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).
Chicago chef Charlie Trotter, who operated his namesake restaurant in Chicago (from 1987 until its closure in 2012), is found dead by his son at his Lincoln Park home. (Chicago Tribune)
Sports journalist Alberto Angulo Gerardo is killed in the Mexican state of Sinaloa. His death add ups to the death toll of more than 100 media workers killed in Mexico since the year 2000. (GlobalPost)
TorontoMayorRob Ford admits that a year-old video does indeed show him smoking crack cocaine, a charge he had previously denied. Ford refused to resign from office and vowed to pursue re-election efforts. (CBC)
Colonel Abdul Jabbar Akaidi, top rebel leader and chief recipient of U.S. aid, quits his position blaming recent losses on rebel infighting. (Washington Post)
A truck carrying four people hits a land mine on a road leading to Menaka in Mali, killing all of the occupants. (AP via Miami Herald)
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: He had a fourteen year career in the NBA, first pick in the 1961 NBA draft, won Rookie of the Year in 1962, had a 31.6 points per game average in his rookie season, which is the second highest (Wilt Chamberlin is the highest), led the NBA in field goal percentage in his rookie season, had twenty-three points and seventeen rebounds in the 1962 NBA All-Star game, which was his first NBA All-Star game, had over twenty thousand points and fourteen thousand rebounds at the end of his career, and was elected to the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame. He was also the starting center on the 1960 American olympic basketball team that won the Gold Medal for that years Olympics. Andise1 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this would entail a lot of more recent players going on there. And the standard today is much higher then back thenLihaas (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedent. If a two-time Hall of Famer(one of only three such people) with four titles, eight All-Star Game appearances, and other notables isn't ITN worthy then I don't think this gentleman is, either. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was not consensus for that to not be posted (nor was the nomination closed as such); thus there really isn't a "precedent" that was set. Looking back at that nomination, it appears as though an updated article also kept it from the Main Page. Not arguing for or against posting here, but I think using the old nomination as a reason to oppose without examining this subject's merits is doing a disservice to the nomination. SpencerT♦C02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was not consensus to post it, either. Same difference. If you don't wish to consider the lack of consensus on a similar nomination a "precedent", I can accept that, but my point was that another basketball player with similar, if not greater credentials did not make it, then this person shouldn't either. I did examine this article and its merits before arriving at my opinion. A Hall of Famer versus a two-time Hall of Famer(only one of three such people), for one. It's not a disservice to make a comparison to a prior situation which occurred. A nomination does not have to be formally closed in order to draw such a comparison. 331dot (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that a previous nomination that had no consensus either way should not be used as a reason to oppose. Precedent should used as a reason to support/oppose very carefully.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually 331dot, I believe there was consensus to post Sharman - it was 8:4 in favour. I presume the problem was that the article had a orange-level tag for needing additional citations. Neljack (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm undecided on who was better: Bellamy or Sharman. Like Sharman, Bellamy is also a two-time hall of famer: as an individual player, and as a part of the 1960 US team made up of college kids that beat fully grown European "professionals" in the Rome Olympics. Unlike Sharman, he won an NCAA title (probably the highest US competition FIBA recognizes at that time), and he didn't get to the "right" teams at that time (Celtics, Sixers or Lakers) so he didn't have NBA titles. Like Sharman, he also didn't win an MVP award. On a quick glance, Bellamy and Sharman were somewhat at the same level, and since I weakly opposed Sharman, I'd also weakly oppose this one. –HTD04:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if it is true that he was on a level with Sharman as a player, it was Sharman's combined achievements as a player and a coach that got him my support. Neljack (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Never made a first or second All-NBA team, meaning he was never regarded as one of the top two players at his position when he played (tough competition, but nonetheless). Teemu08 (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi's trial starts in Cairo's police academy. He faces charges of inciting violence and murder in connection with clashes at the presidential palace in Cairo in December 2012. (Reuters)(RTE)
Religion
The Apostolic Vicariate of Brunei is one of the youngest and smallest Catholic ecclesiastical jurisdictions in southeast Asia. About 10 percent of the population is atheist, 13 percent Buddhist, and a small number have indigenous beliefs. Christians, half of whom are Catholic, constitute 10 percent of Brunei's population. (Catholic News Agency)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: We may want to mention that this was the return of the NYC Marathon after last year's race was canceled by Hurricane Sandy, but that might make the blurb a bit too long. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R. The article is, however, a one-sentence stub and needs additional improvements before posting. Alternative solution might be to leave the link to this article out of the blurb and bold the articles about the winners as we did it with the Berlin marathon a month ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sure mention "after a year's hiatus" but no need for Sandy as that's on the page. With an update this is a sure cinch to post, obviously. (No typos, always drink and type ;))
