This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The LCC report that up to 400 people have been killed across Syria on Saturday, including about 200 reported executed by the Syrian Army in the Deir Ballba neighborhood of Homs. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: The girl was very widely covered by national and international media. Her death has already become huge news within a few minutes. Deserves a fresh ITN hook. If approved, suggest removing the hook on demonstrations against the rape. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this story is already featured, we should update the entry (and not promote it chronologically), perhaps by adding "and murder". BTW, the victim was not a girl. (ETA: I guess they weren't protesting against a murder, so some other way of updating instead....) Formerip (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support chronological promotion and updating. The death means we cannot really use the previous blurb, or location in the time frame of ITN. Definitally worth updating, as having it non-updated is wrong. gwickwiretalkedits01:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose how does her death have a wide impact? We should wait for actual protests or something before REposting this. 01:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
This blurb is not about the protests. Its more about the death of the girl, which seems to be very much big news. Check the number of sources to verify that.(8 hours after the death now) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To all those with update !votes, please specify whether your !vote is to update without chronological promotion or with. IMO it is useless to update the blurb without promoting it chronologically, as it makes no sense to have such a highly important news as the fourth hook. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The victim of a gang rape in Delhi, which sparked widespread demonstrations across India, dies as a result of her injuries." I'm uncomfortable with adding "murder". It might be chargeable that way in the United States, but I don't know enough about Indian law to post anything that implies specific criminal charges against living people. Support updating and bumping.--Chaser (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bus has veers off a mountain road and plunges into a river near Dasarathpur village in western Nepal, killing at least 13 people and leaving 19 others critically injured. (AP via The Washington Post)
Oppose I'm with WFC on this. There's not a lot of substance to the story, in any case, so let's wait until he dies. In fact, let's try to decide sooner rather than later if we're more likely to support an age-story on death or on confirmation of holding a record, because I don't think we can have both doktorbwordsdeeds11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage of posting at death is that we can actually post the new record, rather than simply the point at which the previous record was overtaken. Besides, if we were to post now, people would cite this posting as a reason not to post his death. —WFC— FL wishlist12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because merely remaining alive is not noteworthy. Will also oppose anything more than RD when he dies, because his life will have made no more impact on others than that of any other elderly gent. Lots of people who have been record breakers in one respect or another die every year, and will not be posted. Might rethink if there is major news coverage (far beyond mere mention in bulletins and obituaries) when the time comes, but I doubt that will occur. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why being the longest lived human being (to be documented) is not noteworthy? I can accept that simply noting anyone who reaches 110 or what have you isn't, but I don't understand that reasoning applied to the person who has lived longer than all other human beings before them. If it was you, I think you would want it to be noted here. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Futile Support - I think these sorts of record-based stories are inherently encylopeadic and are useful adverts for Wikipedia's content. LukeSurltc20:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for reasons I gave at the discussion 331dot linked to. Becoming the world's oldest male, ever to exist, is an impressive feat to be recognised, and I wonder why the opposers believe that his death is more noteworthy than the record itself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD ticker only - Here comes another fight over a full blurb vs RD ticker. RD ticker is the place for most all deaths. Just say no to full blurb. Agree that wording of blurb should be 'dies.' Jusdafax02:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for full blurb, many notable figures been dying lately so RD has a backlog, and he's probably the most historically significant and notable for the blurb because of his involvement in the Gulf War. Undoubtedly one of the most significant military commanders of the late 20th century, article is in poor shape though. Secretaccount03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When this was posted, the news was out for about 30 minutes, and only a perfunctory morgue-style obit was available. I'll get to it tomorrow if nobody else does, but I'll be opening presents with the kids, so don't expect that soon. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only RD. He was briefly extremely notable but didn't gave long term notability like Colin Powell, David Petreaus, or Wesley Clark. He died of old age in retirement. Not huge news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose promotion to full blurb: RD was brought in to avoid blurbs that did no more than record the fact of a death. There is nothing about the nature of his death or the response to it that is newsworthy, it is simply the occasion for publishing the obits. