Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2012

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Solitary confinement lawsuit

 * Oppose This amounts to advocacy for a cause, rather than a response to a notable story of worldwide consequence. It could be considered if there were an actual finding or verdict, although I would likely oppose it even then. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet someone winning the Orange Prize for Fiction is more notable? Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes. because it is a "major" award that recognizes outstanding fiction. CA gets sued about its prisons often, I imagine on a very regular basis by its inmates. NOW, if the lawsuit actually does set the precedent once it's resolved, THEN we might post it. But to post the "possibility" of a lawsuit that may or may not actually amount to anything is hardly encyclopedic.Rhodesisland (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose by the way...just in case that wasn't clear in my last comment.Rhodesisland (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what my opinion of the Orange Prize, of which I had never heard, matters. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we were mentioning your opinion of the Orange Prize; just some editors' opinions in general as a comparision.Rhodesisland (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Medeis. Khazar2 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These Pelican Bay human rights abuses have been going on for years, and reported on for years. Once some sort of important change is made, please renominate. Speciate (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Lidstrom retires

 * Oppose sorry but primary instinct is "who?", then "why?" and then "who cares?" and then I give up. An "ice hockey player" retiring is far from ITN-worthy. I imagine if David Beckham "retires" or similar, it'd be laughed out of court.  Really, not of any interest to anyone in the universe outside ardent "hockey" fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Everything above is correct for his career and achievements, but he's ever been considered one of the best 'defencemen' in the game and never one of the 'best players' in the history of the game. Since this is ice-hockey it's not ITN worthy to post a retirement of a player praised to have been the best on a single position, regardless of his achievements in his career. Last year we didn't post the retirement of Ronaldo, who is by far more popular sportsperson than Lidström. Furthermore, players at the end of their careers that deserve more a place in ITN are surely Ferdorov and Jágr.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to get into subjective debates, but please explain how Sergei Federov, who only has 27 more career points, 1 less Stanley Cup, half as many All Star appearances, 1 less Conn Smythe and 1 less Olympic gold medal, is somehow more worthy of an ITN nomination than Lidstrom? --12.41.124.2 (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to standing opposition to sports trivia. That said, I'm very upset at the "since this is ice-hockey" attitude. Hockey is taken very seriously by a number of northern countries, spawns number of global tournaments and is even played at the Olympics. A billion people watch cricket, sure, because there are a billion people in India. If we can post "100 centuries", or someone kicking a football into a net 60 times in a season (what was it, some league in europe right? A pretty small subset...), then this nom deserves more than "take your hockey and shove it up your ass". --IP98 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral It's widely reported in its own field and Lidström is one of the most recognized European NHL players ever, all true. But I am afraid if this is allowed to pass it would present a precedent to ITN where we'd also have to post all sorts of cricketers, footballers and polo players from every single regional variation of those games retiring, striking a new record, and so on. But in case we want to post more sports, there's an inexhaustible stream of "small" news like this. --hydrox (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A player retiring is not ITN material, no matter how great they were/are. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Famous, but it seems ludicrous to post a retirement unless they had a lasting effect on their sport.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think he did. But fair enough if no-one agrees with me. Modest Genius talk 23:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from being an amazing player, how did he influence the sport? I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to hockey.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Τασουλα. I have a hard time imagining a retirement I would support for ITN; they're often impermanent (Brett Favre, etc.) and rarely a total surprise in any case. Khazar2 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Standard retirement of someone not well known. Not for ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 05:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Best defencemen, not the best player. Non ITN stuff. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm slightly biased as a Red Wings supporter of sorts, but Lidstrom was the first-ever European captain to win the Stanley Cup. In my opinion, that makes his retirement notable. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Condemn this nomination It's precisely the kind of nomination that demonstrates almost all that is potentially bad about ITN. Pure parochial rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But no condemnation for cricket? --IP98 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, cricket is a great game, just like ice hockey. WTF are you talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you outright condemned the nomination of a hockey player retiring, but passed on condemning the cricket player retirement nom below. I apologize, perhaps you didn't realize it was there. --IP98 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Without making it quite so obvious, I did oppose the cricket nomination. See my comment re Test Matches vs ODIs. It would be a very rare sports retirement that would get my support. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the operative word in your comment here: condemn. You actually condemned this sports retirement nomination, but didn't extend the same fervor for the nearly identical cricket nom below. I was wondering why. --IP98 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can touch on this. I would of opposed the Cricket nom but it was already withdrawn by the time I got here. Anything sports related that comes up on ITN is controversial 90% of the time. Being opposed to sports trivia in general is fine but people have let their personal biases get in the way in the past, and there's also been a lot of "revenge" opposition voting too. We can all loose our heads sometimes; don't take my post too seriously ;) --Τασουλα (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Modest Genius's excellent rationale, and it's worth bearing in mind the that the nominator is not from North America. I agree that this retirement is less notable than Ronaldo's on a global scale; however, we did post Yao Ming's retirement who was less notable as an NBA player but notable for his impact on Chinese basketball; there is some similarity here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Great Egrets

 * Reluctant oppose - Fun news, but it's not even the top of the science section at the BBC or The Guardian (it doesn't seem to even appear in the latter), much less in international sources. Doesn't appear to me to have the notability. Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: this is a minority topic no? We don't always have to be reporting "big news"! Colipon+ (Talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Colipon's argument convinces me. Such nature topics are by themselves rather rare to appear on top news because they describe ongoing processes (e.g. maybe the chick will be eaten by a fox; maybe the notoriously unstable British weather will ultimately scare the Great Egrets away; but maybe this is the start of the colonisation of Britain by Great Egrets - just as the American squirrel is colonising Britain). It's difficult in such ongoing processes to identify the watershed news item. For me, this one seems interesting and noteworthy enough. Khuft (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Species are disappearing from and re-appearing in the UK all the time. Here's one from a few days ago: . Multiply that rate of occurrence by the number of countries in the world and basically it is not an unusual enough event. As for egrets, I've had a few but, then again, too few to mention. Formerip (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PS It also doesn't fall within the four-item list that would qualify it for minority topic status. Formerip (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this would probably make a good DYK item. Oppose because overall the species is "least concern". If it had been thought extinct, or near extinction, and came back, then it woul be an easy support. --IP98 (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per IP98. Although Khuft's argument is interesting, I don't like the fact that this species is of "least concern." The spread to another country isn't quite notable enough.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ditto IP98.Rhodesisland (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm an Egret/Bird lover in general but I oppose on IP98's reasoning as well. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds of extreme systemic bias. The range of wild species is constantly fluctuating, esp species as mobile as an egret, and such movement is ignorant of national borders.  That an anglophone nation becomes a marginal part of this bird's range is only of special interest if the fauna of specifically anglophone nations is considered noteworthy above all others. Kevin McE (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is UK news, not global news. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite an interesting auspice, given the bird's epithet and the Queen's jubilee. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

SpaceX Dragon spacecraft splashdown

 * Oppose - We've already posted a story on the launch; while notable, I'm not yet convinced this is notable enough to justify a second posting. Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose what else would it have done after its mission was over, except exploding in a worst-case scenario? Also agree with khazar2's comments. Khuft (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The success of the mission is as important a highlight as its launch and docking. Edited the article and blurb. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 22:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- It's not the splashdown that's notable, it's the mission, which we already posted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the end of the mission is not the encyclopedic part, unless it didn't go as planned.Rhodesisland (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update article? while the news in itself might be notable, there is very little update in the article about the actual events of the mission. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

European Fiscal Compact referendum



 * Oppose I seem to recall not posting this when the treaty was drafted because it wasn't in force yet. I don't think we need to post the referendum for every EU member state. Post it either when it comes in to force across the EU or when it gets killed. --IP98 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is just one referendum. This is the only one. See France24
 * Thanks, though I stand by waiting until the treaty actually comes into force. --IP98 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is highly esoteric, very political (we have too much of that already). Colipon+ (Talk) 20:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: In what sense is this "highly esoteric"? It doesn't correspond to the meaning of anything under this definition. This is an example of international politics and is of relevance to anyone in the European Union and to anyone affected by the European sovereign-debt crisis. What does "too much of that already" mean? Does it refer to local and national elections, such as the recent Lesotho general election and the Dominican Republic presidential election? Note that the last European referendum, on the Lisbon Treaty was featured.


 * Support Highly relevant as Ireland is the only country where people will vote on this European treaty. The result, if negative, may spell further mayhem for the Eurozone. Khuft (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, subject to update. Formerip (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question why is only Ireland holding a referendum? Do other countries in Europe amend their constitution through the usual legislative process? --IP98 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A constitutional change may not be required in other jurisdictions. The precedent set in Crotty v. An Taoiseach means that EU treaties generally require a constitutional change in Ireland, and all constitutional changes in Ireland must be ratified by referendum. 109.77.239.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- This is major news in Ireland and has significance throughout Europe.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question do we have a result yet? Is the blurb suggested an 'X' blurb? I will Oppose if the suggestion is to run PRIOR to a result. I might Support after a result.Rhodesisland (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To my understanding it is an X blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, certainly a big deal, and will have a significant effect on the European politics. According to BBC the official results won't be known "until late on Friday". I don't see a problem with posting the entry now and updating the blurb once the results are known. But it's also OK to wait a day. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I say we wait a day for the referendum to be passed, as it almost certainly will be. If it isn't, I may reconsider my !vote.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose posing at this time, if the vote is NO then positing something would be appropriate, however a YES vote is just another step in the ratification and therefore we should wait until it comes into force before posting anything. Mt  king  (edits)  00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC) result was yes, so wait till it comes into force. Mt  king  (edits)  02:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cautious support, although I admit that I found this one tricky. A "yes" vote would confirm a continuation on the path we have been aware of for months, whereas a "no" vote would shake the Eurozone to its core. On the one hand I think that only one of the possible outcomes would make international headlines, on the other I think it would be POV to decide whether to post based on the result and therefore I don't think a "post if no, don't if yes" approach is appropriate. —WFC— 01:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question if Ireland doesn't ratify, is the treaty dead? Would the rest of the EU countries go forward? --IP98 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. All it needs is 12 out of 17 Euro states to ratify it. -- RA (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike Lisbon treaty, this does not require ratification by every country involved. So long as 12 countries ratify, it comes into effect, so what Ireland does is only one "vote" among 25 (and a "vote in which a 12-13 defeat of the motion makes it pass!).  Consequences of an Irish no vote might prove ITNworthy, but Ireland's vote of itself is not.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Each of the 25 or so countries will or will not ratify it in their own ways. Ireland had a referendum, but, sure, so what? That's just the way we do these things. When the whole thing comes into being that will be noteworthy. -- RA (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that in the other 24 countries, ratification is much more likely to go smoothly because it only needs the approval by the respective parliaments (which are likely dominated by the respective parties whose prime ministers/presidents agreed on the treaty in the first place). The Irish referendum is a much more uncertain affair, which is why it is dreaded by European politicians. Khuft (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. For example, in six states, a super majority is required for parliamentary approval. The German opposition is withholding support until a separate (currently non-existing) deal on growth measures is agreed at European level. And in Belgium, the treaty has to be ratified by a total of seven different federal, regional and communal parliaments! -- RA (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment- The referendum has passed.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Pietersen

