. Jusdafax08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not posted I think we're too late. This happened 18 March and the last item on ITN now is from 19 March. Even if we bumped one of those to put this at the bottom of the list, the article has not been yet been updated enough.--Chaser (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems silly. The fact that it happened technically 3 days ago doesn't make it any less newsworthy or true. What's the difference if we informed readers 3 days ago or today? --TorsodogTalk14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please view the source of the ITN list to see what I mean. We sort things based on when they happened. This happened later than everything else on that list. As to the update, the purpose of this section is to showcase Wikipedia's content that has been sufficiently updated to reflect what is "in the news".--Chaser (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument is that the article isn't updated enough, that can be easily changed. I don't agree that things need to be sorted by when they happened on the list though. It seems preferrable to inform readers of a newsworthy item than to not in order to stick to a sorting system out of whack because of a busy news weekend. --TorsodogTalk15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection if another admin wants to post it on that basis (though they'll need to check for a sufficient update). You might check with Tone.--Chaser (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Supreme Court declines to take an appeal from an appellate court ruling that ordered the disclosure of information about the Federal Reserve's emergency lending to banks during the 2008 financial crisis. The Supreme Court's refusal means the ruling of the court below stands. (Reuters)
Conditional support if the article is improved. The blurb should also mention he won 15 medals (only 2 others have won more). Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The update is very short. However, given the current size of the article, I"m not sure a longer one is appropriate. THe article should be expanded overall.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - I combined the illness with the death info into a joint section. I checked the sources. There's nothing else to add besides who survived him, which is not something we traditionally include.--Chaser (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I am removing. The rest of the article is in no condition for the item to be posted. Notability is clear, but there is only a small amount of information about his life and virtually no prose about his Olympic career. This should be reposted, but when there are sufficient updates to the article about the rest of his life. SpencerT♦C02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically: The article says "Between 1971 and 1980 he won many international gymnastics competitions, including the Olympic Games, world championships and European championships." This needs to be detailed with referenced prose, not just a table at the bottom. If you see Larissa Latynina#Gymnastics career, this is an okay example about what I mean. SpencerT♦C02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three brief paragraphs of referenced prose about his Olympics career, including a bit about his record in most Olympic gymnastic golds in a single games. I couldn't find anything on other international competitions.--Chaser (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it does back, can we avoid euphemisms: interest in vintage jazz, mediaeval art, higher maths, obscure engineering, etc etc are far more adult preoccupations than is pornography. Call a spade a spade. Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the support for this seems to be Wikipedians' subjective judgment about its importance to the internet. What is that? What of international importance will this change? International interest is the other way we evaluate these things. This story got a max of just over 200 news stories a day according to Google News; that pales in comparison to other stories in currently in the news. In fact, we were a day or two behind discussing this story--probably because it wasn't really getting the level of international coverage that would merit an ITN blurb. This is the kind of thing that interests the Wikipedia community because we're techie, but that does not mean that it meets our own criteria.--Chaser (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I too believe this is an event which only affects those who run adult websites, and is insignificant to their customers and of even less interest to those who do not visit said websites. Passionless-Talk21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - I dropped the last clause as superfluous and bad grammar (I read it as saying she was the second official to impeach herself). I also added "alleged", as what I'm reading indicates that impeachment is a charge, whereas the Senate's decision is analogous to a conviction. Until then, this is just an allegation, at least for the purpose of my defamation liability. The BBC reports [4] that conviction is far from assured.--Chaser (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was having a problem on how to denote that she was the second official to be impeached in the country's history ever -- which makes this historic and not just some "politicians/business men of middle importance getting in trouble." I amended the blurb several times to no avail. Good catch on "alleged," though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I don't see this in international papers, so I wonder how serious the floods are. If this is just a small flood or a flash flood, which occur often around the world, I don't think it is ITN material. Passionless-Talk08:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's mass flooding due to a storm cell covering most parts of southern New South Wales, the floods only occurred recently. There is still heavy rain here in Sydney and the effects are being felt here as well (wild winds, random heavy downpours). —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:12pm •09:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very localised, the storm cell caused the floods and severe thunderstorms throughout Wollongong, but heavy rain and strong winds are being felt throughout southern New South Wales. Perhaps wait ~18 hours for enough coverage to occur, since the floods only just started and could get worse. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:36pm •10:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly happened? Was the referendum just a choice between two paths for how the government transition will occur, and that is what the amendments are all about? If so to call it a 'constitutional referendum' seems a bit misleading, as the real constitutional referendum will be occuring in Sept 2012. If I am right than something like this would be less misleading,