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promote to full blurb. "Schwarzkopf was involved in rescuing men of his battalion from a minefield [in Vietnam]". "Commander of the 1st Brigade of the 9th Infantry Division". "Named Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force [during the Invasion of Grenada]". "Promoted to General and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command ... responsible at the time for operations in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia." "Prepared a detailed plan for the defense of the oil fields of the Persian Gulf ... which was as the basis for Operation Desert Shield". "General Schwarzkopf's offensive operational plan ... was the "left hook" strategy that went into Iraq ... and was widely credited with bringing the ground war to a close in just four days." "Offered the position of Chief of Staff of the United States Army". Sorry, but all of this is pretty big to not merit full blurb status. Highly decorated, highly accomplished. Don't let the Death Ticker force our standards too high. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic figurehead Seán Brady's intervention in Ireland's abortiondebate draws harsh criticism from legislators and more calls for the Church to transfer the rest of the compensation it promised for those abused by priests, but has not yet paid. (Irish Independent)
Has anybody noticed how Medeis treats non-American noms? It's hilariously bias. He never gives a support/oppose on noms that are not American yet are clearly going to pass, he treats non-American sources as if they are not reliable - take a look down below when he quoted one American source for an American nom, then went all "Questionable" about a non-American source for a non-American "Oooo, looks like we're going to need more sources for that!" and called the only people who would want such a story posted "fanboys" - ITN/C is treated like some kind of different universe to the rest of Wikipedia. This is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.102.210 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating 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: Noted English composer for many works. Knighted for his contributions to English film/music. (BAFTA award and 3 Oscar noms). Not significant for full blurb but sufficient for ticker. And yes, the article is lacking updates. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment This is not an oppose as such, but if he's not significant enough for a full blurb, surely he shouldn't be posted? When the ticker was introduced, the argument was very clear – that the ticker was primarily there to prevent ITN from becoming an obituary, as well as to filter out blurbs of the form "[Nationality] [occupation] [name] [dies at the age of] [age]". It was made equally clear that the ticker would not and must not lower notability requirements. Has something changed that I've missed (it might well have, I'm not particularly active nowadays)? —WFC— FL wishlist07:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In making the nomination, I knew I wasn't going to fight for a full blurb, but one could easily be made for this, eg "Sir Richard Rodney Bennett, composer for film and television works, dies at XX". However, given all the other recent tickers that have been posted in the last few days, this seems to be at the same level of importance/notability as the other entertainment-related deaths. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ITN itself was not designed to be an obituary service, but it's beginning to look that way. Why, given that Wikipedia already has a Recent deaths page, does ITN/C have to be clogged up with obit nominations (and the toxic arguments they engender)? 87.114.90.71 (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that we post too many deaths (or too few). I simply said that the death ticker was introduced to ensure that a flood of significant deaths would not alter our standards for inclusion. In the same way that an election ticker has been considered from time-to-time to ensure that a flood of significant elections would not, in itself, prevent some from being posted. —WFC— FL wishlist12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all bothered by this nomination. Why should this thread be the venue for complaints about other nominations or that we even list dead people? The man was a three-time academy award nominee. Voting opposed is always an option. We don't need to discourage good faith nominations. As for "toxic arguments" in other threads, the talk page is the place for that--or you could simply refrain from making them. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ITN/DC #2. Short resume, three oscar noms, not exactly standing out as "widely regarded as important in his/her field". --IP98 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with a lot of nominations. We're here to find (diverse) stories to post on the section, not to restrict it to a select few extremely high-profile cases. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CBB International, a financial analytics concern, releases a survey of executives indicating that China's retail sector is growing, leading a broader upswing in that nation's economy. (Reuters)
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.
Support pending update. I was actually about to nominate this myself. Popular entertainer who created some extremely popular programmes. The article is fairly extensive but poorly referenced; it needs a prose update of some form. Modest Geniustalk18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI For those to whom it's not clear, Gerry Anderson was the producer of Thunderbirds (the puppet sci-fi series parodied in South Park's Team America: World Police) and Space 1999, which parodied itself. Some sources and support outside British fanboys and the BBC talking about how the man was a titan in his field would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, drop the personal comments. Um, he did not mention the series probably most known to Americans, or that his works were the subject of parodies and usually considered flops. Um, I suggest you focus on supporting the nom, not attacking me. Um.μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, no personal attack, just asking you to calm down with your tone (e.g. "British fanboys"!) and re-read the nomination which already included the information you deemed so important you needed to repeat it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion of the man's shows doesn't count as a reason to support this nom--i.e., fanboy OR is OR. Find some sources, and more than just the BBC, calling the man the top of his field. You are wasting your time addressing me. 19:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Support as creator of programs having had worldwide impact, such as Thunderbirds and Space 1999, capturing the wonderment and faith in technical progress of the 60s and early 70s. Hektor (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Several of Anderson's shows—Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and Stingray—have had decades of enduring appeal on this side of the Atlantic, and the man is credited with pioneering an entire animation style. I'd say that's more than enough to be considered "top of his field". GRAPPLEX19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to this nomination, but calling me obtuse is acting the fool. There's no point in people giving their personal opinions as fans of his work without providing the refs, none of which had been done until afterwards, and provided reluctantly, as if it were some sort of burden. I still don't see a source outside the UK, or any quotes about him being at the top of his field--and if the field was children's animation, he wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your (Fart--oops.) bodily functions to yourself please. Still not seeing anything superlative even in the NYT Europe section. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing superlative mentioned in any of the three British periodicals mentioned above (although I am not going to pay to get behind the Times' paywall); just that he entertained a generation of kids. Some quotes would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where were the quotes for Jack Klugman? He went straight up without you objecting, Medeis – in fact, you acted like a cheerleader. And now you appear to be rejecting Anderson on the grounds of nationality, a tactic you object to very strongly if anyone uses it to discount your two-bit American TV celebrities and forgotten senators. 87.114.90.71 (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the world's most recognized puppet film creator. As sources obviously demonstrate, "[t]he deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." --hydrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, from what I see he seems to be well-known and recognized in his field to be posted here. The drama here I feel is unnecessary ad tiresome. – Connormah (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – without question at the top of his field. I would prefer a full blurb though – as I consistently argue for in comparable nominations – because his field was not front-of-house (musician, actor, athlete, head of state etc). —WFC— FL wishlist05:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am not going to pull the posting without consensus here and I was not around for the recent deaths ticker discussions so I may have missed something. But the article seems below par to me (certainly below the standard we consider for full ITN postings). The sole update to this article in relation to Anderson's death was "Gerry Anderson died on 26 December 2012 at the age of 83 after his diagnosis of dementia", no further details or reaction on why this was significant. It seems woefully under-referenced with only 14 of the articles current 58 paragraphs having a single reference - there are no references at all between the 7th and 25th paragraphs. It certainly doesn't meet the five sentence update ITN guidance and would fail for having an orange/red-level tag on it (someone would be hard pressed to argue against a {{refimprove}} tag - though I hate the things). Whilst I concur with the suitability of the subject for an RD place I do not think that the state of the article merits it, unless we do not expect RD posts to comply with the general ITN rules? - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure there was consensus to do away with the update rule, was there? I support a requirement of five sentences but think it should be an article-wide update, not strictly limited to the death itself. The problem is fixed easy enough, give me an hour and I will make sure it is updated. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC) It looks like Footballgy has already updated the article in spades [1]. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That update isn't fantastic by any account. Fully 60% of the character count is direct quotes, the remainder being introductions to those quotes. The single non-quote sentence "... is survived by his widow Mary and son Jamie as well as three children from former marriages — Joy, Linda and Gerry Jnr." is lifted word for word from the Metro article. I have removed it from the article. But that is besides the point, we are talking about expected standards at the point of posting.
Personally I would be happy with a lower standard of update for deaths, to require 5 sentences of filler when the only real news is "x dies of y at age z" is a bit over the top, any elaboration can be added when further details emerge later. The ticker surely exists solely to direct people to articles they are looking for already (otherwise people have no idea who the deceased are as there is no description), whereas the main blurbs actually convey information so it is reasonable to assume a certain standard of backing information in the article. All I ask is that if this is the case we formalise this in some way, otherwise it is unfair on the posting admin who has to act without any guidance/back up from the rules - Dumelow (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware the old rules are still in place. I had my obvious problems above with the terribly sloppy way this nom was handled, with people giving their OR opinions as support that he was the "top" of the puppet sci-fi animation field (how about Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson of The Muppets and Farscape, both of whom far outrank him in regard and success?) and then facing paranoid accusation that my wanting support from sources was some nefarious anti-British campaign based on a personal gripe! But at this point, regardless of the quality of the update, there is no technical reason for a pull, and I don't think anyone opposes the nomination. I would probably add some quotes from obituaries in papers of record about his pioneering status. But someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can handle that if they like. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely - leave it up. But if this to be the standard we expect of RD noms (which I have no objections to, as stated above) we need to rewrite the rules - Dumelow (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. Trying to change the rules because Medeis is at his most passive aggressive isn't consensus building. If we're to have the ticker - and Lord knows I've never liked the idea - we can't keep falling over ourselves to redefine what those rules mean. My preference, and I'm not alone, is to ditch the ticker. Ideally, I'd ditch all death nominations from ITN completely, it's the only way we're going to get any peace doktorbwordsdeeds22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Jim Henson doesn't qualify for the recent part of recent deaths, and Ray Harryhausen doesn't qualify for the deaths part. --Jayron3223:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding what Dumelow is stating with regard to the deaths-related update, I'm disappointed that this was posted given the quality of the rest of the article (not that I'm advocating a pull). My understanding is that RD's don't need to have as great of the deaths-related update, but the article as a whole should be of very good quality. And it seems as though my comment above was ignored and the article was posted even though there were clear referencing issues, which lessens the quality of the article as a whole. I don't support pulling, but I feel this sets a dangerous precedent if we are going to accept the "lower standard of update for deaths" and not at the same time require that articles be of very good posting quality. SpencerT♦C06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Worlds longest high speed rail line opened
Oppose pending clarification. The article doesn't make the statement worlds lognest high speed rail line, and it looks like several sections still aren't complete. --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm opposed to a fascist empire bent on world domination. I'm also opposed to posting engineering stories before the project is finished. The two valid and factual objections, overlooked by WaltCip, remain unaddressed. --IP98 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you think that drawing attention to a clear bias in an editor's attitude, dissimulated by a change in name, is worthy of admonishment. It is not an ad hominem attack (You know nothing of my opinion of the Chinese government), it is declaration of COI. Kevin McE (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Kevin, no dissimulation intended here. I would still be calling myself "StopChinaNow" but I was banned for an offensive name. I proudly list them on my user page. You've not uncovered any sockpuppetry, I'm not hiding a thing. Yes, I'm opposed to a fascist band of sadistic baby butchers. I don't hide that either. I'm also a good faith contributor who has been here for a long time, who has looked at the article and nomination, and made a considered objection. You've elected to ignore those objections, and derail any hope for consideration with your hateful remarks. Yes, I oppose the fascist "government" of imperial China, but this is WP:ITN, not the UN commission on human rights. Drop it please. --IP98 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whilst other countries talk, China builds, and this seems to be another highly significant news development. Also would be good for us to get something
Support. This a pretty big deal, and not just for China, but internationally. In particular, in the U.S. high speed rail is a hot and controversial current political topic, and this event will certainly have an affect (now, and not just in 2015 or at some artificial future date) on the political debate surrounding it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article looks good and I'm willing to post, but can I get a cite in the article for this being "the world's longest high-speed rail route"? Or link me to where it says that in the article? SpencerT♦C01:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Furthermore, I'm a bit confused by some of the information. All of the news reports suggest that the Beijing-Guangzhou portion constitutes the longest high-speed rail line, but the article notes a (complete) continuation to Shenzhen and a further (inexplicably incomplete) continuation to Hong Kong. So... is the Guangzhou-Hong Kong portion a separate line, as the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link article suggests? And, either way, why does the BBC and the Washington Post (via the AP) say the line from Beijing to Guangzhou is 2,298 km when our article says the length of the entire line, including the incomplete segment to Hong Kong, is 2,230 km? That table in the article isn't sourced. -- tariqabjotu02:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2,298 km is the "rate-making distance", that is the distance the Ministry of Railways want to used to work out the ticket price. Price of Chinese train is fixed, defined by a set of formula based on the distance. I can't find public references of the 2,230 km Beijing to Hong Kong claim at this moment. But anyway it cannot be 2,298 km Beijing to Guangzhou + some 200 km Guangzhou to Hong Kong (over 10% difference) as the public news articles suggested. However, the real distance can be easily independently verified from satellite image. OpenStreetMap also has a rather accurate route ready for this verification at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2201704Python eggs (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Tariq's question: the 'full line' stretches from Beijing to Hong Kong, but the opened revenue segments currently only constitute the portion between Beijing and Guangzhou. This portion of the line itself has been constructed