 * Shock decision for sure, but I'm not sure how notable the retirement is outside of cricketing circles. Not to take away from his achievements, but his ODI record isnt what can qualify as an "all-time great" player: in terms of overall ODI batting average he's ranked 22 and he's not even in the list of highest run scorers. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of players "retire" from limited overs cricket during their active career. If he'd said he'd retired from Test Match cricket, then that would be a different story.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's not even retiring, just stopping a particular form of cricket.  For a retirement it would have to be a much more notable player putting the bat away for good, such as Tendulkar.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose irrelevant sports trivia. --IP98 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pietersen may not have 18k plus runs like Tendulkar, but if you look at the achievements made by him during his short career in limited-overs cricket (also T20I): He is the fastest player to reach 1000 and 2000 runs in ODIs and was named as "ICC ODI Player of the Year" and "Emerging Player of the Year" in 2005, just a year after his debut. Also he was one of the three English players to figure at the top of the ICC ODI player rankings (In 2007). He is the second leading run scorer and averages around 38 in T20Is, the highest for any player who has played a minimum of 25 innings. Amazing these many records within a short span of time in the limited-overs format is an extra-ordinary feat. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  14:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disputes his notablility but the retirement of an athlete is very rarely posted here at ITN. It would have to be a very notable athlete (as in one of the top two or three players in the game; while I'm not a cricket expert I don't think KP is that notable) or have some other extraordinary aspect.  We didn't post the retirement of Ronaldo earlier this year, who was a two time ballon d'or winner.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose He is a brilliant and notable cricketer, but the fact that he is retiring only from ODI and T20I, I have to oppose. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A silly suggestion, frankly. Leaky  Caldron  14:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Feel sorry for my silly suggestion as I'm new to ITN. A few questions before I leave. On what basis do you think his Test career to be more prospective than ODI career. If you consider the English players alone he is 12th in the list of leading run scorers. 20 tons in Test cricket is no big deal. He is ranked 46th on all-time Test- players with highest bat average. Batting average of 49 isn't really an impressive one in Tests, where as an average of over 40 in ODIs is a feat which only few batsmen have achieved. I don't think there is a need to explain his T20I statistics as I've already explained about it. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Test Cricket matches get remembered. Limited overs matches don't. HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Answers: International cricket, whether one likes it or not, is governed by the ICC. Test cricket is considered the highest form because only a "Full Member" of the ICC is allowed to play it. That is how its done, Ireland (currently an "Associate Member") has started playing more than decent ODI cricket so now they make an application to become a "Full Member" so that they can also play tests. And to your second point, even if we were to consider his ODI career that is ending, he has 4,184 runs @41.84 which pales before contemporary ODI records like Sachin (18,426 runs @44.83), Ponting (13,704 runs @42.03) or Kallis (11,498 runs @45.26). The only retirements from the recent past which I would have dared nominated would have been Dravid's (Test), Ponting's (ODI) or if we stretch back to 2011, Murali's (Test). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Take the cases of Michael Bevan who hasn't represented Aus much in Tests and Aakash Chopra on the other hand who never played an ODI. While the former is a legendary batsman how many are aware of the latter. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  15:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Orange Prize for Fiction

 * Comment I don't have any problems with this for notability--Orange Prize is a major award, and big news--but I think this shouldn't go on the front page without a real article for Madeline Miller and for Song of Achilles, one of which should be the bolded article; unless there's a major controversy this year I'm unaware of, the list won't get a sufficient update to meet ITN requirements. Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question While I'm not familiar enough with British literature prizes to judge on the noteworthiness of this award (thus Neutral with respect to this particular nomination), I'm wondering whether - in case this goes through - this may be a topic to add to ITN/R? Khuft (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think it's definitely ITN/R worthy. The prize is for any novel written in English that has been published in the UK, so it has a global reach. Khazar2 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If I recall correctly, this award was posted ITN last year (I recall it because I had never heard of it before that!) I don't think the article for the winning book/author are neccessary if the Award's page is updated sufficiently--it's the only link we would need to have. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'd support a yearly 5-10 sentence update to the main article page on each winner; given the award is already twenty years old, this could get unwieldly fast. Khazar2 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I support this and do not think that the author and book need articles- all that's important is that we have an emboldened, updated article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you tell me. ;) I don't know how important this is, but 2012 is the last year the prize will be sponsored by Orange. - JuneGloom  Talk  00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work!  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good on notability, and the update (a from-scratch article on Miller) is hefty and appears excellent. Thanks for the work on this, June! Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem and thank you. - JuneGloom    Talk  00:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Madeline Miller is an excellent article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 supports in 6 hours? Dosnt leave much for discussion?! That too with other articles waiting for days that have consensus and updated.Lihaas (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop hounding the timely posting of supported items as your comments are becoming disruptive. Stephen 06:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But the point is valid.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Need to set a guideline on how long a nom should wait before posting. --IP98 (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see where everybody's coming from, but I think I disagree. I feel like swift posting of consensus material helps keep us as ITN rather than ILWN (In Last Week's News). This one had one neutral comment and four supporting editors (counting the nominator); it could always be pulled in the unlikely event that a tremendous crowd of objectors showed up after that. Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not blame poor BorgQueen - she's doing a great job; presumably she has other stuff to do as well than scrutinise this page on an hourly basis. If we feel some slightly older news is ready and getting stale, we should take the initiative to highlight this to admins; my experience is that they are quite speedy in having a look at it and considering it. Khuft (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] World Chess Championship 2012

 * Support when updated as an ITNR event. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have also updated blurb as Anand has just won. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The second and third paragraphs in the lead section of the article need citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article needs more prose update about the final result. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a section with the match statistics as it was done with the other articles. The content appears to be changed into past tense and the paragraph about the outcome is inserted in the intro.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You added a table. I said prose. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think something else should be added, as the article complies in its content and is even larger with the timeline than the articles about the previous Championships. Important note is that the whole article intends for the blurb, but not only the section with the outcome or statistics for the match. However, I can insert some prose for the conclusion in a separate paragraph that will stay behind the match statistics, but it already exists in the intro.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there no analysis of the matches that could be included--a reason Anand came out on top, crucial blunders by Gelfand, etc.? I agree that I'm hesitant to vote support without a real prose update; the article's of little use to me as a non-expert who would like to quickly get an overview of the match. Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We usually include information about the blunders when it's decisive for the outcome of a game played in regular time. For the rapid games it's not of much use to analyze games that include more blunders and weak moves, thus producing larger prose than the more important twelve from the original schedule. Another important fact is that the match lacked of wins and blunders on both sides, and even ten games were set to be drawn with peaceful play after 20-30 moves.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please compare with the games played in the World Chess Championship 2010, when the average length of a game was much greater and acquired further analysis in the endgame.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does appear that this follows precedent, so I won't vote oppose, but I'd argue that it's an unfortunate precedent. Wikipedia articles, in my understanding, should be accessible to both specialists and nonspecialists. Even as someone who's played thousands of games of chess, it's difficult for me to look over the notation and see what happened in the tournament; surely some prose news story about this can be found that says something to the effect of "The games went into a tiebreaker, but despite the close games, Anand's masterful bishop/knight attack ultimately proved decisive in Game 2." (And if prose about the match can't be found in reliable sources, perhaps it doesn't really belong on ITN!) Khazar2 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Khazar2, I'm not sure I'd agree w/ your statement that our articles should be accessible to both specialists and nonspecialists....When I go to a Science or Maths article I get over-my-head VERY quickly!  ;) Rhodesisland (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For some very technical subjects, I agree--though even then it's good to give nonspecialists a quick dumb version if possible. But a series of chess games, at least, is something that can be broken down into a straightforward narrative as here: . The article could still use more text like this, to my mind, but what's there is a good start. Khazar2 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Naw, I mean for pretty much anything over 7th grade maths and science! Rhodesisland (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources with much prose are easy to find, as the match was followed and every game was commented by many strong chess players. But it still deals with a professional commentary and algebraic notation that is not entirely comprehensive for anybody who doesn't understand it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article with some prose for the most interesting games. It also contains information that the match was decided after the tie-breaker.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Update looks good, 17,000+ Google News results, ITN/R. And a big shout-out to Kiril for his work on this. Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Additionally, Vishwanathan Anand has a sufficient update. Perhaps he should be bold too?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I Agree. -Abhishikt (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and Question Do their home countries matter to the competition? Do they "represent" their countries? If so, we should include at least the winner's country in the blurb.Rhodesisland (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although many may argue it's only figurative. I would say like in tennis.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If tennis is the comparable, then I don't think we need to include them.


 * Support We can add "... retains the title for the third time". -Abhishikt (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted World Chess Championship 2012 as the article looks good enough now. Nice work. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Charles Taylor Sentenced to 50 years prison

 * Support. First head of state convicted by an international court since the Nuremberg trials. Maybe we should include this in the blurb to indicate the significance. --bender235 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No heads of state were convicted at the Nuremberg trials, so probably he is the first ever head of state convicted by an international tribunal, but I cannot verify this. Crnorizec (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm out of my depth here, but wasn't Hitler's successor Donitz convicted? He was head of state, albeit for a week or two. Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, certainly a historic event. Nsk92 (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bender. Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Former president sentenced to a 50 years in prison is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The verdict was posted several weeks ago and the current update is 1 line with hsiconviction. the rest was updated from weeks. ago.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Houla massacre reactions
An interesting nomination, but I am going to oppose it on the grounds that the massacre posting was too recent.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does people remember the blow-by-blow only when talking about something outside Europe and USA, while it is always allright to post like 4 blurbs about Greece in one week when something happens there?? --aad_Dira (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC).