Ready to post. The above blurb is not that good, I'd like a better one. This new constitution is just interim until the election, right? That should be mentioned. --Tone10:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In English, please. What does "change 9 article" mean? What were in those 9 articles that were changed? They extended terms of offices? Abolished offices? Did the people vote on this wholesale or did they have an option of approving an article singly? What? I'll take a look at the article to see how can I come up with a blurb. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, details. From guardian.co.uk: "Egyptians have strongly endorsed amendments to the country's constitution as aftershocks from the Arab spring revolts rumbled into the furthest reaches of the region. More than 77% of the estimated 14 million-plus people who voted supported changes that will provide a blueprint for parliamentary and presidential elections to be held within the next six months. Voting was mostly problem-free across the country, a significant result in a country that is emerging from more than three decades of dictatorship, when elections merely served to rubber-stamp ousted president Hosni Mubarak's rule, and voter turn out was low." Comment: The significance of the YES vote is that there will be a real election in Egypt in the next six months, in other words, the revolution is on course to not fall back into the hands of a military dictatorship (although, in fairness, those who voted NO were concerned that a too-soon election would be more easily taken advantage of by groups that already had connections, such as the National Democratic Party, which held power under Mubarak, and the Muslim Brotherhood, which was always the most well-organized opposition group in Egypt. NO voters wanted more time so that they could catch up to that level of organization and mobilization. Blurb suggestion: 5 weeks after the 2011 Egyptian revolution, voters amend the Constitution to allow for a more open parliamentary election which will happen within the next 6 months. Ocaasi (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current wording. The current wording is "Voters in Egypt approve a new constitution at a referendum". This is the exact opposite of what happened. Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei supported a "no" vote so that a new constitution could be written. The Egyptian people only modified the old constitution. Reporting this event in this fashion is totally disingenuous to those that actually wanted a new constitution. Jeff Carr (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AT&T seeks to buy T-Mobile
Article:AT&T (talk·history·tag) Blurb: AT&T announces it seeks to buy T-Mobile USA for $39billion, giving AT&T a 43% market share in mobile phone service in the U.S.. (Post) Article updated
I tried to get another large merger up on ITN a couple weeks ago, but it was declined because it was not to be finalized for another week, but by that time no news sources cared any longer. Business mergers always take a long time and there is rarely more than one peak in news coverage, the media is reporting on this NOW, and as such I think it should be put up NOW, not later when its gone out of the press. Oh, and of coruse this is a notable event $39billion dollar merger, creating a monster of a company-43% of all cell phone service is well ahead of any competitors size.
Sure it is news that they announced their intentions. But this isn't Wikinews. We would almost certainly feature this if they were to buy T-Mobile, but not just announcing their intentions. Grsz1103:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd agree with the reasoning behind this nomination and for putting it up now. This is a big story for a number of reasons, is highly likely to go through, and for me the concentration of power in that 43% market share is indeed ITN-worthy. Jusdafax03:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it fails antitrust we could post that when and if it happens. I feel we have a real lack of business news on ITN even though these deals affect a huge number of readers. Passionless-Talk03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for what it is worth, in the current climate the merger is highly likely in my view. But as Passionless pointed out in the nom, at that point it is not much of a news story. Now is the time, as I see it. Jusdafax03:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't post items based on the speculation of Wikipedians (or even experts). If it goes ahead, we'll post it, and I'm sure it will be in the media then, but right now it's just speculation and statements of intent rather than anything concrete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Major happenings can often have more than one blurb to point out major events within the happenings (Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Japan etc). I think it would be appropriate to post once now that this deal has been proposed and is now seeking approval, and another report later that says either "the deal was blocked" or "the deal was accepted" both would be significant events. Passionless-Talk03:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support major business story that will affect the mobile phone industry in the US enormously, whether it passes or not. And business stories are woefully underposted on ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am pretty sure deal still needs to be approved. 2 companies saying they've made a deal doesnt mean anything if it doesnt get approved. We already went through similar thing with TSX and LSE merger. -- Ashish-g5501:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't mean anything I doubt so many news organization would be reporting this. It is important that people know such an event is in the works before it is approved, as the public does have the ability to affect the approval, but they must be made aware while they still have a chance to voice their opinions, not after it is a done deal. Passionless-Talk01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that as the reason why it is being talked about so widely in the media right now. As it is being mentioned in the news now, I think it would be correct to put it ITN. Passionless-Talk07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not yet. Just reading the discussion, I did not see consensus to post at this time. I also ran the numbers, and it is 4-6 in favor of posting now.--Chaser (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that those who say wait know they are really saying oppose as the chance of this story being such a popular item in the news again is very low. The media rarely picks up an issue a second time, their customers all have short attention spands and as a for-profit business their only interest is getting customers to sell to advertisers. The media only puts out new and large stories, not old and drawn out stories like this one will be by the time the deal is approved. Are you with me comrades? :p Passionless-Talk07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Libyan army spokesman says Libyan armed forces have been issued a command to observe an immediate ceasefire following air bombardment from American, French and British forces aiming to implement a UN resolution authorising the use of force to protect Libyan civilians from government troops. (The Jerusalem Post)
The Opposition claim that more than 8,000 people have been killed. (Al-Jazeera)
The Arab League speaks out against the military airstrikes on Libya as civilians are killed. (Press TV)
Germany's foreign minister Guido Westerwelle defends his country's refusal to participate in the invasion of Libya, speaking of "the risks of a lengthy mission". (Press TV)
Thousands of people demonstrate for a third consecutive day in Daraa, Syria, with crowds setting fire to the headquarters of the ruling Baath Party while one protester is killed by security forces. (The Jerusalem Post)(BBC)
The Syrian government announces its intention to release children it locked up for their pro-democracy actions. (Al Jazeera)
Saudi forces arrest and take away around 15 people as they gather outside the interior ministry building to request details of the whereabouts of their friends or family members who have been imprisoned without trial. Such expressions of opinion are outlawed in Saudi Arabia. (Al Jazeera)
The bodies of two 17-year-old Palestinians, shot dead by the Israeli military near the Gaza-Israel border yesterday, are retrieved; the military says the army opened fire on two men who were spotted moving suspiciously toward a frontier "no-go" zone, after fierce cross-border exchanges in which militants fired dozens of shells into Israel. (AFP via Google News)(BBC)
Israel shuts down every crossing with the Gaza Strip, citing "security reasons", ahead of the PurimJewish holiday. (Press TV)
Police are growing concerned for the safety of Sian O'Callaghan, a 22-year-old woman who went missing while walking home from a nightclub in the English city of Swindon in the early hours of Saturday 19 March. (BBC)