in segments, with the Beijing-Shijiazhuang and Zhengzhou-Wuhan segments opening on December 26 for full service, but the Shijiazhuang-Zhengzhou and Wuhan-Guangzhou portions of the line having already been operational since earlier this year and two years ago, respectively. Technically this is one large railway line that consists of several "sub-lines". It is the longest operational high speed rail in the world insofar as Beijing-Guangzhou is the world's longest continuous and contiguous high speed service. I hope that clarifies. Colipon+(Talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't clarify. Our article says the Guangzhou-Shenzhen segment was completed a year ago. So if Beijing-Hong Kong is one continuous line, at the very least you'd expect news reports to be talking about the Beijing-Shenzhen segment being the world's longest. Is that last segment just completed, and not actually open for business as revenue track? Look, I'm not trying to hold this nomination up, but I think some alignment with the sources is in order. Python eggs said "I can't find public references of the 2,230 km Beijing to Hong Kong claim at this moment", and yet that unsourced claim is still in the article, alongside another set of unsourced figures (that are slightly discrepant). When considering how to write the blurb, I thought it would make sense to say something like "The [X]-km Beijing-[Y] line opens as the world's longest high-speed railway"... but I don't know what X and Y are. And even if "X-km" is omitted, should Y = Guangzhou, or should we say "a part of the Beijing-Hong Kong line"? -- tariqabjotu23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusion about the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong section is understandable. Currently, to my knowledge, the longest-running train only goes from Beijing to Guangzhou. To get from Beijing to Shenzhen, one remains on the same line, but must transfer trains. But in any case, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail is part of the larger Beijing-Guangzhou-Hong Kong high speed rail. Presumably, when the Hong Kong section of the line is completed by 2015, there will be revenue service between Beijing and Hong Kong, which would make that service defeat the current record held by Beijing-Guangzhou. Colipon+(Talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't think that information is in the article, but ok. I'm not comfortable posting this myself, but I wouldn't object to anyone else doing so. -- tariqabjotu23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, 766 km of these 2000+ km opened in one day (12/26/12), over one third of the final route if it's 2230km. And why squabble about it not being finished? Shenzhen North is in the metropolitan area of the planned end (Hong Kong). Only 24 more miles of route are left to be built (39 km). the distance in comparison (center to edge), (US), proof of distance Nearly this entire distance is 217 mile an hour/350 kph trains which is quite an achievement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Six AQAP militants and two Yemeni soldiers are killed after clashes near a damaged oil pipeline in Ma'rib Governorate. Separately, gunmen target military officials and the home of the transport minister in the capital Sana'a, killing a brigadier general and injuring four others. (Reuters)
Article:No article specified Blurb: Winter Storms Draco, and Euclid, each kill several people in the northern United States whtithin a single week. (Post) Credits:
Comment. Needs nomination template. The "named winter storms" are named by The Weather Channel and not a government agency(as hurricanes are) for purposes of promoting its coverage. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason for us to refer to the storms in such a manner. 331dot (talk) 02:10, 27 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.
Indeed- the only comment made in support of this nomination is "someone needs to start the article"; until they do, we cannot evaluate the merits of putting this event in ITN. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 26 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.
Support significant story from a part of the world we don't cover all that often. The update is fine – ideally I would like the article to be a little bit longer, but I am certain that it will have been expanded by the time there is consensus to post. —WFC— FL wishlist18:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Decent start of an article, and the death of the acting leader of the border patrol adds some significance. At the same time, a rickety old soviet era plane crashed with 27 people on board. It's pretty mundane, in a tragic sense. I don't know when this aircraft was built, but the AN-72 article lists it as "low level production" so I'm guessing this wasn't shiny and new). I mean, an A340 slamming into the runway at Mumbai would be easier to support. Anyway, we seem to be quick to post all aircraft crashes, but with so many planes in the air around the world, is it really that big of a deal? --IP98 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Yes. There is a difference between an accident which kills 27 people at once, and an individual who chooses to murder 28 people. Just like shooting one or two people isn't enough (I live in Miami, it's almost daily), but an A330 crashing into the ocean is enough. --IP98 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; as IP98 said, there is a difference between deliberate murder of (mostly) children and an accident. If the number of deaths in this incident is high enough to list in ITN purely based on the number, I have to wonder what would be the floor for the number of deaths in order to be listed. 5? 10? 20? 331dot (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say 20 would be a good number to start with, as long as you do not get other aggravating or (un)aggravating situations. Any number that high to be killed at once, and its bad enough to warrant being here.
A NATO adviser is shot dead by a woman in police uniform in Kabul, and at least five Afghan policemen are killed by another officer in northern Afghanistan. (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.