It's actually a two sentence article. So ha. Seriously, I'm surprised that the article has languished for this long - this is sort of a high-profile event, and I figured someone else would have gotten to it by now. I'll see if I can make it look a little more respectable sometime today. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see, but that might end up being the way to go. I may have overestimated the importance of the individual marathon articles - only the past couple of years even have separate articles, and even those are pretty skimpy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the article is that useless more than 24 hours after the event, that suggests this shouldn't be ITNR, which is for notable events. Remove it. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose this event's removal from ITNR, the talk page is this way. Until it is removed, it should be posted if the article is in good shape and updated. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even when this used to run right down my street, I never once saw it except on TV after the fact. Feel free to remove it from ITN/R. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, removal from ITN/R doesn't prevent it from being posed next time if the article has a decent update at the time of ITN/C addition. --MASEM (t) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is a major marathon and on ITN/R, with plenty of precedent to post. Updated article to make it sufficient for ITN. Odg2vcLR (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can work up a better summary along the lines of some other marathons...the articles on the last couple NYC marathons (which I used as a template) are also pretty weak compared to other marathons. Also suggested an altblurb noting that this was the largest marathon in history, which seems like an interesting piece of trivia for ITN (but my suggested blurb could use some tweaking.) Odg2vcLR (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Article needs a new section for this latest billion euro discovery, perhaps someone with some time could help this "good news" story? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, interesting story of historical significance. There's an excellent update at Nazi plunder#2011 Gurlitt discovery, but the article itself has a nasty orange-level tag on it. Not sure what the best way around that is... In addition, the news is the announcement, the find actually came two years ago. I also suggest working that section link into the blurb. I suggested an alternative above. Modest Geniustalk20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the recent NSA spying ITN candidate, it was suggested the news was worthy of its own article. What do you think in this case? I'd be happy (time allowing) to spin off a fork which would meet the requirements with no orange tags, no dead links etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News is based upon date of publication, not date when something happened. The only way something is stale is if you can show prior publication. Can you find this story anywhere before Nov 3? JehochmanTalk12:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb gives the misleading impression that the art has just been discovered, while the altblurb states that the German police have announced the discovery when the news articles listed seem to just refer to German media reports. I'm not sure how to phrase an appropriate blurb, given that the most notable events took place two years ago. Neljack (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 discovery of a billion euros worth of Nazi plundered art, including works by Picasso and Matisse, is announced by German authorities/customs — Not sure if this works or helps towards a potential blurb. Also, Strong Support, the article is well updated, and though not in the forefront of North American news, this appears to be the biggest art discovery in nearly a century. - Floydianτ¢08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the blurb should mention the court order banning the report, so that the reason why it surfaced only now becomes clear. Btw, do we have any image of those works in Commons? Brandmeistertalk09:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Re-nom as now we have the offensive AND the movement calling a ceasefire (on the backfoot). I'm not sure about precedence, but we did post FARC last year and MINUSUMA. --Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems a significant event in a long-running conflict, which would be good to cover on the MP. However, the blurb should include the name of the country! Otherwise 'government' is meaningless. Modest Geniustalk21:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't sure about the first nomination because the end of hostilities was being proclaimed by one side, but this update is clearly a form of acknowledgement from M23 themselves. Teemu08 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Question: looking back at the 2009 discussion which resulted in the ITNR listing, it seems the Japan Series was combined with the World Series into a single blurb. What happened in other years? Modest Geniustalk21:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I originally suggested a combined blurb last year and it was shot down with the consensus being to make it a stand alone blurb, which is what was done. --TorsodogTalk22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I merged and bumped these because it looked bad to have two blurbs starting with "In baseball". As for bumping, feel free to demote the blurb to the Oct 30 date of the World Series if you feel strongly about that. JehochmanTalk11:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Tunisiangovernment and opposition leaders are deadlocked during talks over the determination of a new PM tasked with steering the country out of a months-long political crisis. (Gulf News)