 * My first thought was "burying the lead". Isn't the "new" news the expulsion of the ambassadors? Wouldn't a more apt blurb be something like, "Syrian authorities are expelled from several countries incl. USA, UK, FR, etc. as a direct reaction to the Houla Massacre."?? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Continues to be one of the world's top news stories four days after the event. As I write this, it's the 2nd highest item on BBC, 2nd and 3rd on the New York Times, 4th on Der Spiegel, top on Al Jazeera, and top on Le Monde. I wonder if the UN Security Council resolution might fit in the blurb, too (it's a milestone in the UN's role as the first resolution criticizing Assad; Russia and China are now on board). I also agree with Rhodesisland's point that it's worth mentioning that the US, UK and France are involved, or the number of countries. (I believe it's up to nine now). Perhaps, "The UN Security Council condemns the Syrian government's role in the Houla massacre, and nine countries expel Syrian diplomats." -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good blurb Khazar2.Rhodesisland (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The stark diplomatic reaction by so many countries is rather unprecedented, as far as I know. This should be considered independently notable of the massacre itself, at least so far as warranting a second ITN posting. __meco (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's been all over the news for several days already, even here in Mexico. The article is still growing, so I don't why we shouldn't include it in the news section. I'm not sure if a separate article is needed, though; I bet more info will be coming up in the next few days. ComputerJA (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support USA, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia, Italy and Japan along with other countries expells the Syria ambassadors in less than 24 hours. It is very notable, even if there was a blurb for the massacre recently --aad_Dira (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Support but change the language of the blurb Wikifan Be nice  08:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that a consensus has been reached, and the wording culd be changed but not so drastically. My alternative is something like: "In response to the Houla massacre high-ranked Syrian diplomats are expelled from many countries around the world." This is very similar to tat how the news was announced in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Around the world? Seems like most notable countries are US/Britain and mostly US allies. Have Arab nations expelled Syrian diplomats? Wikifan Be nice  09:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think mentioning "US allies" would be proper, and even if we should include any particular country, it makes the blurb less impartial (e.g. why to include US or UK and not Germany or France). For now there is no Arab country that reacted in the same way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No they didn't, excepting Libya and Tunisia like 10 months ago. By the way, they will be the last countries in the world to do so, don't tire yourself --aad_Dira (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
 * It seems the expulsions are being carried out in mostly Western nations, all mostly made up of US allies. So unless countries outside US's sphere of political alliance have participated in this expulsion, there is no evidence to support a blurb that contains the phrase "many countries around the world." Wikifan Be nice  09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, that is your point. Probably, it was lunched through the media to put additional weight on the importance of the reactions, though it doesn't reflect truly the proper dispersion of the countries in the world. I prefer to agree on not to include any country name, and will suggest a slight modification to something like "In response to the Houla massacre high-ranked Syrian diplomats are expelled from several countries."--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment the blurb is highly vageu though...need more specifics. Other than Japan it seems mostly NATO/western countries.Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So western countries doesn't fit in "several countries"? --aad_Dira (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
 * "8 Western countries and Japan" should be brief enough and supply the level of detail many seem to require. __meco (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still say we buried the lead. But glad it's posted. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wha does "several counteis" mean? We just mentioned above the possuble better alternative that meco suggested.
 * Quite a lot posted in 12 hours..Lihaas (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have an exact number for the blurb (13 per ) if anyone's motivated to update; I'm also ok with how it is now, though. Khazar2 (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Friedrich Hirzebruch



 * He was certainly of paramount importance in his field, but we need a larger update with proper reliable sources in order for this to be considered.--WaltCip (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * also the blurb needs more information; perhaps adding a qualifier as to his importance and his age?Rhodesisland (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree--it'd be good to see a short phrase on the most notable achievement ("discoverer of the Planet X Equation", etc.). Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted Renato Corona] Filipino impeachment

 * Corona wasn't impeached today; he was impeached last December. What happened today is his conviction. I've re-written the blurb. – H T  D  12:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: This is the first time an impeachable official of the Philippine Government has been convicted by the impeachment court. Such an event is noteworhy since it would present a noteworthy precedent for possible future impeachment trials. Technically, former President Joseph Estrada wasn't removed by an impeachment trial, and former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned before her impeachment trial took place. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Impeachment of Renato Corona is just halfway done (23rd day out 44) so it's quite hard for it to be updated quickly, unless someone else does the writing. The Renato Corona article, meanwhile, is as updated as Manchester United are English champions, so I'd guess the Corona article might be fine if a longer update is written for it, or I'd probably write up a summary of the decision on the main impeachment article, but that won't get off the orange tag. – H T  D  15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Theres a massive 5-line update of prose, more than many other posted articles.Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment was done when the article had 5 paragraphs of text. Anyway, if 5 lines is massive then the updates I'm adding on the impeachment article on the last 2 days should be indescribable. – H T  D  22:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not massiv per se, but compared to the ITN basis lately its certainly massive.
 * Thats why both articles are updated ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Please post it immediately. It is a remarkable first in Philippine history. --Exec8 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not 100% familiar with Philippine politics, but from a cursory reading of the article I do wonder whether there's a political motivation behind this. The whole thing sounds like the current president Noynoy Aquino dislikes Corona because he used to side with previous president Gloria Arroyo. If all this is just a political vendetta coated by a veneer of constitutional formality, I'm inclined to oppose... Khuft (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is; it like the vendetta of the Republicans vs. Bill Clinton in his own impeachment trial. Only the most hardcore/brainwashed Aquino supporter will tell you otherwise. Corona himself pointed it out prior to the first day. What matters is that it is the first completed impeachment trial in history. – H T  D  22:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm doubting the noteworthiness of a constitutional event that seems to have happened only for obviously political reasons and only involves the Chief of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. If Gloria Arroyo at some point in the future is convicted of sth, that may be noteworthy; the fact that a never-used-before constitutional gimmick was used to bring down Renato Corona is not im my opinion. Khuft (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HTD: Eh? you just said above it wasnt impeachment...first compleed mpeachment conviction yu mean?
 * Khuft: Famous firsts are noteworthy...his conviction was also for non-disclosure, not for siding with her. Are you to day Clinton would not have been posted when it happened. That would go on ASAPLihaas (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. First completed impeachment trial. 02:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning the noteworthiness on the basis of a) where it happened (the Philippines vs. the USA for instance), b) who was impeached (the Chief of the Supreme Court vs. a President), c) the reason why it is put up for nomination (being the first such constituion event vs. being in reality a blatant misuse of the constitution for purely political motives). Thus the impeachment of the US president is in my opinion much more noteworthy than the impeachment of a Philippine Supreme Court Judge; similarly the impeachment (or conviction by other means) of Gloria Arroyo would be eminently more noteworthy than the impeachment of her Supreme Court Chief of Justice. Finally, the current Philippine Constitution dates back to only 1987 - not really that old and thus not a real surprise that an instrument of that Constitution is only used now for the first time. As you know, we have hundreds of arguments about the noteworthiness of certain elections. I'm quite baffled that "the first time someone is impeached in the Philippines" is now considered of the utmost remarkability. Is the impeachment of the Head of the Senate of Antigua and Barbuda next? Khuft (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The impeachment of the highest judicial authority in the 12th largest country (by pop) is definitely notable. The political undertones and consequences (especially if there has been a "blatant misuse of the constitution" of one of the largest democracies) only adds further to the notability - we are not sitting in judgement of whether the impeachment is right or not. But yes, the orange tag in the article needs to be fixed before this can go up. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may add, the impeachment has also been in the previous constitutions, starting with the 1935 one. There has been no shortage of attempts; it's just that no one has succeeded at that time due to the high vote requirements (2/3 to impeach and 3/4 to convict in 1935 vs. 1/3 to impeach and 2/3 to convict in 1987; either way this impeachment would've passed even 1935's high standards.) I don't think we'd need to worry about Antiguan politics; what we should worry about is ITN's blow-by-blow coverage with what's happening in Greece, a country several times smaller than the Philippines' size. – H T  D  02:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments, and for the info on the previous treatment of impeachment in Philippine constitutions. While I personally am still not 100% convinced of this, I understand why people may find it noteworthy. I was just irritated by the argument that simply because sth happened for the first time ever, it's noteworthy... Khuft (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Being the first time" was noteworthy since all other impeachment attempts were either beaten in the lower house, the respondent resigned after being impeached, or the impeachment trial was aborted; hence it was the first completed impeachment trial in Philippine history was not only noteworthy, but historical. – H T  D  06:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- Despite the above concerns, I still believe that the event is notable enough, and the impeachment article is solid too.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No way Impeachment of Renato Corona has an orange template, and the update on the conclusion in that article is not only entirely unsourced, but also insufficient and unintelligible. ("Articles II, III and VII 20 senators voted for guilty and the other three senators voted for not guilty.") Update to the article Renato Corona on the conclusion of the trial is a single sentence based on a single source.  --hydrox (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Once orange tag is fixed; but we also need to include his former position as an identifier. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support when fixed : Highly notable and reported widely. But yes, tag should be fixed in the impeachment article or a bigger update should be included in the Renato Corona article and that can be posted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH I dunno what else is needed in the Renato Corona article. It was expanded "massively" since my 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) edit. – H T  D  02:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The update consists of one sentence in the lede and one farther down that is almost identical.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's that, but it has been expanded "massively" since I last saw it last night. I suppose updating that would be a lot easier than the impeachment article which has 21 more days to cover lol – H T  D  03:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The update looks ok now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Orange tag needs to be dealt with, and on a more minor note, the impeachment article could really use a better lead section; the article is so thoroughly detailed, and the lead so skimpy, that it's not much use to a reader not willing to commit 15 minutes to this topic to understand what happened. I don't have any concerns with notability though, so feel free to ping me to come back and revote when things are improved. Khazar2 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The impeachment article had a slightly longer lead earlier, but was cut into two short paragraphs by someone else. The earlier version had the basics (who is Corona, why he is impeached, when are the key dates). – H T  D  04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have sufficiently updated Renato Corona, so that is now ready, although if we want to bold the other article we still have the tag to deal with.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't mind if the impeachment article is not boldfaced as long as its linked, after all, that's still halfway done; anyway, even without the help of ITN it has been viewed at least almost thrice as much as the Giro article so it's getting views. 05:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the Renato Coroana article now looks ready to posted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted Renato Corona. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Emilia earthquake(s) again
A strong aftershock of the 20 May earthquake kills at least 8 people. So we have 15 deaths now and severe damage. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Total of 22 deaths. At least 200 injured, 14,000 homeless. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support it's getting enough attention to be posted.  Hot Stop  21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a current DYK nomination for this article. It's reasonable to assume that the article will get Main Page coverage, it's just a question of how and when. Either way, despite the relatively low death toll (compared to most previous ITN disaster postings), in my opinion the scale of coverage of these quakes quite clearly meets ITN thresholds. Given the level of coverage, I wouldn't consider "Oppose. Only 15 deaths" to be a valid argument in and of itself. —WFC— 00:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I noted at DYK that this was under consideration here as well. Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I was an oppose on the first round, but this is getting continued international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support over DYK. Why should DYK get the rights to a news article over us?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * or, Here! Here! (is where we want this posted!) :^)  Rhodesisland (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest "A series of earthquakes hit Northern Italy, leaving 24 dead and 14,000 homeless." Khazar2 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or if space is at a premium (I know I've been proposing long blurbs lately), we could always just cut that sentence off at "Northern Italy". Khazar2 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Flame malware