Protests in Syria on March 18 and 19 were the largest to take place in the country for decades and Syrian authorities responded with violence against protesters. New protests planned for March 20.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One or two more supports would be nice. There's no rush at this moment, with ITN currently being updated at break-neck speed. -- tariqabjotu14:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Post-posting weak support. I take the point about the potential importance of these protests within Syria. News reports indicate that both the protests [5] and the government's concessions to popular pressure [6] are rare in Syria. That said, Al Jazeera's English homepage currently features only one story, about Syria freeing the child prisoners whose arrest prompted the current round of large protests. That story is in their second group of stories. Further, Syria is not in Al Jazeera's "spotlight" on a "region in turmoil" which contains stories from six other countries. The Economist's current selection of stories from the Middle East contains nothing about Syria. Still, I think the lackluster indications of international interest may just be the result of the situation in Libya dominating the news cycle.--Chaser (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral as Libya is a separate issue now, more akin to civil war, possibly we could reconsider if the Syrian protests above are posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well i can do it quite ritually for lebanon, bahrain and yemen. with the others, which are more popular, that others editors will handle.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are daily updates really the ITN standard? I mean, a normal ITN post only requires one update before posting, and then can sit on the main page for days without updates at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noted before that I can't support adding a link to the main article about the protests. If a timeline article is created, thus making it more accessible to the recent news, I'll surely support this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while we have at least one item related to the MENA protests on ITN. If it's still an ongoing even but we don't have a blurb on a particular part of it, that would be the time to put the sticky back on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HJ Mitchell and agree that when the current MENA blurb drops off that we reconsider. And if the protests etc. keep heating up, then the sticky should go back up regardless. As we have seen, things can change really fast in that area of the world. Jusdafax03:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than 50 mortar rounds are fired from the Gaza Strip at an area in the Western Negev, Israel, injuring two Israeli civilians in response to Israeli airstrikes earlier in the week, which was itself a response to a previous Palestinian mortar attack from Gaza. Israel counterresponds with artillery and airstrikes killing two Palestinian militants. (Ynetnews)(Haaretz)
Police in the Gaza Strip break up a student rally calling for unity between Fatah and Hamas and raid offices of foreign media covering the event. (UPI)
Robert Cooper, special adviser to Baroness Catherine Ashton (High Representative of the European Union for political, foreign affairs and security), meets with Bahraini Interior Minister Lt. Gen. Sheikh Rashid bin Abdulla Al Khalifa (Saudi News Today) to discuss the security situation of the Country and measures taken towards resolution under the light of the recent protests.
Apparently you mentioned the shortcoming of the criterion, which makes it irrelevant. It also doesn't show how many people have viewed the article. According to this criterion we haven't established yet any standard figure to determine the significance of an item of inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we're sure that this major sport gets less than a thousand viewers, repeat views and bots pressing F5 every 5 seconds excluded.
Support Year's biggest event in a whole family of Olympic sports. Since when has there been a viewership threshhold for ITN inclusion? If the purpose of the feature is to draw attention to articles, then surely it is those that have not had high readership before inclusion that can best benefit. Kevin McE (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are atleast one professional alpine skier in at least 50 nations. While Rugby and sutch sports only have about 10-15 truly professional nations, and in all honesty rugby/cricket are only of interest in nations that are old British colonies. Though extremely popular on those few countries I would still be of Oppose opinion for worldwide ITN for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If only Wikipedia had some way of drawing the attention of those similarly ignorant to some of the important personalities in the sport, World Cup event winners, for example. Maybe if there were space on the front page to highlight event at key times... Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the introduction to WP:ITN? "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia." A great encyclopaedia helps people address the gaps in their knowledge: it does not echo the priorities of newspapers. Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should ask the Winter Games Federation of India, and the the Federación Mexicana de Deportes de Invierno. The FIS has 111 member nations. Please remind me how many member nations the NFL or NBA have. Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked a question, I answered it. I asked a question (albeit indirectly), you ignored it. 11 countries won medals: I can't quickly and easily find how many took part. You might not be interested: that does not mean the world isn't. Kevin McE (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly expect me that the world, which India, Nigeria and I forgot the other country are a part of, has a "wide interest" in this event with your answer, and your question that was irrelevant? What is this "world" you speak of? Perhaps you should be the one reading the introduction and digest that "wide interest" does not mean having national sport associations all over the place. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I give in. I really don't have a clue what that last posting was meant to mean. But I find competitors from six continents in just the first event listed on the results here: what definition of wide interest does that not encompass? Admittedly, no-one from Nigeria, but India and Mexico, which seem to be priorities to you, had representatives, as did Liberia, Ghana, Haiti... Kevin McE (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a big deal as you say, presumably the Liberian, Ghanaian and Haitian media should be all over this. Well, there's this mention from the Haitian media, as the Haitian competitor was also that country's skiing president(!) The report didn't even report the result, it reported something else (connected to the Japanese disaster). Disregarding the fact that his country's sole representative is their skiing president, I expected wall-to-wall, heck even more than one report on the matter. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more prose to the intro. Please someone check if this is a sufficient update and if yes, I am ready to post. --Tone18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's of 'wide interest' mostly in Europe. The article isn't great really. The lede section basically meets the minimum standard and the rest is some pretty awkward tables.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly not all of Europe. It is mentioned on the main page of Der Spiegel. Maria Riesch gets about 6000 hits at Google news Google News .de, while Lindsey Vonn gets about 5000 on Google news.com. I'd say the interest is not particularly high profile but is certainly there. It's a niche sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have never supported rugby and cricket, those kind of sports. only interesting for a few parts of the world. For example in scandinavia no country even has a professional level Rugby team.