Support. Feted stage actor; Tony and Drama Desk awards seal it for me (though to note, he didn't actually win an Oscar for his screen work). GRAPPLEX21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Grapple. Suggest removing the "same day as Jack Klugman" bit from his article though. It doesn't really add anything. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Huffington Post has called Klugman and Durning the "Titans of Character Acting". Here is not the place to make the bad suggestion that we remove what notable sources say from articles. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker As someone who hates the death ticker, I always hesitate before supporting nominations, but in this case I'm convinced by the notability and suitability for the front page doktorbwordsdeeds01:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even with the ticker, we must resist the temptation to post every actor who dies. Almost by definition, a character actor will usually be a lower-tier celebrity, and that seems to be the case here. I have a hunch that although many moviegoers would recognize the actor, few would be able to say, "Oh yeah, that's Charles Durning." He has had a nice career, but not an exceptional one. I frankly wouldn't have posted Klugman either, although I enjoyed the work of both actors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What temptation? Whether we list someone or not is not about "resisting temptation". ITN/RD was designed for exactly this situation, when more than one notable person dies in a week. Durning certainly qualifies as notable, as his "King of the Character Actors" and "Titan" description in the media attests. As for the recognizability argument, who in the world would recognize Dina Manfredini other than her townspeople? The point of listing in cases like this is to connect the people to the article, not to show our skill at temptation-resisting dieting as editors. If I didn't know who Durning was, but loved him as Pappy O'Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, I'd be particularly thankful for the editors of Wikipedia for helping me make that connection. To suggest we need to resist that is contrary to the very mission of the project. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable isn't enough, and the function of the ticker isn't to post every notable death. It still has to meet the death criteria, and I don't think this one does. Was he a good actor, with many roles? Sure. Was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? I honestly don't think so, unless you sufficiently narrow his field to "character acting". This is basically a nomination for that guy who was in that thing, and I would hope our standards haven't relaxed that much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per bongwarrior. We can't put up every b-list Hollywood actor, and that seems to be what he was for the most part. The theater work is perhaps more compelling but at the end of the day actors in the US are considered great for their work on screen.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SourcesNYT: "Extraordinary Actors Ennobling the Ordinary" "an astonishing 207 acting credits" "household-name status" HuffPo "Character Actor Titans" " storied careers" "Klugman and Durning reign supreme" Telegraph "World War Two hero who became one of Hollywood's top character actors" NPR "king of the character actors". How this doesn't amount to top of one's field beats me. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Academy nominated, 9 emmy nominations, 3 golden globe nominations and one golden globe winning performance, and 1 tony award. B-list is not exactly what I would call him. Definitely a candidate for RD ticker. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready? The article is updated, there's 3-1 support for this nom, with opposes being based not on the nom itself but on opposition to posting actors. Can an admin comment if there is some other impediment to posting this? Otherwise I think it is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to posting actors. I oppose this particular actor because I don't think he is notable enough for ITN. I thought I had made that clear enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, Bongwarrior. Consensus at this point, however, is to post and the sources are unequivocal, so i am wondering if there is some other reason this hasn't been marked ready. Given I have listed myself as an updater I don't want to do so, but I do believe it is ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Arthur Quinlan (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination (Post) News source(s):[3] 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.
Which would those be? "He would simply start up his 1939 Morris 8 and head for the airport."? Any awards won? Special recognition from his peers? --IP98 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honorary member of the NUJ as it seems you hadn't noticed it in his article. Also being recognised and referred to by the name of your city/location of birth is pretty significant. Or would you prefer actual trophies and medals? This is journalism, not sport, not music, not film. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NUJ bit is deadlinked, and it's a trade union. Looks like they gave an 80 year old member "member of honour" status. For the awards, Pulitzer Prize is a start, off the top of my head. I mean, the whole article reads like the story of a cooky old man who trundled off in his 39 Morris to interview people at the airport. Am I missing something? --IP98 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. only award. Your objection is that he failed to win an award he was ineligible for? And the type of car he drove even comes into it? I doubt very much he was a "cooky old man" all through the 20th century. Or maybe the reason he was so successful was because he was a "cooky old man", that is if he was one? --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. only award. Your objection is that he failed to win an award he was ineligible for? Nope, and didn't say that. You stated that This is journalism, not sport, not music, not film. I was merely pointing out that there are awards for journalism. And the type of car he drove even comes into it? Nope. Type of car is totally irrelevant. The question remains, totally unanswered, did he do anything in his long career other than interview celebrities at the airport? --IP98 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to his biography than him driving to an airport and the politicians and royalty mentioned are not minor celebrities. I don't know what else you expect journalists to do. He did his job. He didn't win an Olympic medal, he didn't make pop music, he didn't kill anyone. But he did his job. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians, popes, kings, movie stars, all celebrities in different categories for different reasons. He did his job, sure did. That's 100% correct, but simply doing ones job does not make that person "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". As such, this item fails ITN/DC #2, and if ITN/DC matters at all anymore, this should be vigorously opposed. --IP98 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no high profile awards for Irish journalism, so asking whether he won one or not is entirely useless; he never won the Superbowl either. GRAPPLEX18:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, IP 86, you see how frustrating it is to have a valid nomination met with ridiculously piddling and contrarian opposition. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker And I say this as someone who hates the ticker. Significant enough for a mention on the front page and the article seems to be in a largely good state doktorbwordsdeeds18:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