 * Support: Major event in its field, and we haven't had such a story on ITN for ages if I am not mistaken. --OfTheGreen (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If this fails, it would be a great DYK article but must be nom'd within 5 days of creationLihaas (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: The consequences are highly notable and this has received sufficient media attention. The article is also in decent shape. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support An interesting and important story. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but is there any information in the media about how it is effecting the regions targeted? Impact of the virus would be a more encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the article, the malware appears to be used solely for espionage; no effect on infected machines besides stealing intelligence info. Khazar2 (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Has this received any international press? Suggesting cutting blurb to targeting facilities in iran - flame is infiltrating national networks and systems. "flame" malware has been around for more than two years and discovered several weeks ago. Wikifan Be nice  10:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why the blurb says that the discovery "is announced". --BorgQueen (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and interestinlgy enough, the fact that is is being reported in the US, for once, actually means it has received international press coverage since the infection is occuring in the Middle East!Rhodesisland (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment though late, this should never have gone up. This 20 meg payload is neither sophisticated or unique. So some script kiddies targeted the middle east, totally irrelevant garbage. Now that worm that targeted Siemens PLCs in Iran, that was a special piece of work. This is not. --IP98 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to update the article with reliable sources supporting your assertions, of course; it's a bad break, though, that both computer security experts and world media disagree with you. Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The media is idiotic. I read the article, this is BackOrifice, which some joker bolted into the DDK to make it harder to extract. Compared to struxnet which targeted specialized industrial automation, this is just a generic stupid worm. I'll be sure to nominate the next stupid assed worm that gets 15 seconds of fame. --IP98 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Awaara

 * Support as nominator &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even as a film fanatic, Time adding twenty new movies to their all-time movies list is a total non-event to me; new "top movie lists" come out every year, and often from organizations with more critical heft than Time (Sight and Sound, Cahiers du Cinema, AFI or BFI, etc.). I'm also not clear why only one movie of the twenty is being named in the blurb--is this a milestone in some way that I'm missing? Khazar2 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the one of the four Indian movies to be featured in the list and only Indian movie among the 20 new entries. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  06:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With apologies, I just can't see the addition of a fourth Indian movie to a critic's top 100 list as a landmark day. Khazar2 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Alright! I'm new to ITN. Hope I'll pick the right candidate before nominating one in the future. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lesotho election

 * update 75/80 single-member seat results in. Election commission says voting will be done todayLihaas (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but article has an orange tag and will need an update after final results.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * >im in the midst of adding the other MPs but its tedious. Someone could help. 31/80 MPs added so far. ✅
 * Also just tried something new with the blurb...mentioning the incumbent winning?Lihaas (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support; And the red link could do with a "Fix" too --OfTheGreen (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'll admit the small size of Lesotho gave me pause, but a quick Google search shows sources discussing this election as an unusually tense and important one for the country. Plus, 10,000 Google News results. Good enough for me. Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * update 2 1 more seats to go, which should be announced in hours. Proportional seats will come a little later i guess but theres no way DC will not be the biggest party based on the votes it got...heck they may even have an absolute majority. Its updated with the single member seatsLihaas (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted Indianapolis 500] Motorsport

 * Question were these bundled in the past? --IP98 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, see 2011 example. In 2010 the Monaco GP and Indy 500 were two weeks apart. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * F1is not ITNR till the end of the season, so barring somethign unusually notable theres nothign to post it. (and nothign happened...though Bahrain was unusually headlined)Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong there; the Monaco GP, as part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport, is on ITNR. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was looking at F1. Though its a bit dodgy to have one F1 and not the othersLihaas (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it that winning all these three is the achievement that's ITNR, not winning any one component thereof. --hydrox (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You read that incorrectly. Monaco and Indy are generally on the same day on different hemispheres. Sort of impossible to win both. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Both races are now over. Truthsort (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Posting both, once the results of the Indianapolis 500 are available, and once both are updated. However, I think the articles should each have their own blurbs, so each event can get full recognition, rather than lumping them together, which will result in a lot of wikilinks in the blurb to different articles, and overall doesn't look too good. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending a prose update on Monaco and wikification on Indy. Prefer combined blurb to avoid having two similar blurbs adjacent to each other and because there's not much to say about each one other than " wins the ", so combining them avoids two short blurbs right next to each other. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when fixed per ITN/R. Indy has an orange template, and the Qualifying section for the monaco race has zero inline references. Agree with Anc514 that separate blurbs are better. --IP98 (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but only if the Monaco article is actually completed (it currently lacks any prose about the race. Coverage ends to the second qualification run) and above referencing concern is resolved. These events are not ITNR in my understanding, which I think was why they were combined last year to one blurb (as in not to give impression that we post every F1/Indy GP) --hydrox (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These specific races are ITNR as part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport; see ITN/R. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I thought only winning the whole lot was the ITNR event. I've edited INTR to make it clear that winning any of those is sufficient. --hydrox (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Side comment. I think this is a good demonstration of the ITN system doing what it should. Neither article is close to being ready to go on the main page, (in one case due to absolutely no sourcing of the relevant sections, in the other due to the update not having been written yet). As a result, neither article gets a "free pass" to the main page despite being on ITNR. —WFC— 13:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And hopefully by posting these here in ITN review, editors will see some items that need specific help and will jump to those pages and get them into better shape! GO ITN review! Rhodesisland (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I've taken care of the orange tags at 2012 Indianapolis 500 and it should be ready for posting. 2012 Monaco Grand Prix is still incomplete and needs several updates. I suggest that we should post a blurb about the Indianapolis 500, and then post a second blurb (or edit the blurb to combine the two) once the Grand Prix article is ready. Otherwise, we risk one or both articles reaching old news status. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 04:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted 2012 Indianapolis 500. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Giro d'Italia
In cycling, Ryder Hesjedal from Canada, wins the 95th edition of Giro d'Italia. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not convinced. Not ITNR, and barring a really unexpected result or incident, I'm leaning against posting this year's Giro. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unexpected result I can promise you: probably no Italian on podium for 1st time in many years, winner will be a Spaniard whose highest grand tour finish is 4th, a Canadian with only one grand tour top ten to his name, or a Belgian who has only competed in one GT previous, coming 62nd in last years TdF, and was offered by bookies at 300-1 shortly before the race started. Kevin McE (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral, I lean support, but mainly since I am a Canadian sports fanatic. Hesjedal is the first Canadian to ever win any Grand Tour race, but other than that, if it isn't an ITN/R event, I'm not sure there is nothing that screams "must post this". Resolute 00:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards support because while it is not ITNR, the result was unexpected and Hesjedal is the first Canadian to ever win a major cycling race. -- Plasma Twa  2  03:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blurb: In cycling, Ryder Hesjedal wins the 2012 Giro d'Italia, becoming the first Canadian to win a Grand Tour. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  06:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Kevin, Resolute and Plasma. An unexpected result and I assume a huge result for Canadian cycling. Eugen's proposed blurb that mentions it's Canada's first Grand Tour win looks good to me, as well. Jenks24 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, huge result for Canadian cycling. 208.38.59.162 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now though I'd be willing be persuaded. The fact is the Giro is normally very much below the TDF, and the Vuelta, in terms of global significance or simply cycling significance.  The top riders often don't take part.  The fact that this is the first Giro without an Italian on the podium speaks to how insular it has been to me.  This strikes me as the equivalent of tennis player ranked below 20 or so winning a ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournament.  Plus there's a lot of sports clutter on ITN at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cannot accept that those comments were made out of any knowledge of cycling. Only the most diehard Spanish fan of cycling would place the Vuelta above the Giro, and although the Tour has greater prestige among the casual follower, many cycling fans consider the Giro to be a greater test of cyclists; the rider who came 2nd overall is top of both the UCI and CQ rankings.  Support  Kevin McE (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted with Ryder Hesjedal in bold instead. The 2012 Giro d'Italia article needs more prose update about the result. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where the heck is the consensus herE? its marginal with 3.5 against 2 (and there are reasons so is not mere vote counting), which is marginal at best.Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read again. 4 clear supports (Eugen as proposer, Jenks, IP 208.38 and me), 2 leaning to support (Resolute and Plasma), 1 leaning against (Passerby) and one wavering oppose based on poor evidence (Johnsemlak).  Not on ITN/R is not a reason to oppose, and only other reason against has been countered.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interpreting my oppose as 'based on poor evidence' is pretty biased; I'll concede I made one wrong claim but nobody's countered the fact that the Giro is far behind the TDF in terms of significance, or that the top riders don't ride it or don't train to win it--the top riders base their preparations around the Tour. Lance Armstrong only competed in Giro once.  While I would agree the !vote count shows a rough consensus here I wonder what argument has been made in support besides 'historic result for Canadian cycling' which doesn't seem to be enough for ITN to me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Christ, are we really at the point where someone is going to chastise an admin for making close calls? It's in no way helpful.   Hot Stop   21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Cannes Film Festival
Apologies if the nomination is a little early, I couldn't quite remember if the winner was announced in the late afternoon or late evening. If it's the latter, the extra time will allow for the article to be improved and updated. - JuneGloom    Talk  12:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's announced in the evening. This is a regular ITN feature (along with Berlin in Feb and Venice in Sept) and is the number one film festival of the year.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated with the film and director. Haneke FTW! This guy can do no wrong.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support One of the biggest film events of the year. Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the Cannes article with some prose, since it does contain quite a few tables. - JuneGloom    Talk  20:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maths problem solved
Not sure there is an article but this story seems to have been picked up by more mainstream media. A school boy has solved 2 problems that previously had only been modeled. Isaac Newton apparently set the problems 350 years ago - path of the flight of a ball, and bouncing it off a wall (I gather). It seems quite encyclopedic, and significant for particle dynamics and ballistics. EdwardLane (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a great story, but I'm provisionally skeptical that this is going to fit well enough into an existing article to hit the main page. It depends on the significance of the problem, I suppose. Do any of these articles have quotes from mathematicians on the signif. of this finding? Where do you see this one as going into the wiki? A more complete nomination form would be appreciated. Khazar2 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether this belongs to ITN, but one aspect to consider is whether or not this solution has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Previously, people have opposed science discovery items on the grounds that they have not been peer-reviewed yet. Nanobear (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We do actually have an article on the person (Shouryya Ray) but this does sound distinctly dodgy. This "discovery" doesn't seem to have been reported outside the popular press and I can't find any mathematicians or physicists commenting on its significance. Oppose unless/until more coverage is provided. Hut 8.5 14:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hut 8.5, and a reminder to future nominators to make more complete nominations. (Minimally, a blurb and a linked article.) Khazar2 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hut 8.5, although I'd like to make clear that the lack of an article is the only reason I'm opposing. If this meets our notability guidelines, any future article could make an excellent Did You Know? subject at some point in future. —WFC— 13:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw fair enough, looks like this is a future DYK if anything. Or an eventual ITN if reviews ever show up in the scientific press EdwardLane (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DYK seems like a great way to go here. Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] IPL 2012