Israeli aircraft carry out a strike near the Syrian coastal city of Latakia targeting Russian-made S-125 air defense missiles allegedly intended for use by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. (BBC)
Oppose Even if this news is true that he was killed after the rumours reporting his death numerous times in the past three or four years, he was only one of many other figures in the organisational line of the Taliban movement and his death doesn't mark the end of its presence in Pakistan. I also find it premature to say that this is a significant development in the Global War on Terrorism because his death does not wane a priori the power of the organisation and we cannot know what the implications of this will be at this point of time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Highly significant death, forget the "war on terrorism", to kill the head of the Taliban in Pakistan is globally significant whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but not so significant in my opinion. If he were the leader of the Taliban movement worldwide, then it would have been a different story with other implications. There are too many militant organisations in the world to consider the death of the leader of one of its branches a very significant event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a tad harsh. Significance for our purpose (ITN) is highly subjective, hence why we vote on candidates. What may be very significant to you could seem more like a minor milestone in a long line of successions to some others. - Floydianτ¢03:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WoT aside, think of it this way. A leader of the militant arm of a semi-legal political movement (the Taliban's legal position in Pakistan is complicated) was killed on Pakistani soil by a United States drone. The United States and Pakistan are not supposed to be in a state of war. - Tenebris 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment Requires expansion beyond the one-line section we have right now. I'll attempt to work on later if I have time - if somebody else has the chance to do so sooner, I'd be happy to put this up when it's a bit meatier. m.o.p00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it is an important development development in the global war on terror. The item ought to be an ITN, reported worldwide and notable enough to be posted on ITN. But, what if they put some other lunatic (like him) as a leader. Also, we should avoid posting killing of terrorists on ITN (I would have had opposed the putting up of Osama's death on ITN). They don't deserve any sort of coverage (even if their death is good for humanity). I am nowhere opposing this nomination (only giving reasons why such nominations should not be put up. PS-My personal opinion.)Regards, theTigerKing02:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. News organisations are treating this a very significant and are reporting that the Pakistani military has gone onto high alert in consequence. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Not a mass shooting; if evidence of terrorism or other unusual circumstance(such as targeting the TSA agents) comes out, would be willing to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It might spark more issues on gun control, but as the situation seemed quickly resolved (short of cleanup and airport issues due to the response), it's not an ITN story. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed this is a good example of why not to nominate things prematurely. Wait until tomorrow. If this event is in the news headlines around the world, you can re-nominate it. JehochmanTalk20:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably it will still be in the news tomorrow (due to the media tending to report on sensationalism) , the question that is more important is if there will be any world-wide fall out from this, which is doubtful. The point, however, is still right about premature nominations. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is actually a pretty rare and interesting item to post. I don't think third gender has ever been posted on ITN as compared to gay marriage laws that we do post fairly often. The blurb is pretty hard to word though, change it as needed. ---- Ashish-g5515:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In fact, it seems to be the first in the world to allow it at birth. The others are all for passports, electoral rolls or censuses. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when a target article is updated. Significant change in law which will increase the visibility of intersex people. I would think intersex might be a better target than third gender, which is mainly referring to gender rather than sex, and why not use the word "intersex" in the blurb? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order for this to be posted, which seems like a strong possibility, it has to link to an article that includes the news. The linked article at present is not focused, and does not even mention the news. Can perhaps a more appropriate target article be found? What about Intersex or LGBT rights in Germany, which both mention the news. In the alternative, can third gender be updated? JehochmanTalk14:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ive changed it to Intersex, it has a paragraph of update with refs. Initially i thought third gender might be the article but they both talk about very similar topics. There is also Sex assignment that may be linked but not bolded. Also im still not sure if this is first for a European country or entire world. Then we can use alt-blurb instead.