he has had a unique opportunity to meet and interview countless world leaders and stars as they passed through the airport. and He would simply start up his 1939 Morris 8 and head for the airport. should probably be rewritten. Doesn't seem to fit with the WP:MOS. --IP98 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you maybe want to drop that bone and stop badgering, you'd notice that Quinlan was the sole Westerner able to interview Che Guevara, one of the century's defining figures, which is slightly more notable and important than being privy to a glorified press conference by Richard Nixon. There's also the matter of being a neutral interviewer of Cold War leaders from both sides (Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Gromyko, Castro...) along with a key religious leader. But no, it's ok, he did all that from the back of a Morris so fuck him. GRAPPLEX18:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Morris has nothing to do with it. So he interviewed famous and important people: thats what journalists do. We can't post the death of every old newspaper reporter. Any major stories? Investigative journalism? The NUJ is 100 years old with 38000 members, does it not have any recognition other than "honoured old man"? --IP98 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready? This article definitely seems technically updated and ready. But since I cannot judge the praise heaped on Quinlan from the Limerick Leader I'll leave it to someone else to add the [Ready] tag. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems a bit hagiographic. What's this line about the first Irishman to get a jet across the Atlantic about? Overall I don't think the article is very good. Neutral otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose sorry, ticker or not, I see no reason to abandon ITN/DC. The deceased was (1) not in a high ranking office of power, (3) the death has not impacted current events, and (2) I see no evidence from the article that the deceased was widely regarded as important in their field. Beloved sure, for a time, but important, no. The death ticker was conceived and implemented to deal with the unmanageable flood of recent deaths which met the ITN/DC requirement. This does not. --IP98 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ticker. Lead actor in two long-running hit series, notable roles from 12 Angry Men til his death. There will be quite a bit of reader interest, similar to the recent posting of the TV astronomer and certainly more justified than Dina Manfredini. Checkviews shows a long-running average of over a 1000 hits a day[4] well before news of his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with the posting of the astronomer. Quincy is even airing right now in Australia. Hardly an unknown figure. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what, the "40 year old reruns network"? It's a really simple test: Was Klugman "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." or not? --IP98 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make sure I understand. Your complaint is his 40 year old reruns are being rerun on a rerun network? Rather than where? He's a classic. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Moore was presenter of the world's longest-running television series with the same original presenter; Manfredini was the world's oldest living person, the oldest recorded Italian-born person, the 10th oldest person ever recorded, and the longest-living immigrant. What did this guy do to match those two in terms of encyclopedic newsworthiness? From the details presented here, absolutely nothing. --86.40.201.132 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith on your part in asking that question, yes, he was an iconic lead on two TV hit shows, one a Drama that foreshadowed all the modern day forensic dramas, and the other a comedy, as well as being recognized for his film roles, his overcoming throat cancer and the loss of his voice to return to acting, and his legal battles over actor's compensation. Plus see the over 1,000 hits a day for his article linked to above predating his death. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make him a very important figure in his field? Your first statement is a nice piece of WP:OR, if he was that groundbreaking, find a WP:RS that says it and add it to his article. Throat cancer == nothing to do with being important in his field. Suing NBC and settling out of court somehow makes him battling for actors compensation?? Lastly, if checkviews had any importance whatsoever then you would have been tripping over us to heap support upon gangnam style. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the unreferenced bits of the talk show section. I see the cleanup tag with the filmography section, but am not sure what's the matter. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tag is asking for more than just a bullet-pointed list. in an ideal world something like this could be put together, but for what we're asking I'd say the filmography is fine as is. Could remove the tag safely or just overlook it for a posting as it's not a vital concern (like {{cn}} or {{refimprove section}} would be). GRAPPLEX18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I have removed the cleanup tag, as the red links and strange formatting have been removed. I have added another few sentences on the death itself to buck-up the update requirement. There seems to be only token opposition versus widespread support and all the technical barriers have been removed, so I am marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)7[reply]
Comment: I added more about what the Amendment itself proposed in the article, but the item blurb could also perhaps be more descriptive, saying what the amendment was about? In addition, preferably the article should have some mention of the results to the referendum if possible. Otherwise, the article is in good shape. SpencerT♦C19:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly more insistent comment. This really should not be posted until the article contains details of the results of the referendum. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main story is that the constituation is generally considered quite Islamist-friendly, but it's difficult to discuss this in a blurb without heading into POV territory. LukeSurltc22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I agree with Muboshgu that the current blurb needs more details. I'd like to see the election numbers, once they're released.--xanchester(t)08:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose now, oppose when he fully retires, support recent deaths. Cricket might be very popular in a few countries, and no doubt Tendulkar is a very accomplished player, but we can't go posting the retirement of every star athlete in every sport. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According the ever reliable BBC, basketball is the 2nd most popular sport. On that website you cited, it says baseball is more popular than basketball, which is a load of bull lol