 * Comment: Second highest paid league? Higher paid than National Football League or Champions League? Thue | talk 16:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Atleast per this. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when updated: Notability taken care of as its ITNR. As regards the update, like we did for 2011, we'll need some text for the final once it happens and then it can be posted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as disruptive:
 * Event has not happened yet
 * Article is not updated: if you assert ITNR you are implicitly asserting it is already updated.
 * Creating an entry for a non-existent date risks confusing the bot.
 * Crispmuncher (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
 * It has become routine to flag up ITN/R events here shortly prior to it being appropriate to post, so that there are maximum eyes on the article to ensure a timely update and problem free posting.  While I am not personally convinced that this is the most appropriate use of ITN/C, it has become commonplace.  You made no such objection on other recent occurrences, not even on the Eurovision Song Contest which is in that state at this very moment, so it is hard not consider this oppose as disruptive.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, quite a surprising oppose. Nominations on the day before have become so commonplace that "X" has sort of become a meme here. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing disruptive about this nom at all. In fact, the 2012 world ice hockey championship was nominated in exactly the same fashion a couple weeks ago, as were others.  Support as this is pretty much the biggest domestic cricket competition in the world, once the article is updated, of course. Resolute 03:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Post when results are out and league is notable. Dr meetsingh  Talk  17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, though why it was nominated so early is beyond me; really, we shouldn't be posting nominations so early; better nip this habit in the bud before it creates an irritating precedent.  Lynch 7  18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But could we mention that it's cricket? For the EPL we did "In association football,..." couldn't we add the same sort of thing here? I know it says "wicket" at the end, but I think we could use a bit more detail telling what sport. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - A notable sporting event final, which has been updated. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready?: I've added a reasonably bulky text update in addition to the exiting update in the table. Would request some editor to verify and confirm adequacy. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can the following be added for clarity to the existing blurb: "In cricket, the 2012 Indian Premier League concludes with Kolkata Knight Riders defeating Chennai Super Kings in the final ." Otherwise it may appear that we are talking about a one-time bilateral tournament. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Chennai Super Kings eye on a hat trick win

 * 1) Oppose Sorry but that looks like a DYK hook. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose "eye on a hat trick win" isn't a newsworthy headline. Leaky  Caldron  15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close - not going to happen.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment: I imagine the final could be proposed as a candidate regardless of the winner, with a note about it being Chennai Super Kings' third in a row if they do win; but I wouldn't stick anything up about the final before it's actually over. GRAPPLE   X  15:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of minor and limited interest which will not fit within ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 17:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Snowball oppose I'm fine with the final results being posted, but not an anticipation story. Khazar2 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Close? Agree with statements above, can this be closed? especially in light of the nomination for the IPL final above ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2012 winner

 * (xx) representing (xx) winswith the entry (xx).--BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Major television show in Europe that every year interests millions of spectators. It is also listed as ITNR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. The article is pretty good too, plenty of prose. Would like a few words about the winner, not just bold text in a wiki table. As a matter of preference, I prefer wikitables to the bullet list "country, details" used for the spokespersons and commentators list, but I can't be bothered to change it. --IP98 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is really ITN/R? It's a viewers choice content for Christ sakes. "Most watched" LOL, figures quoted between 100 million and 600 million, that's a hell of a spread. --IP98 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - just for the record. The biggest music event on television in the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This year's finals have been shadowed by human rights controversies and even diplomatic incidents of which the article's editors have decided to include only disjointed snippets. I would like ITN watchers to punish an article which so prioritizes glitz and trivial entertainment when there exist real-life political and human rights angles to the event, that its starstruck editors have basically decided to sweep under the rug. __meco (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be the responsibility of ITN to "punish" an article. If you think something is missing from the article, improve it yourself.  I ♦  A  12:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and accusing the contributors of that page as "Star-Struck and sweeping controversy under the rug" isn't helpful and pretty much constitutes as a personal attack. --OfTheGreen (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support ITN/R, worldwide coverage, nothing wrong with an early nom.  I ♦  A  12:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Large scale musical event watched by many. --OfTheGreen (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose if Sweden will win. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  13:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to start clamping down on disruptive nonsensical comments like these. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion is just wrong to promote a contest, whose winner almost always known in advance. I hope this year will be different. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril. And to answer Meco's concern, I started writing up some articles on Azerbaijani prisoners yesterday; I'm hoping to add a section about the human rights angle today. But FWIW, the coverage generally emphasizes that Eurovision has been much less help on the human rights situation than expected. Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to add some human rights content to the article, but was reverted; discussion is ongoing, but it appears that editors of the page feel that Eurovision articles have a set policy against including human rights protests, etc. (Why they can't fit that, but can have four paragraphs on how the logo was designed, is beyond me.)Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support As has been expressed above. Ticks all the right boxes for front page inclusion, and the article is immense. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The Eurovision final is one of the longest-running television programmes in the world and it is also one of the most watched events. I do think the blurb should include where the contest is being held this year though. Something like "X" performed by Y from Z wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan. - JuneGloom    Talk  21:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like "Euphoria" by Loreen from Sweden has won. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Before this goes to the main page, additional comment would be appreciated at the article's talk page on the issue of whether the news media's discussion of the human rights angle would be appropriate to include. Per meco above, I'm giving serious thought to flagging this article as POV for its deliberate omission of this topic. Every article I've looked at about Eurovision today has mentioned this topic, but editors continue to argue on the talk page that only positive news should be included, regardless of demonstrated news coverage. Other opinions would be appreciated; my own take could well be in the wrong, too. However, I'd argue that this is not ready for the main page as long as it deliberately omits a major, negative part of the story. Khazar2 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think mixing politics with a win in a song contest is wrong. Okay eurovision was held in a dictatorship, but so was the 2008 Olympics and Wikipedia reported on that on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also if anything the politics are mentioned in the Loreen article as she was the only singer in the competition to critizes the Azeri regime.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect what you're saying, BabbaQ, but it sounds like your beef is with world media, not with me. As long as the human rights angle continues to be a major part of Eurovision coverage (and no one seems to dispute that it does), I think we have to put it in. It seems very un-Wikipedia-like to deliberately censor part of the story. Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does need the information; the hook doesn't as that's not the "news" part of it. GRAPPLE   X  23:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed--sorry, I didn't realize BabbaQ was talking solely about the blurb. Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support irrespectively of whether the human rights bits are in the article or not. That's something that should be discussed on the Talk page of the article, not here. The news itself is that Sweden won the contest. Khuft (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Houla massacre

 * Oppose Key term here is "according to the opposition", the Syrian rebels have a reputation for somewhat massively exaggerating causalities/fatalities caused by the Syrian army and government. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Support posting but not comfortable with the blurb. Did the Syrian army go around killing people? According to the sources it appears the casualty data is taken from the opposition movement. Are they reliable source? I see no reason to place emphasis on children without concrete prove that children were indeed killed. 16/17 year combat-age males are different than 9 and 10 old year olds. Wikifan Be nice  09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it started. If you don't consider the opposition as a reliable source, what is the source? There is no media at all in Syria now, so don't expect other kind of source. As you see above, I have asked you to improve the blurb, so do in the way you like because I don't have an idea for a better blurb -aad_Dira (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC).


 * According to the BBC, there is footage of dead children, though no exact count is possible due to the Syrian govt's apparent deliberate targeting of journalists. Khazar2 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - definitly for ITN if the estimates of deaths are correct.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasons why you support the nomination would be helpful.  I ♦  A  12:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if blurb is rewritten - I'm torn on this one. I hate to not report a civilian massacre of this magnitude; I hate to report it when the only source is opposition activists. On the other hand, Al Jazeera and BBC have this as their top story, and NYT has it in their top 4. Good enough for me. Khazar2 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the coverage, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence--video, bodies, etc.--confirming the opposition's claims. (E.g., ) Al Jazeera certainly seems to believe this happened. Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article is improving rapidly. There appears to be no dispute that some sort of massacre did take place; the only question now is the perpetrator (govt. blames Al Qaeda, everyone else blames the govt or govt loyalists). Perhaps a more neutral blurb would be simply "90 civilians are killed in a massacre in Houla, Syria"? Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - it's being reported on major news sites. Agree with Khazar2 re blurb. Khuft (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment With the disparate accounts from the two sides being taken into account, we need to have this reflected in the casualty figures as well. If we only present the higher figures, that is one-sidedly conveying the opposition's version of the events. The report by the Syrian state-owned news agency SANA lists 17 victims and gives no indications that there were more deaths. __meco (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * *I half-agree. From what I've looked at, world media doesn't seem to be taking SANA's account very seriously, so I feel like it would be a little wrong to give it equal weight with opposition claims. Perhaps, "According to opposition groups, 90 civilians are killed in a massacre in Houla, Syria"? Other alternatives might be "A disputed number of civilians are killed in a massacre in Houla, Syria" or "An unknown number...". Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take that back. BBC is reporting that the UN has confirmed the opposition group figure of at least 90 dead, including many children. Updating the article now. Given the prevalence of the child murders in the coverage, I suggest "At least 90 civilians, including 32 children, are killed in a massacre in Houla, Syria". Khazar2 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That blurb is at least more appropriate than the one currently in the ITN candidate box. __meco (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Killings confirmed by United Nations. Support a blurb to something like, A shelling attack by the Syrian Army kills 90 people, including 32 children, in Houla. Houla is not just one city but a group of villages. We could just go with Homs because that is the city Houla is located in. The shelling attack on Houla, a group of villages northwest of the central city of Homs, killed more than 90 people, including at least 32 children under the age of 10, the head of the U.N. observer team in Syria said. I would avoid using the word massacre. Wikifan Be nice  20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the head of the UN observers team speaks to the casualties and weapons that have been employed, but specifically not to the issue of who's responsible. __meco (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, although the blurb needs to be modified, now that there is a confirmation by the UN observers. Nsk92 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Significant enough death toll. Down with Assad!  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support though the blurb will need to be rewritten. The fact that this has been confirmed by the UN indicates it's not exaggeration from opposition groups. Hut 8.5</b> 23:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the blurb "90 civilians are killed in a massacre in Houla, Syria". Especially with the UN observers (a neutral source) confirming the death toll --aad_Dira (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Support: Major news right now, when read post ASAP. --OfTheGreen (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not comfortable with the massacre link. The article is a work in-progress, one of the sources in the article claim the "massacre" was committed by Al-Qaeda or something, not the Syrian government. Blurb just sounds forced. Wikifan Be nice  00:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure what the usual policies are on when it's worth updating these, but the UN has now revised its figure to "at least 116 killed and 300 wounded". The article has been updated accordingly. Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Square Kilometer Array