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going through this again. The inclusion of the sports currently on ITNR have been debated again and again and I refuse to watch it go on again for reasons even close to "it's not interesting to enough people". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above there are atleast one professional alpine skier in at least 50 nations. While Rugby and sutch sports only have about 10-15 truly professional nations, and in all honesty rugby/cricket are only of interest in nations that are old British colonies. Though extremely popular on those few countries I would still be of Oppose opinion for worldwide ITN for this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sporting event with wide spread interest. An item doesn't to hold interest everywhere to be included. RxS (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking that at 23:00 (UTC) but there still hasn't been a prose update yet beyond a single sentence - now OK Europe has been asleep in the meantime, but we do need an update first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I'd like to hear a few more comments before putting this up. It's a sad story, but it doesn't seem as important as some of the other (very recent) items on ITN atm. We have a longer TFA in 4 hours, so if the consensus holds, I'd suggest that's when we should post it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I'm unusual. I had never heard of Knut until now. I pay a lot of attention to world news, but not as it's presented by commercial TV operators. Those folks have a formula where every bulletin needs a (quite possibly meaningless) "cute" story, with nice pictures. Obviously this bear was it on some occasions. Wikipedia should not be following the same formula. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've heard of Paddington. Never heard of Knut. Did anyone first hear about Knut from a source other than television news or perhaps the tabloid press. It's simply NOT notable outside those realms. Please don't move Wikipedia in the tabloid direction. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself wasnt aware of Knut before this mention you are hardly the right user to claim you know if Knut is notable or not. Leave that to the users who has followed the story from day 1 ok HiLo48.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point entirely, AND failed to answer my question. (Which might have actually got you thinking more about what I'm saying here.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not watch TV or read newspapers and I have heard of both Paddington and Knut (and don't forget Pooh bear), and I am neither German nor British. Also WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not the best argument, though it does have some value.Passionless-Talk21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't strike me as the type of news that ITN should cover. This is essentially trivial. And considering how difficult it is to get a person's death posted, posting an animal's death would be extremely strange. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given there have been a lot of calls for posting more content, maybe we should post more people's deaths. We could post a story up to every 6 hours without the turnover getting too high (that's what we're on today excluding this one) whereas the current long term rate is around once every 20 hours which gives us plenty of scope to add more deaths as appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an FA, which should count in its favour. But putting it up next to Libya, Warren Christopher, etc. would be most undesirable. This is not a significant event at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Knut was internationally famous and beloved. His death was unexpected and is of interest to many people. The article is among our best and has been appropriately updated. The section is not a news ticker, nor is it intended to include only the "biggest" news stories (e.g. disasters, military conflicts and deaths of politicians). We need more variety, and this is a solid item. —David Levy21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need more variety because the section's intended purpose is to illustrate our comprehensive encyclopedia's dynamic nature, not to report the top news stories (as some users have been led to believe). —David Levy21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main page looks quite unbalanced right now, if this is added I think it would be best to not remove another news item to correct the balance. And of course if this is not posted soon, the last event deleted should be re-added at the bottom. Thanks, Passionless-Talk22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at WP:ERRORS for the Yemen story to be re-added, I think adding this at 00:00 (UTC) - which is only 75 minutes away - is reasonable - there has been a lot of turnover today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For example I havent read anything about the death of Warren Christopher in my countries newspapers but very much so about Knut. So its only simple closeminded-ness to not grant Knut a place in ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfect example of people mistakenly believing that the section's purpose is to report "major" news. They see an animal's death as unimportant, so they ignore the widespread interest that it's generating and the quality of our article. —David Levy00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should switch to the latter, as it more accurately illustrates Knut's appearance at the time of his death. —David Levy00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for not allowing the misconception that the section is a news ticker to derail the nomination. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate Wikipedia's ability to offer up-to-date encyclopedia articles as events unfold. —David Levy00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll back this up, in part because it is an FA and not a stub. Also, it's a big story in the news, and frankly we need a break from the unrelenting diet of hideous, ugly news of late. It's just my opinion, but I think this lighter story, though sad in itself, comes as welcome relief. Bravo, supporters! Jusdafax00:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, the tabloid fans have won this time round, but it's obviously time to ask - What ISIn the news? Is it for serious news only, or do we follow the lead of commercial TV and tabloid pap? Yes, my biases are on display there, but do we have our sense of purpose well defined somewhere? Whatever it is, I'll go with the flow, but this discussion wasn't really about Knut. It was about In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that my preferences were clearly on display. Yours have been too. Your failure to respond constructively now is also not constructive. I was hoping to get some sense from the discussion, rather than "Knut was cute". HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are still not the tabloids, we did not post the Charlie Sheen fiasco but we did post the little reported 5 year plan in the PRC, and we do post little reported elections of lesser known nations. Oh, and you also can't disagree that Knut was cute :p. Passionless-Talk01:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting your opponents' arguments and calling us names. I don't care to debate someone engaging in such tactics. —David Levy01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, I'm sorry you see it that way. I felt there was little response in the discussion to those of us arguing for a more serious approach to selection of items, apart from "I disagree". But anyway, the point I'm pressing is that it would be nice if there were clearer guidelines for selection of items. Maybe I'm ignorant and there are. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're still begging the question. It's reasonable for you to argue that this particular event is non-"serious," but that isn't what you're doing. Instead, you're assuming it as an obvious fact and framing this as a discussion regarding whether we should proceed with the non-serious approach that the "tabloid fans" advocate.