I'd say "European" as that's what the BBC article claims. The same article also implies that a third gender option doesn't apply at birth in Australia, New Zealand or India; for Pakistan it seems related only to identity cards, which our article states is issued age 18; Nepal though is related to the census so this could effectively be at birth for intersex people born at census time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty people are killed in bombings in Iraq. (BBC)
A suicide bomber blows himself up in the Tunisian tourist resort of Sousse and police foil another attempted attack in Habib Bourguiba's tomb in Monastir. No casualties are reported. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: 45 death in a bus accident is a a major accident, moreover has broad coverage in media in India and abroad aswell. --
Support Well, It is a lot of deaths, today is.... nevermind not a time for a joke. Although, the recent terrorist attack in Russia a few weeks ago which killed 6 didn't even get nominated, while the boston bombing which killed 3 got posted along with a post for the capture of the assailants. Anyway, this is not a US issue, sorry late at night.. in the morning. Support for high death count I guess75.73.114.111 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A terrorist attack at a major sporting event is apples and oranges compared to a bus accident- but that said, we did post this similar crash earlier this year. Article needs a lot of work, though. 331dot (talk)
Oppose I'm going to oppose for now unless this story develops further. The death toll is high, yes, but unfortunately such accidents are reletively common in that region, and it's getting pretty scant news coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are too many deadly bus accidents to post them on ITN. "Just" another bus accident have no real historical value. Thue (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hugely tragic for those involved and sympathizers, of which I am one, but unless there is some other notable factor such as sabotage or a notable death it is more fit for newspapers and police blotters than an encyclopedia's front page. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Road accident that are this deadly aren't that common in India - there's only been one more deadly one in the last four years. If this was a plane crash that killed 45 people it would almost certainly get posted (subject to update). If it was a train crash it probably would too. It's a mystery to me why people are so reluctant to post equally deadly road accidents. The form of transport involved seems to me to have little relevance to its significance. It's basically just a form of IDONTLIKEIT - people here are more interested in plane crashes. That, of course, is not a good reason. Neljack (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been some sort of glitch with your post, Neljack. The part where you tell us what is notable here beyond the death count apparently got mistakenly replaced with a blanket insult. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that's relevant. There are also a lot people travelling on the roads than on railways or aeroplanes. And, Medeis, IDONTLIKEIT is not an insult - people frequently refer to it in discussions. It's a criticism of the argument, not the person, so I don't know why you are taking it personally. Neljack (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking it personally because you posted immediately after me, and made the odd claim that people like plane crashes (I have opposed ones this size) and dislike bus crashes. That's just odd at best. Fact is, what I don't like is Andhra Pradesh; it reminds me too much of Oregon. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was certainly not intended in that way, μηδείς, and I apologise for giving that impression. In fact, to the extent that it was response to any comments, it was more a response to other comments that - unlike yours - did mention the form of transport involved. Neljack (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody post a few links showing that this story is widely reported as a top news story? From the evidence posted thus far, I am not seeing justification to post this item. JehochmanTalk16:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
The !vote here is to have editors validate that the article was updated and free of significant problems, as opposed to the worthiness of the news blurb itself. ITNR is not a guarantee of posting if the article doesn't get an update that is proper for that topic. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lead needed some fixing to summarize the series better, and probably still does, but it certainly seems in order overall, and is one of the most major sporting events in the United States. I would prefer the alternate blurb to read better for a worldwide audience (or maybe a slight variation to mention "2013" and also simplify further, but still mentioning "in baseball" or similar.) Odg2vcLR (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Howard on this one. I see about one line actual update besides scores. There is essentially not much in article about win except the fact they won. This update is worse than Emmy's to be honest... should have held it back till fixed. but now since its up just leave it be -- Ashish-g5519:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You guys. The World Series was won as a result of all the matches played, not just the final one. The article is in damned good shape, especially compared to most items nominated here. If you both want to bitch about the sixth game not being adequately effusive, you really do need to do something about it. Start being part of the solution for a change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pointing out lack of game 6 update is not bitching its stating a fact which seems to have been missed. i dont care for world series enough to want to