 * Oppose Any number of things could happen to this project between their plan to build it and reaching the world record and until they make the record there's no importance to the story; and even once the building is complete they might not set the record. It's not news until apparently well after 2019. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The world record is not really the point. This will provide unprecedented information on the Milky Way; according to Spiegel it will be 50 times more precise and 10000 times faster than currently existing radio telescopes. Khuft (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * but again it may never actually happen; their funding could dry up, they could have a major natural disaster, anything could happen before the thing is built, so posting it now, IMHO, is premature.Rhodesisland (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, in my opinion, this should be posted when the project is actually completed ... in a decade's time - it's significant but not significant enough to be posted twice even if the time of posting is far apart. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...but again it may never actually happen; Wikipedia's funding could dry up, they could have a major natural disaster, anything could happen before the thing is built posted, so posting it now, IMHO, is premature the correct thing to do.  I ♦  A  12:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support - A major scientific undertaking, making it news even if it not complete (also in the sense that that it's being widely reported by the news). Not much US coverage so far, but prominent on the BBC and a/the lead story in Australia and South Africa . Khazar2 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Come on you lot. Give science and the southern hemisphere a plug. This is the kind of long term project, well removed from politics and business, that the world needs somebody with vision to do. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now once construction begins it'll be an easy support, but plans like these tend to get delayed, under funded, and eventually canned. --IP98 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Opposes based on WP:CRYSTAL are easy to dismiss as are those based on the opinion that this may not get off the ground. The announcement of the programme is more than sufficient. Leaky  Caldron  10:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. WP:CRYSTAL says "almost certain to take place" and site selection is a long ways off from that. I'm not trying to wikilawyer here, but we can't post every hare brained scheme that gets announced. --IP98 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any WP:RS describing it as a "hare brained scheme". That would be WP:NPOV would it? Leaky  Caldron  12:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say this is right up there with the Olympics in terms of events that will definitely happen. Countries have spent hundreds of millions of dollars just to bid for this thing, with planning for it starting in the 1990s. (edit conflict – seriously guys, can you just stop editing while I'm trying to edit :P)  I ♦  A  12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. World's largest radio telescope, basically a double-minority topic (southern hemisphere + technology). I was going to say hold until it opens, but if it's only going to open in 2019, it won't do any harm to post it now.  I ♦  A 
 * I agree, but for the record, space technology is specifically not a minority topic. (I learned this yesterday when I mislabeled this one!) Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a telescope, which means it's a topic in astronomy, not space technology. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, don't we usually report constructions after they have been completed? <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Interesting as this is, and of major importance, nothing much has happened yet. With massive projects like this it's hard to draw a line and say where the event happens, but 'deciding where to build something' probably isn't it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Iran uranium

 * Oppose unless/until significant political ramifications or sanctions are involved.--WaltCip (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose let's wait and see how the world reacts, more of story if the world gets worked up about it.Rhodesisland (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Rhodes. The NYT piece appears to be hedging its bets: "the finding could be an innocuous aberration", "potentially significant", etc. But if this draws a lot of political comment in the next 24 hours, I'm game to revisit. Khazar2 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn I thought we gave up looking for mythical WMDs long ago. No news here. Even politicians trying to score from it won't be news. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's "we"? And what do WMDs have to do with this nomination?--WaltCip (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oh that's a coincidence...I don't think this is worth putting on the front page, for now, as there's only a diplomatic version of a press release doktorb wordsdeeds 06:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Token support update is sourced and meets the minimum length. Since this is currently dominating world news (#2 in google top world, front page of guardian, NYT, others), it should probably be immediately posted regardless of the relatively small amount, or it's status as a small piece of a long running and drawn out crisis. It is, after all, the most enriched uranium found in Iran, and is therefore a milestone when a sufficiently narrow set of criteria is applied. --IP98 (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not disturb other nominations to demonstrate a point (cf. below comments on Bankia nomination.) --hydrox (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support is sincere, even if justifications feel a little WP:POINTY. This item clearly passes ITN/P(urpose) #1, and the update is sound. --IP98 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bankia bailout

 * Support, but other alternatives to this story could be "S&P lowers ratings on five Spanish banks", or perhaps adding "and suspends trading of its shares" to the original blurb. After all, this is only a request for a bailout. with Catalonia story and 2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis as second emboldened article.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% on this, but my understanding so far is that the Spanish govt was already committed to covering whatever number the bank came back with. Wall Street Journal talks as if it's a done deal, for example. I'm fine with adding the suspension of trading, but I think the bailout needs to stay in the blurb. Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll wait a bit for this to clear up.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much a done deal. Spain has no option but to support this big bank or face massive financial meltdown. --hydrox (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; see changes to my !vote above.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Was just about to come here to nominate this. This is the the biggest event so far in the 2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis ( which has not yet been updated, and should probably be linked), and a bad sign the euro-crisis might be spreading to Spain, of which analysts have been constantly warning at least since last autumn. --hydrox (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, though I wonder whether the second big financial news from Spain today - Catalonia asking the central government for help to pay its own debt - may be of similar significance? Any way to combine both events in the blurb (once the article is updated accordingly)? Khuft (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm game for that if we have an appropriate article update to link to. Maybe just join the two events with "and"? It'd be a longer blurb than usual, but I wouldn't have any problem with that, as this is a huge news story. (And to allay possible concerns in advance, this wouldn't be WP:SYNTH--almost every news story is mentioning both together.) Khazar2 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be good practice to fill in those relevant articles to the <tt>| sources =</tt> parameter of the nomination. --hydrox (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Khazar2 (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis now has a very short update on this. --hydrox (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both! Suggested new blurb along the following lines: "In the ongoing Spanish financial crisis, Bankia requests €19 billion in funds from the Spanish government, the largest bank bailout in the nation's history, while Catalonia announces facing trouble with its finances." Khuft (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis article shouldn't be in bold because its update is too short yet. Bankia looks okay. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ready to be posted with Bankia as the only emboldened article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose another European debt article? 25 countries, countless bad banks, I'm surprised there isn't one of these weekly. Trying to see the notability in Bankia. 3rd largest bank, 20bn bailout (20bn seems like a paltry sum these days doesn't it). Frankly I'm wondering where Spain got the money in the first place. Anyway, this will probably go up, but I don't think it should. --IP98 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the first bank is Spain to be contaminated. --hydrox (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: We haven't posted yet any news about contamination to Spain, as there has been no suitable events with articles so far. In larger scale, this of course relates to the crisis of the eurozone, 5 or 4 members of which are in an ongoing economic crisis. By GDP, the eurozone measures world's second-largest single currency area or one-seventh of world GDP. Major news both locally and globally and still the leading story on BBC News, NYT, LA Times and Google News, and front-page news on al-Jazeera, CNN and Russia Today, and probably at least major news in business section of most other sources. --hydrox (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 19 mn EUR is more than what Facebook gathered in its recent IPO... Khuft (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and it's demonstrably the top story worldwide in terms of coverage. Not really sure what your grounds for calling this non-notable are. Khazar2 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was half way between London and Kuala Lumpur when Facebook got posted, came back here and derided it as an irrelevant fluff piece. Lets never ever speak of it again. Ever. Now the "Top news story" argument is really worthless these days. The google world news top 2 are Irans uranium and egypts run-off, both of which are getting serious sour faces on ITN right now. So we're left with 20bn for a failed bank in a nearly failed state. When you add enough criteria, anything can be the first or the largest. So what it's a fairly large bailout, but a small piece of the broader European debt debacle which has seen Greece pass some bill then eject their PM, Italys PM go away (since somehow dinking little girls couldn't do it), Angela Merkel cry "waaaa Germany had no bailout, we just collected everyone elses, so sucks to your elections the austerity pact stands", the English adopt a stiff upper lip to their own austerity pack, some Irish bank get bailed out, and on and on and on and on and on. So yeah, some dumb assed Spanish bank gets a government grant and the financial wieners all have a frenzy reposting the same three wire stories, to me isn't a big deal. --IP98 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have to agree with IP98. These bail outs are becoming run-of-the-mill.  Asserting that it is the first Spanish bank to need a bail out is stretching things a little - first via this mechanism, sure, but the ECB has been throwing money at pretty much any bank that wants it of late. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
 * The point is not that this is the first Spanish bank that has to be saved (quite a few savings banks have been already, I believe - Bankia being the result of one of these actions); it's the sheer size of the Bankia deal that's relevant, coupled with the trouble in the regional governments such as Catalonia (which is supposedly the wealthiest of the autonomous regions!). Should Spain need help from the EFSF, no-one what would happen then. Khuft (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's not stretching anything. There's conceptually a great difference between a bank falling to the lap of the government and the central bank giving out loans on lower interest than usual. --hydrox (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Highly significant in the context of what has happened in the past and is currently happening in the Eurozone. It is of course not the job of ITN to make this connection, but when judging the significance of a story, the background situation and recent history are relevant factors. —WFC— 02:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The claim that it is "the largest bank bailout in the nation's history" needs a citation in the Bankia article. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Khazar2 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be getting out of hand more than usual this week, and as a result, we haven't posted a new item for two days. I don't mean to dispute any one item, but would those opposing the current items dominating world headlines (Egyptian elections, Bankia bailout, etc.) consider posting items from today's news that they feel are more demonstrably notable? As much as you may not like this week's top stories, something ought to go on the front page; otherwise we're not doing our job of continuing to develop Wikipedia content. Khazar2 (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottish independence