Anyway, while football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the world without a doubt, the second most popular sport is a lot murkier. –HTD15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the above comment about "we can't go posting the retirement of every star athlete in every sport" is correct on its face, I think that the retirement of one of a sport's legends would merit a note. However, Tendulkar is not retiring from Cricket. He's basically just removed himself from consideration for the Indian national team. Resolute16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support: Some editors here have told they'd support after his retirement from Test cricket! But, note after his retirement from One Day cricket, everyone knows and expects he'll retire from Test Cricket too sooner later.. and count IPL, and Ranji, and state level etc. Everyone knows these are going to happen. For example, retirement of Sourav Ganguly or Rahul Dravid their first retirement decision got most attention and coverages. For next one or two years they kept on retiring from different forms of the game. And finally Ganguly's retirement from IPL or state level got almost no media attention (or far less attention than what he got at first)! I don't think we should wait for Tendulkar's Test retirement, since even after retiring from Tests he may continue playing IPL or State level cricket (as Warne, Gilchrist etc have done)! Then what you'll say? Wait for Tendukar's IPL retirement or wait for his Ranji retirement? So, unless it is a complete retirement from all types of the game in a single day (which is not very uncommon too), it is better to highlight it first. So, Now. I don't recommend to keep this event for future ITN, since it'll be a "news of a retirement who had already retired"! Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL and if the player's name is Sachin Tendulkar anyone can not predict anything. Can anyone predict here that even after retiring from One Day Sachin is not going to play in Test Cricket for another 2 or 3 years? Hm? So, please NOW --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know (think) he will get official farewell, highest civilian honours and some comments from most powerful and reputed people of the nation after his Test retirement, but 1) we don't know when he is going to retire from Test Cricket 2) if he is continuing to play IPL, Ranji, State cricket even after his Test retirement! So, Wait for full retirement (as said above) does not sound logical! I don't want to say "Never", so I am tempted to say "now" --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retiring from proper International cricket (not IPL) is a recognisable milestone not too far away. While he still swings his bat for India he has not retired and could even make a comeback at one day level. Would that be yet another ITN followed by another when he finally retires? There's no rush. Leaky Caldron17:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point! After his retirement from Test Cricket, we may need another ITN (specially if he is given Bharat Ratna or something similar like President of India attending his last test). But, you have said not too far away, I am not sure! I personally think he is going to play at least one more year in Test Crickets! Of course, my opinion has no value. I'll keep an eye on experts' opinions on Sachin's Test retirement! Yet, I don't think he is going to retire soon! He is Tendukar after all! :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although he's definitely one of the greatest batsmen ever, he's only retiring from ODIs. It would be a bit of a borderline case even if he was retiring from all forms of cricket, but he isn't. (oh and regardless of what the IPL fans might say, Test cricket is still the ultimate form of the game, and Tendulkar is still playing Tests) Modest Geniustalk23:45, 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)
Nominator's comments: The protests have gained extensive coverage, both nationally and internationally; and thousands of protesters are present. There have also been several lathicharges and firing of tear gas on them. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think these protests are about one particular case, but in relation to the general safety situation in the city; the protests may have been set off by this case. MikeLynch (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These protests are primarily about that one particular case only. The reason they have drawn so many is because of the general safety situation. Though I agree that there isnt a significant difference between whether they are for one case, or in general. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This incident might have been the tipping point, but the protests are surely not just about this case. I feel the blurb should be reworded to reflect it. At any rate, wording like "in a running bus" is unnecessary detail. MikeLynch (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3 times edit conflicts, last attempt to post: I also don't think these protests are about one particular case, but this particular case (which was very brutal one) seems to be the reason of these protests! (after edit conflict, Lynch's post) as MikeLynch has said tipping point. Lynch, those running bus etc is needed for identifier since you'll get a rape news from Delhi every 1/2 week(s) --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet this article [13] refers to the case of an actress Momoko as well. A broader scope to the blurb than the one case might help. We also don't need such a big blurb including the locations and that the rape was done in a bus. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb I would suggest something like "After deadly protests against a gang rape and other crimes, India bans gatherings of more than five people." I have only read the one report, someone with mare familiarity might suggest better piped links. Yours is not a bad blurb in any case. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, that ban on unlawful gatherings has been applied too frequently for it to merit an ITN spot. I was thinking something like "Following a a gang rape in Delhi, protesters gather near the Indian Parliament to protest against the safety situation of women in the city". Maybe it's too long? MikeLynch (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ban on gatherings is not the news item the blurb is hung on, the deadly riots are, the ban being a reaction. We don't need to say protesters protest, and that it's against the gang rape and other crimes makes it obvious the concern is with women's safety, so we don't need to say they protest against gang rape and for women's safety. Ideally if we use a blurb like mine we could link other crimes to Rape in India, or another relevant article crime/women's safety in india. We can also replace the ban on gatherings with some more important reaction, if there is one. The uproar seems to be widespread, so I am not sure there is any need to mention near the Indian Parliament. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 23 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