update it but that doesnt mean it should go up without one. -- Ashish-g5505:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HTD and Ashishg55 are stating a long-standing rule that with sports updates we expect a prose summary of the final match of whatever competition it is (day four of the Masters, final game of the WS, the World Cup final, the final test of the Ashes, etc), and as long-time ITN contributors they are familiar with this rule. That said, there is no written guideline that specifically states that rule; WP:ITN#Updated_content simply requires an update, normally of 5 sentences, of relevant sourced information, or a three paragraph update for a newly created article. So I think TRM is correctly reflecting written ITN guidelines when he says the current article on the 2013 World Series is sufficient and was sufficient at the time of posting--certainly the prose on all 6 games is 'relevant information' and it's normal at ITN for prose updates to summarize events that happened over a period of several days. That said I certainly think as a matter of tidiness, and ITN's mission to link to 'quality content' it is better to have a decent prose update on the final match. I'm expanding it now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The update wasn't all that bad. That said, sport as a whole (association football in particular) has a poor reputation of notable stories being posted before the prose is in place. People have every right to challenge this, regardless of the level of support for the story. Complaints won't always merit a delay in posting – the sixth game summary was noticeably shorter than the first five, but sufficient for update purposes – but they should not be dismissed out of hand, and certainly not by the posting admin. —WFC— FL wishlist15:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose don't see any ramifications outside one country (the "int'l" source is domestic here). If that can be proven otherwise, ill changeLihaas (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (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.
Nominator's comments: Happily enough we have gone quite a while without a conflict posting (I believe), anyways, the end of a movement is usually notable enough. We posted the tigers dying in lanka.. --Lihaas (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's actually the UN Special Envoy saying that, which makes it more newsworthy in my view - I wouldn't be inclined to trust the statements of the Congolese government since they are a party to the conflict and therefore have an interest in saying how well they are doing in crushing the rebels. I'm going to boldly edit the blurb to reflect this. Neljack (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current blurb seems messy. Is there a way to report what has actually occurred without having to quote an individual or organization? --LukeSurltc12:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be changed to just refer to the offensive, but a lot of the news coverage seems to be focusing on the statement that they're finished. Neljack (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, can you write in English please? You've edit-conflicted at least twice today, that's not the "software", it's you overwriting other editor's discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not conscientiously remove content. When the edit conflict page comes up in the editor box and dislays the WHOLE page I just added to the section itself, didn't paste over everything.Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a classic case of systemic bias in the media - a very important story that doesn't get sufficient coverage because of where it occurs. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it not be better to wait until the situation is resolved? I'm uncertain about posting news to ITN every time someone - be they the UN Special Envoy or not - provides a soundbite for the media. m.o.p00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The story that this group was "finished" might be okay, but this is just the story that, according to someone, they will probably be finished real soon for sure. Formerip (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the update' shows that their last stronghold has been evacuated...that's an indication, a la the tamil tigers, that theyre finished.Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (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.
Will be inaugurated today (Republic day in Turkey), though it will not be fully functional for a while, according to the BBC article. Still, a good opportunity to feature the story on ITN. --Tone09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per 331dot. Currently the article talks about the opening in the future tense. Could we have a couple of sentances on the actual ceremonies that happened today? --LukeSurltc12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's cause there aren't many such inkages abailable. Where it is Im sure you have rail network across the urals and then you have the suez and panama canalsLihaas (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-support I made a note to myself yesterday to nominate this today, but was too busy and forgot about it. More stuff like this, please! --hydrox (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the near unanimity on this one. As a purely technical challenge (the soil! the depth! the earthquake management!), this ranks as one of the most important engineering achievements of the 21st C to date. ... Not that the political ramifications of the physical connection for mass transit are unimportant, especially given the EU in the background. (A fixed Bosphorus link already exists for cars and trucks, if no longer for pedestrians.) - Tenebris 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
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, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