 * Oppose. If a binding referendum is held, we surely will mention its result in ITN.  But that's more than two years away, assuming that it occurs at all.  So far, we have nothing but preliminary discussions and a brand new political campaign attracting some well known supporters.  (We also have an article that's been orange-tagged since February.)  —David Levy 18:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Orange-tag fixed.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As Khazar2 said, thanks for doing that. —David Levy 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per David. Though kudos to your fixing up the article! Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same basic reasons this subject was rejected in January 2012. This is political posturing attempting to drum up support for holding a referendum that has been postponed several times and, if not postponed yet again, will not occur for at least two more years.  If the referendum ever occurs then it will be appropriate to report the results but until then this is just an attempt to present political advocatecy as a news event. -- Jester  18:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jester . Nomination is also POV flawed.  It is not the "biggest push that Scotland has made", it is the biggest push that the SNP has made. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just a campaign launch, which does not fit within the ITN criteria. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Skydive without a parachute

 * Support - as nominator --109.150.43.232 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No article update. --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' Has this even taken place as asserted in the nomination? __meco (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes  Leaky  Caldron  18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support then. Breaking human limits outside of organized sports is always notable. When article is updated. __meco (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment have we any more defintive sources for the precise claim made here? The BBC source states "it is thought" and restricts the statemetn to a helicopter jump.  Those are both significant restrictions not reflected in the proposed blurb and the need to restrict the claims made would adversely impact its notability. Withou substantial backing I would oppose on OR grounds. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose is this really that noteworthy? We should avoid ITN becoming an online version of the Guiness Book of Records... Khuft (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is a wingsuit not essentially the same principle as a parachute, but differently configured? The jumper uses fabric to increase his surface area, and therefore drag, except this time the excess fabric is stitched into his clothing rather than attached by a harness and strings. Kevin McE (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anyone can fall into a pile of cardboard boxes. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This milestone has been greatly anticipated for quite a while now in the wingsuit world and beyond, as well as being a major extension of what is possible for humans.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But it has "no political implications of any sort".  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that matters in this case. This is a technology story, and technology stories do not generally need to have political implications. If you are referring to my earlier comment regarding the bus crash, I felt that it was not notable enough by itself, so in order for it to pass the threshold to be posted it would have to have some sort of political implications- or other form of notability- beyond the crash. Because it was not a major crash and there was nothing significant beyond the tragedy of it- hence my "political implications" comment- I felt that it did not deserve to be posted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. To be sure this is an achievement, but it has more than feel of a gimmick than something that is going to usher in a new era of anything. It basically makes it possible to jump from a plane without a parachute provided you land in a backstreet on the set of Starksy and Hutch. Which is a shame, because I live on a hill and it would be quite a cool way of popping down to the shops. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose To me it feels like a stunt, rather than an encyclopedic quality feat. Considering how much opposition was made against posting the first solo dive to the deepest point on the Earth, with backing of one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world, to explore and collect samples from a place on Earth that only 3 people have ever been, this just doesn't seem to me to have the importance needed to make the listing. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that he had to land into a pile of 18,600 boxes negates the comparison with a parachute. Stephen 01:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the bolded article has lots of photos of people using wingsuits. I assume they were taken before this story happened, thus negating it's importance (FYI the BBC article says out of a helicopter, not first of all time).  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   04:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that too, Hot Stop. But it seems the difference is that all those wingsuit jumpers before this finished their jumps with parachutes--using them to actually land. Whereas this time, this guy didn't land using a parachute; he just "wingsuited" to the ground, or at least to the boxes. Still don't think it's an encyclopedic level importance, tho.Rhodesisland (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's an amazingly cool stunt, but as others have stated, the need for a specially designed landing zone suggests that this isn't a technology that's about to replace a parachute. If there was more of a tech angle here--people talking about how these suits might be applied, what a breakthrough this was, etc.--I might be more inclined to support, but the coverage so far just treats it like Evel Knievel. Maybe a better article update could persuade me. Khazar2 (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another "And finally..." slow news day report. Now if he'd killed himself, then it would get my full support.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This guy is pretty badass, boxes or no boxes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian election

 * Support, but the blurb will most likely have to be changed. It looks probable that a run-off round will be required to determine the actual winner - in which case the run-off will take place on June 16-17. So the blurb should probably say something like "Egyptians vote in the first presidential election since the 2011 revolution" or something like that; and then updated based on the outcome. This is, arguably, the first substantively free presidential election ever in the Arab world, so the fact that it happened at all is, in and of itself, rather significant and deserves to be posted now, even if there is a run-off round. Nsk92 (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose posting this if there isn't a winner this round. That's also the WP:ITNR guideline. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per NSK92. Khazar2 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand those who want to wait for the second round to post, but I feel like the fact of the first free Egyptian pres. election is as major a story as its results will be. It's The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera's top story of the day, for example, and there's a good chance its results will still be the top story tomorrow. The runoff won't be till 17 June; for a story this size, I've got no problem seeing it go up twice in two months. Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Khazar2.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup its first round..."no need to hund for credt" ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if, and only if, there is a first round winner, otherwise wait until a meaningful result will be reached. Kevin McE (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- It is a near certainty that there will be a runoff, and no matter how notable we shouldn't post the first round of an election with no winner.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral I agree with Bzweebl and Modest Genius that we should wait for the final winner. In any other election there wouldn't even be a question. I'm neutral though because this election is likely to generate a good deal of international media attention. This item seems to clear ITN purpose #1 "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". So what to do? The article is pretty good, so maybe it's worth bending the rules in this case and posting the initial and run-off elections. --IP98 (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per NSK92. Thue | talk 14:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the first free presidential election seems notable enough to post, as long as the next round isn't immediate. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   14:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tokyo Sky Tree opens

 * Support conditional on sufficient update (I'll try to add a bit more right now). A major engineering achievement, and a minority topic. Khazar2 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tariq's point that this was posted before. As amazing as I think this structure is, twice in three months is too much. (And FWIW, I think posting it then was the better call than posting it now. The update on completion was useful engineering and structural data; today's update is just about prices of tickets, opening ceremonies, etc. I updated it anyway, though.) Khazar2 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The statement in the nomination is not correct. Only four people participated in the discussion when the structure was completed, but there was enough agreement to get this posted to ITN on March 1. In addition, two people then said not to post this now, when it opened. We don't have to go with what was said there three months ago, but it tends to be unusual for a structure to be on ITN twice (except in the case of the Burj Khalifa, which I believe was posted as soon as it became the world's tallest structure and then several months later, when it actually opened). I should also point out that yesterday's Featured List was selected because this was going to be opening today. --  tariq abjotu  21:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose, per Tariqabjotu's reasoning. This is the kind of thing I like to see on ITN, but I don't see a compelling reason to post it twice. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tariqabjotu. Had it not have been posted prior to today, I would support posting it. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A quite unfortunate oppose. There really is no good reason for this to be posted again.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This should have been the occasion to post, but the story is not important enough to be featured blow-by-blow. Formerip (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nominator mentions the belief that this tower was "nominated" before, but apparently it was actually made it to posted status. No need to run it twice is MHO. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Terreblanche murder conviction

 * Weak oppose As newsworthy as the murder was, I'm not sure that this follow-up is. If anything, the main story seems to be that the expected consequences of ET's death (reprisal murders, race war) never materialized. Khazar2 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shifting into neutral Following Bzweebl and FormerIP's good points. The coverage is still only moderate (10th highest result or so on most news sites I see), but since we didn't post the original murder, I can see the argument that it's worth posting now. Khazar2 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I could only find a BBC article on this (that Khazar2 posted above), CNN, Reuters, and the AP don't seem to have any coverage on it at all (if they do, it's buried). In general, it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of media coverage. Per Khazar2, the murder itself is more noteworthy than this is. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 22:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Although the murder may have received more coverage, the verdict is more notable because it confirms that it was a black African who had committed this major murder, which until now was speculation. Thus, we should post verdicts, which is already what usually happens. For example, in the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin there seems to be consensus to wait for the verdict. I feel it is important that we post this, but if we already posted the murder I would oppose.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once updated. When did we last post something from South Africa? Formerip (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards Support once updated, though I'd suggest to modify the blurb. "One of two black Africans" does not sound encyclopedic... What about "Chris Mahlangu, a black African farmer, is convicted of murdering white African Eugène Terre'Blanche, the head of the nationalist AWB" Khuft (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * question. I'm not leaning toward supporting any non-internationallly important court cases (inc. Treyvon Martin's.) They're just murder trails in one country, hardly encyclopedic. HOWEVER, and here comes the question regarding this case, is this being considered by international news media as an "assassination" of a South African political leader?? If so, then I can support it.Rhodesisland (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I am unable to find any sources referring to the murder as an "assassination," I think the following are true:
 * a) Eugène Terre'Blanche was, without a doubt, a "political leader." He was the leader of a major white-supremacist party that had a major influence on apartheid.
 * b) The shooting of Trayvon Martin has far less international importance than this. In that case, both murderer and victim were entirely unknown, whereas here the victim was one of the most famous and controversial political figures in the country. While the situation in America was relatively stable with regards to racism, South Africa has been through extremes unlike any other country. This murder led to violent rioting, while in America the result of Trayvon Martin's death was peaceful protest.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the article he was murdered over a wage dispute by one of his labourors, which is definitely not an 'assassination'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever the true purpose really was, in people's minds it will be an assassination when the circumstances are such that a black murdered a white supremacist.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose after reading several pieces of the coverage, I don't see this as anything other than just another murder trial, granted related to a semi-notable SA politician, but the trial just doesn't carry enough import to make ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not a trial with a global impact, nor it doesn't seem to have any major implications even in South Africa. We rejected far more important trials before. Secret account 01:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...and Trevoy Martin had great global note. Then people say theres an anti-american bias on ITN...I wonder why?Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and I agree w/you that Trevon Martin's shooting and the future trial associated w/ it shouldn't be listed here either. Neither have enough import to them. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Google Chrome