Knut was an internationally famous/beloved bear. His death was sudden and unexpected, and it has generated a great deal of interest and attention. We have a featured article about him, which has been appropriately updated.
Your objection seems to be based on the rationale that a zoo animal's death is inherently unimportant. And if the section's purpose were to report important news stories, that would be a valid argument. But it isn't. —David Levy02:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you try participating around these parts more than you have and stop complaining whenever an item you don't like goes up, before suggesting changing our guidelines? Who seriously strolls into a bar for the first time then makes noise because they don't serve a Singapore Sling or [insert drink of choice], then says the bar has to change its menu? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually asking "What ARE the guidelines?" If they say that softer items like Knut are OK, then I'm fine with it. My observation was that most of the discussion above could have been avoided with more obvious guidelines. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you David Levy, but please take my advice and just let it go. HiLo48 will not give in even an inch. So lets move on, we got what we wanted. Knuts news got posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)its consensus based system. there are obviously no guidelines on how to rate a polar bear death. i see consensus above so just accept the fact that something that you opposed went up. happens all the time. -- Ashish-g5502:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not going to lose sleep over this. It's obviously an item of interest to a lot of people. (Even though I'd never heard of the poor bear.) But I'll admit to being a little surprised at that finding of consensus. Quite a few "opposes" above, and one "strong opposes", not all that well negated by effective argument. It's funny. I was going to let go, but for consensus to be so obvious to you intrigues me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it seems surprising, having not really participating in ITN but reading this page for the last several weeks, that there's an apparent disconnect from what WP:ITN says and what some people believe it to be. The way I read it, and thought it worked, is that we're helping to highlight articles of high quality with wide interest that recently have had major news-making events noted to them, as to bring more readers and potential editors to these articles to improve them further. Knut seems to qualify given the breadth of sources. Charlie Sheen's whole mess seems to qualify - though certainly only after the dust settled and not so much on every strange turn. This is by far not to diminish the higher value of the Japanese quake/tsunami, the Libyan no-fly zone, and other events that affect the world as a whole, and those should get priority when space is limited. But at the same time, if we only just wanted these stories, we might as well put an RSS feed from BBC or CNN on the front page. ITN seems designed to help improve WP and not just regurgitate what 100s of other sites say. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with what Masem said here. I have pointed out three case studies here, detailing how one article got improved to GA-class and one was already FA class. I'm hoping that someone will take up the challenge to get Warren Christopher to GA-class (or maybe at least to B-class). That is the sort of article improvement and showcasing of our best work that ITN should do in addition to highlighting our articles on the events making global headlines. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There aren't many polar bears like Knut. "World-famous" and "shared a Vanity Fair cover with Leonardo DiCaprio" makes him quite unique. It's an FA and I can't think of any reason to oppose. --candle•wicke02:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Support I can't think of a more notable animal story since the passing of Alex the Grey Parrot. This post fails no ITN criterion. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This fails even the proposed ITN3.0 criteria pretty comprehensively. Is it massively in the news right now? No. Is is something that is likely to figure in the top 10 most in demand pages right now? No. Is it such an intriguing/educating/astounding current event that had you not seen the link to it from the Main Page you would have gone through life feeling uneducated? No. Is it an excellent example of how Wikipedia is the best dynamic information source in the world? No. The f-ing cute bear died 26 years too early (not that you'd know it from the ITN blurb), and while this is 'interesting', Wikipedia is as crap at telling us why as the rest of the mass media is, because the article simply repeats what the media says. Much like 99% of all other dynamically changing articles which relate to current events, but will/do/would/have failed one or other of the ever changing abritrary ITN criteria. Yes, the article also tells me why it's a famous bear. Even though I vaguely knew already thanks to the actual news media, who do a pretty good job already of telling me the news, even the news I don't want to know about. I did what the Main Page demanded of me, and read the article. And I was disheartened to learn that my hopes that the reason this bear has an article here was because it had some special powers were completely incorrect, and lo-and-behold, the actual reason it's a famous bear are the same reasons every other famous zoo animal gets famous. Being cute, being abandoned, and being an animal rights controversy. Big wow. I would rather go and read the item all about how rockets sometimes explode again (which was the space item that distracted me from this weeks rarity - an actual space item about something actually ground-breakingly new and encyclopoedic). Let's get real FFS. The sole reason for posting this up was the same reason it makes the regular news, it's a classic 'and finally' type piece of throwaway news trivia, pure candyfloss for the uneducated masses, and something we are supposedly WP:NOT. And to think that on slower weeks, this could actually stay on the Main Page for 5 days!. At least the regular news media has the decency to mention this sort of thing just once in a night. And btw, there's no logical argument to be had at not posting the inquest findings when known too, as they will get the same amount of media & reader interest as this presumably got/has to get a spot on the Main Page of the 8th most viewed site in the world. MickMacNee (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A point of ITN 3.0 is to work harder to keep things moving so nothing stays on too long. It's been working fairly well lately. I have to say that the uneducated masses comment is not very helpful and sort of brings WP:IDONTLIKEIT to mind. You may not be interested in it, but there are plenty of people that are. RxS (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are you measuring 'plenty' exactly? Knowing that this had been posted, I looked up yesterday's BBC Radio 1 Guinness World Record attempt and compared it, and its got twice the Google News coverage. For half a second I considered posting that as a suggestion yesterday, then I came to my senses. Infact, it has far better extra claims to significance than this tbh. If people don't have any justification for this item other than 'people are interested in it' and 'we have to post stuff like this to keep it cycling fast', then that's pretty lame tbh. The criteria I referred to are the proposed 3.0 standards as far as I can see, and while they are still as arbitrary and contradictory as ever, they have some logic. I am quite able to look past my distaste for this item as being worthy of any notice at all, to apply them objectively to it. And it fails, miserably. If any other 'and finally' type items can meet those criteria before posting, then I'm all for it, or I at least won't oppose. And btw, on the whole 'of interest' angle, as of right now, even with the benefit of now having a Main Page slot, this item is being utterly killed in the 'most editted' page stakes. UFC 128 is currently top, with the Libyan no-fly zone 2nd. The highest this ever got was 8th, and that's most likely bsed on edits made well before ITN/C got around to posting it. On more recent data, with the item still having at least 24 hours left on the Main Page in the best ever scenario, it's already down to 18th using stats from the last 6 hours, and outside the top 30 on the last hour alone. It's yesterday's news already, and it's not even yesterday. Just like the Radio 1 item. Just like all 'and finally' items covered by WP:NOT. UFC on the other hand, without an ITN slot, is receiving updates about recent current events, that pretty obviously, many people are interested in, yet no Main Page slot. Why? On the ITN and even ITN3.0 criteria, it's pretty obvious. On the Knut the Bear criteria, not so obvious. Except of course the relative cuteness of insane half-dead caged MMA artists compared to the cute and cuddly image of a giant prematurely and suspiciously dead off-white half insane caged bear floating face down in it's own paddling pool. MickMacNee (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of edits to UFC 128 might be because the description of the average wikipedia editor is identical to that of the average UFC watcher- male, young, single, disagreeable. The low number of edit of Knut would of course be due to the fact it is an FA!, there is little room for improvement and the article has existed for years unlike the UFC 128 article or the Japanese earthquakes and such. Passionless-Talk06:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those stats do also count reverts, but even going on simple page views, things aren't any better. Infact, given the fact he died in the afternoon, on 19 March figures, it barely registered with the general public on views, even though editting of the tragic news was well underway. It will after posting, but then that's like saying telemarketing is succesfull if you get people to pick up the phone. It's certainly going to outperform election articles anyway, that's for sure, but as for proving people really needed this info their daily lives, as a top 5 most-informative most-desirable most-demanded pick of every updated article we have, I doubt it. Like I said, the article told me jack all I didn't already unwillingly pick up from the media anyway, and I have not been left with a new found wonderment at people's ability to repeat news reports in our articles, nor any amazing knowledge about the bear generally (seriously, 'bear on magazine cover' is straight up DYK material if ever I saw it). It is after all a very healthy component of all daily edits made here. Expecting people to be amazed at this kind of thing defeats the point of ITN anyway. I did get a good laugh at the use of the baby pic as the main image though, hopefully there's no kids out there having nightmares about floating bear cubs tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the solution to this sort of situation (as well as the sometimes forced efforts at WP:TFA/R to get articles featured on an anniversary date) is to have about 2 lines within ITN dedicated solely to including GA-class and FA-class articles that have recently been, or are in, the news. This would have much lower criteria for extensive news coverage than the current 'news ticker' news-reporting style entries on ITN, and would actually showcase the best of Wikipedia's work (something ITN often fails to do). No blurbs, just links to the articles. Please see my initial ideas on this here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that would take away room from the ITN which already has a major shortage of room, as seen in the last few days new blurbs are coming at decent pace, but as no new room has been added that means that now the blurbs are disappearing way too fast. Important blurbs are being treated like Farrah Fawcett by Michael Jackson, instantly removed from the news just because many other also important events are happening. Passionless-Talk07:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a link above so people could discuss the proposal there, not here. Would you mind moving your comment to there? I can then reply there to what you have said. Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is extremely irrelevant. To be honest, I don't even care that a bear died in some distant zoo. If I was a Berliner, perhaps I'd care, but this is not relevant international news. H2ppyme (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you haven't read the thread have you? Commercial TV News deliberately includes "cute" stories with pictures to make viewers feel good at the end of the bulletin. It doesn't have to be real news. Just cute, and with pictures. Tabloid newspapers are the same. HiLo48 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knut's cuteness undoubtedly played a major role in the attention that he received, but nothing about his death is cute or makes "viewers feel good." For better or worse, many people genuinely cared about this bear and have been shocked and saddened by his death.
If the item pertained to a famous piece of artwork's destruction, I doubt that we'd be having this discussion. You're seeing a zoo animal and unfairly dismissing this as an "aww, how cute" story, despite a clearly disparate context. —David Levy17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Oppose. Although unexpected, this has little if any effect on world affairs. The whole story is more media hype than true encyclopedic content (cr. WP:NOTNEWS). SpencerT♦C18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus should be easy on this. I think the bigger issue is making sure that the article(s) is sufficiently updated. Help would be appreciated.--Chaser (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only enforcement that has begun is French warplanes flying reconnaissance missions. They've been making noises about starting enforcement with the use of force today, but I can't see that that has happened yet. I think the bigger story here is the civil war. Pro-Qaddafi forces are advancing into Benghazi with artillery, mortars, and tanks. Also, a plane was shot down outside Benghazi, although it's still not clear to me what happened there. The media sources are in conflict about this.--Chaser (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have fired on a Libyan military vehicle [8]. Rebels also announce that they have repelled Khadafi forces from Benghazi [9]. We could combine those two stories. Cenarium (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this British codename for the operation is silly as an ITN blurb, or even part of one. I'm sure the French have their own codename which they cover in French media, just as Ellamy has mostly been covered only by British media. In any case, French jets have taken the most action so far, doing flybys and attacking a military vehicle [10]. Even if the RAF starts dominating air enforcement, this article is too brief to be anything more than a piped link.--Chaser (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. As Eraserhead1 noted, the article must be updated beyond merely stating that Christopher "died on March 18, 2011, from complications of kidney and bladder cancer." It should contain information about the death's impact (e.g. statements by prominent politicians). —David Levy15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to edit the article at the moment, but here are some sources:
1. we dont vote count. the 2 and 3 supports have no reason whatsoever. and 2. what his global notability? a foreign min dies and hes automatically a saint? this needs to be removed.Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To give a reason, support due to the lasting significance of a number of his initiatives in the Middle East and Europe including in the Balkans, the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel and the Iranian hostage crisis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post possibly pointless oppose. I can understand why a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type might be posted in similar circumstances but would disagree with posting less senior figures as there seems to be so many of them. And that he was Clinton's first secretary of state suggests that there was more than one which, in the space of eight years, seems a little too frequent. That he died of cancer suggests his death, while tragic, was not unexpected. That U.S. presidents (or presidents of any kind) should line up to pay tribute to a former colleague hardly seems unexpected. --candle•wicke03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point.
Comment: Well, I did anticipate that kind of oppose - but I am still disappointed. It is the moon. The closest for 18 years. It is on BBC News (on rotation) and features in worldwide newspapers - today.
I'm sorry that my suggestion does not include any blood and gore, but I rather hoped that this was an Encyclopaedia, not a tabloid. Millions, if not billions, around the world will be looking at the full-moon tonight.
Our article, moon, is an FA, and is excellent; this is a rare opportunity to feature quality, encyclopaedic content on the main page, for a short time. It will not happen again for another 18 years. Chzz ► 10:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Despite my tone, above - thank you for considering it. I do appreciate that, in spite of my clear disappointment with your opinion. Chzz ► 10:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support while the update isn't quite up to ITN standards it is an opportunity to get a Featured Article on ITN. And there are comments from a lot of people at WT:ITN3.0 (and actually below in the Frank Buckles discussion) about including more articles of Good/Featured article status. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about that; however, the article previously had no info on the moons distance from the Earth - which I found odd, in an FA. I think this one-off date, the closest during the "Wikipedia era", warranted mention. But anyway - that'd be an issue for discussion over at Talk:moon rather than here, presumably - 'coz if we start complaining about recentism here at ITN, we'll get into some problems :-) Chzz ► 12:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is nothing here that was not forecast decades ago. Where is the news element? Has the Moon article been substantially revised in the light of this? Does it deserve it? Astronomy is replete with once in a lifetime/once in x thousand years events. This something that was surpassed 18 years ago. In any case, as drafted, this makes a completely non-notable point in that it refers to something that occurs frequently. The Moon reaches perigee once a month. The only difference this month is that purely by chance the moment of perigee is very close to the point of full moon. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The news element is, that it is happening today - for the first time since Wikipedia existed. Once in eighteen years is hardly "frequent". If not accepted though, we can discuss it again in 2029. Chzz ► 12:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again: this blurb does not refer to anything at all unusual: it happened last month, the month before that and the month before that. The notable element is the "super Moon", where two essentially unrelated phenomena approximately coincide - namely the full Moon and perigee - and that is the chance element I referred to above. The result of this coincidence is a full Moon of greater than normal apparent brightness - that is the thing that is unprecedented since 1993. You can argue that that is notable but as above I still view it as non-newsworthy. However, as drafted the blurb does not refer to the Moon's phases or brightness. It refers to the Moon's perigee only. Just so that everyone is clear on this: this is something that occurs every month.Crispmuncher (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb suggested states: The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point. So that isn't something that happens every month. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So can we work on the phrasing, perhaps? How about, ":*The moon reaches its closest point to the Earth during a full moon since 1993 Today (19th of March), and will appear 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its furthest point. " - or can others word it better? Chzz ► 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: I should have checked back for the precise wording of the proposed blurb. But the point still stands: it is not because it is at the closest point: that is a monthly occurrence. It is a rarer combination of factors at play. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support; nice space/science article, it is news, anything that hasn't happened for 18 years I think is unusual enough to be called news when it does happen, and it's a good opportunity to get some featured content on ITN. C628 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rare astronomical event. Suggest omission of "Today", link apogee and Supermoon (as common name), mention that these happen 4-6 times each year but this particular one is a bit closer. ~AH1(TCU)15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AstroHurricane001, there's a few too many suggest/comment things in that - I think your suggestions are good, but could you possibly suggest an alternate tag, to show what you mean? Cheers, Chzz ► 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
The Moon reaches its closest point, or perigee, to the Earth during a Full moon since 1993, occurring on March 19 in a particularly close 'Supermoon', and appearing 30% brighter and 14% larger than at its farthest point in orbit at apogee.
I realize it's somewhat awkward, but "apsis" does not have an update nor needs one though "perigee" and "apogee" seem to refer to the closest approach by Earth to another object, while Supermoon is a bit informal and tends to cause media panic when linked as the main article. ~AH1(TCU)15:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this event actually happens in about 3 hours in the UK (moonrise, 18:34 UTC) - and a bit longer in the US - then if it is accepted, it'd be nice if it were fairly soon. Chzz ► 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to post this, but the information in the article needs to be corrected. From what I can tell, this is not the closest the Moon has been since 1993. This is just the first time since then that the perigee has coincided with the full moon. The article used to support the relevant section seems to say precisely that. -- tariqabjotu15:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by 'Ready' you refer to the alt from User:AstroHurricane001 above? Which looks fine to me, except I don't think "full moon" needs a capital F. And anything to make it a bit clearer would be nice. Can't think of that right now; I might later. But time-wise, it would be nice to get it up. Chzz ► 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Tariqabjotu yes, you are correct - hence the alt mentioned. Chzz ► 16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
@AstroH. - re. <!--area or diameter?--> - it would appear sources just say "larger" or "bigger" in appearance - therefore logic says, it's the "way it looks" hence diameter (as the circle we see, from here) Chzz ► 16:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like astronomy news, but this one is dumb. It is about 10 km closer than it was a few years ago, which is less than 1 in 10,000 of the total distance. We do not post the closest distance of Earth to Sun or any other objects that would otherwise be more interesting. Let's keep it to astronomy entries of real notability. Nergaal (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly as per Crispmuncher above. There are rare astronomical events occurring all the time, and this isn't even that rare. There are more important things going on in the world right now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are more important events means that ITN doesn't cover the breadth of the encyclopaedia, besides more important astronomical events could be nominated - the moon seems like one that is interesting to a lot of people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But NOBODY can notice the difference!!! Having a spacecraft exiting the Solar System is waaay more important, even if the news don't write about it. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been nominated earlier I would have definitely supported that, unfortunately it was just a little too late that it was nominated :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an involved editor, having worked on the 2011 Egyptian revolution article, and related articles about the region. This is a very important event that could well impact the direction which Egypt takes over the next decade. The mere prospect of the country having a constitutional referendum--not to mention the significance of the outcome--is a milestone for the country and a key indicator of what the political process will look like as they chart a course through very new and dynamic terrain. I'd like to see it on the main page so that readers can continue to follow the developments in the Middle East rather than just forgetting that after the revolution there is the real story of how they decide and structure their future. These events will determine which path Egypt takes, whether the political process will be swayed to traditional power bases, if the activist-led progressive non-sectarianism can be maintained amid the fractures of democratic maneuvering, if old tensions will ignite... it's just an amazing thing to watch unfold and tomorrow marks a major waypoint on that journey. Ocaasi (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: References need to be filled out (listing author, title, date, etc.). Support, but probably preference for waiting for final results. SpencerT♦C03:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to what you first said. Now, I am not trying to push my POV on anyone. As for your reply, a referendum is a referendum no matter what it is about. Some are worthy of being mentioned and some are not. I think this one is and that why I submitted it to be ITN. If it doesnt get consensus among our peers, it will not be posted. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to wait for the results. The article is pretty incomplete and is mostly made up of text taken directly from the constitution and the proposed amendments. The result fields are all blank and there are some maintenance tags in it. It'll fill out and be better for it. RxS (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious notability but 1. precedence waits for results, though 2. it could very well take longer and thus delay the notability from iTN. think we need to re-sticky-fy the MENA protests. stuff going on in Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt right now and more to follow in at least LebanonLihaas (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