 * Oppose - do we report when e.g. a new shampoo brand becomes the most used in the world? Khuft (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - That's an interesting thought, but even CNN's headline is "Chrome overtakes Internet Explorer as No. 1 browser -- maybe", and it's only their fourth highest tech story of the day. BBC doesn't even appear to mention it. It doesn't seem to be getting enough attention, or a clear enough milestone, to be ITN-worthy. Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Not a noteworthy event, especially because many other internet trackers still show IE as the most used browser (4th paragraph of source provided by nominator). Overall, which browser people use the most doesn't really matter that much, especially since it usually comes down to personal preference, and non tech-savvy users just sticking with what comes on their PCs (IE). -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral- Although this does seem to be slightly trivial, it is a striking piece of news.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- It is not even certain that this is new information or even if it is true.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: as earth-shattering as this news may sound, it wasn't really unpredictable. In some countries, IE had lost top spot already (I remember having read somewhere that Firefox had become first in Germany a few years ago). Khuft (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not really that newsworthy. As per Khuft above, it's just one of dozens of brand choices the average consumer makes every day. LukeSurlt c 23:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless we're also going to post every time a chocolate bar or a brand of soup takes a market lead. Also, I'm pretty sure I read that the same thing had happened about six months ago. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Browser usage share is notoriously hard to determine. None of these sites can determine the number of corporate intranet users running IE either. Lastly oppose the suggestion that Google chrome has somehow "unseated" MSIE. FF and even Opera spent years whittling away at that lead. --IP98 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pile on oppose This is hardly earth shattering stuff and isn't even true. Similar reports were made a matter of months ago. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

[Attention required] [Posted] First commercial flight to the ISS

 * Support: Notable for reasons given by nominator. I think the launch itself is good to post - even if it fails, IMO it will be notable enough to post as launch failures are ITNR. We can possibly update the blurb it depending on the outcome. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Launch was a success. This is a huge step in space exploration. --hydrox (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by failure I meant the docking. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - although we don't have to do it for the launch stage of the mission. Maybe docking with the ISS might be a more significant milestone? LukeSurlt c 14:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree with LukeSurl. We should see if they succeed at docking first before we post it here. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the question is, should we post it now or at the docking, we usually post them at launch. Docking is due to take place on 25th. --hydrox (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support once it docks/fails to dock. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support either way. The first commercial space flight launch is notewworthy enough in my opinion, but waiting until docking is ok too. Article looks fine to me. Khuft (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, with a preference for posting now. I don't see the logic in waiting for a failure, because now that it's in space I think the mission is noteworthy whether it succeeds or not. Posting an ongoing event at an early stage opens up the possibility of good faith new users being able to help keep the article up to date. It's not often that we can justify doing that, but this seems a good opportunity. —WFC— 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support posting now per WFC. Khazar2 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the decision is to post it now, the article looks ready. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Posting of the blurb now, per WFC. The docking may not get as much media attention as the launch will. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's still on the board on when it docks I propose changing the blurb, as the fact it's docking with the ISS is what makes the mission unique. LukeSurlt c 23:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction - Dragon isn't "docking" with the space station, its berthing. Because no-one outside of spaceflight junkies like myself know what berthing is, I recommend instead using the blurb "SpaceX's Dragon cargo spacecraft visits the International Space Station for the first time, it is the first American vehicle to do so since the Space Shuttle's retirement" (for May 24th/25th). This same blurb could be used to cover both the rendezvous and berthing. I actually nominated this months ago (see here) and continually updated the nomination page as the launch got delayed, I received no credit what's so ever and I am very angry about that fact.--Craigboy (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've modified the nomination.--Craigboy (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your nomination got no credit, but for what it's worth, nobody keeps score (or even notifies talk pages, in my experience). Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered if there is an automated system to move nominations for future events into current nominations page when the date is reached, and also whether a bot could run and post the your article got on ITN type things to talk pages when any template with Posted goes to archive. EdwardLane (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested this years ago. There's some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_33, Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_37, though I'm sure there's more elsewhere. The discussion petered out because no-one was willing to write the bot. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That second thread seems to suggest that it's basically good to go as long as someone gets back to the chap who controls AnomieBot and possibly some other admin/sysop for approval. Looks like a good idea to me. I'm probably chatting about this in the wrong spot, sorry. EdwardLane (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WT:ITN is probably a better place for it, yes. Feel free to copy this discussion there. Any expansion of AnomieBot's tasks would need to go through WP:BRFA, but I can't see that being a problem. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Need to update - Dragon rendezvoused with the ISS this morning and is planned to be berthed tomorrow.--Craigboy (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

--Craigboy (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking "attention required", as an update is needed. Berthing has been now done, and blurb should be updated with something along the lines: A Dragon capsule launched (pictured) by SpaceX becomes the first commercial flight to berth to the International Space Station. --hydrox (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Bus plunges off cliff

 * Oppose- Relatively minor crash with no political implications of any sort.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bzweebl. A terrible tragedy, but also a blip for world news. Khazar2 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Did it really "plunge"? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The bus plunged some 80m (260ft) off the road on Monday, police spokeswoman Klejda Plangarica was quoted as saying by the Associated Press." Khazar2 (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's one of those overdramatic words you always hear on the news. It "plunged", "careened", and "went barreling off" the cliff. --  tariq abjotu  00:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ::Shrug:: If people want to quibble with the wording of a blurb that looks unlikely to get to the front page, more power to them. M-W.com has one meaning of plunge as "suddenly fell"--good enough for me, but no objections to changing to "fell" if you and HiLo prefer. Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We actually have an article on the "bus plunge" phenomenon. the wub "?!"  12:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ditto Bzweebl. And symantics don't quite matter yet, since we're no where near posting itRhodesisland (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bzweebl claims it has "no political implications of any sort" and everyone else has followed suit without offering any further analysis. The prime minister has interrupted the NATO Chicago summit to comment. The president is visiting the injured in hospital. There is a national day of mourning, flags at half-mast, public television broadcasting classical music. Government is paying all funeral expenses. It is being reported around the world. Kosovo and Turkey are among the foreign political entities to comment. All this is expressed in the article. That begs the question, what are "political implications of any sort" and where are they lacking here? Not every bus gets this sort of tretament. Also, on "plunge", how else did the bus get over the cliff if it didn't fall? One minute it was on the cliff, the next it wasn't. What happened in between? Did a bird pick it up, place it at the bottom of the cliff and set about tearing it apart with its beak and claws? Did it teleport and smash to smithereens in the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.208 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "any sort" is a mild exaggeration, but so far the incident does not appear to have affected international diplomacy or any armed conflict--a president making a comment at the NATO summit is very different than changing the course of the NATO summit. Combined with the low (though tragic) death toll, it makes this one a hard item for me to support. Khazar2 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, Russia winning the IIHF World Championship has not resulted in World War III yet.--WaltCip (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sports do not need to have political implications. The point I was making was that I thought that the crash wasn't notable in its own right, so it needed to have political implications to become more significant.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * support - did not broadcast the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 semifinal tonight. must be really serious.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Sana'a bombing

 * A suicide bombing kills more than 120 people in Sana'a, Yemen.

- A suicide attack on 21 May 2012 against soldiers practicing for the annual Unity Day military parade. 90 deaths. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Al Qaeda affiliate suicide bombing should be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 90+ killed, 200+ injured; a major attack And if this garners some support, I'd suggest getting it on the main page while still developing to soak in as much editorial attention as possible. I've written a sample blurb, leaving out al-Qaeda for now, since this is only a claim by an affiliate at this point. Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SupportArticle is taking shape nicely but I'd like to see a little more before posting - it's not a million miles away but further sources and material should be easy enoug hto find. I would do some of this myself but busy with other things tonight.  We should only post when the article is in good shape - ITN is not an advert to get articles developed. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I worked on this a bit earlier today. It's no problem to add additional sources (as this is everywhere), but for now they all repeat the same govt. and al-Qaeda statements. At 5 paragraphs, I'd argue that it's ready, but I'll try to do another Google search and see if anything else can be added. Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, two more paragraphs, 3 more sources. Obviously this article will continue to expand over the coming days, but it's a fair reflection of what's out there now. Khazar2 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Deadliest attack in Yemen EVER. Point that out and link to Yemeni al-Qaeda crackdown too--Reader1987 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely Support &mdash; An unusually deadly suicide bombing in a country with great significance to the War on Terror.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Robin Gibb

 * Support', much more relevant to most readers than the long awaited death of Al Megrahi, who was but a bit player in the bombing for which he was convicted. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * support when blurb is fixed', this is definitely newsworthy, but i think the blurb should be reworded. robin gibb was the co-founder of one of the most successful groups in music history. change the blurb, then i will completely support it.
 * Support Famous person in the world of music. I would say he was better known as member of the Bee Gees rather than as a judge in Fame Academy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. A major figure in the music world. I've had a go at changing the blurb, but I think perhaps the Bee Gees should be mentioned in there somewhere. - JuneGloom    Talk  00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Consistent with the notability of recent death postings, and the article has started from a relatively good base. Agree with June about mentioning the Bee Gees. —WFC— 00:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- I am usually very strict with singer deaths, but after carefully reading about this I think he was notable enough.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Postmortem support &mdash; Probably the single biggest group of the Disco era, and one of the most popular music acts of contemporary times. Robin Gibb is, by association, notable enough for inclusion on ITN.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with this for notability, but the article's not in great shape; about half of it is uncited, and it contains almost no discussion of the BeeGees(!). Khazar2 (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Phrasing of blurb: The Bee Gees (Brothers Gibb) were not a line up that went through multiple changes, and membership was determined by birth: in that situation, the phrasing that would be appropriate for most bands (founding member of) seems ill fitting. Even founding rather than founder member jars somewhat on these UK Eng educated ears. Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't oppose this, but I find it quite incomprehensible that Donna Summer wasn't afforded the same treatment. I notice her nomination is still up (on its last day), and I encourage editors to push that nomination through the impasse. __meco (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As pointed out several times in that nomination, it can't be posted as long as it has an orange tag on it; the article is an unsourced mess. (There's one citation for the entire 1970s, for example.) Unfortunately, while more than a dozen editors have come here to insist on her vital importance, none of them seem interested in actually working on her article--a sad irony. Khazar2 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree w/ Robin's posting and yet still oppose Donna's. Though I did find it interesting that there were so opposes to Robin's listing. But that to me shows that we are correct to post his and not hers. Just MHO. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making a good point. Unfortunately. __meco (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Te;egraph writes about both of them, and I thought it might have been possible here too to kill two birds. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 11:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

 * Support per nom.  (Can we get rid of the compassionate release part though, or at least rephrase it). <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm open to that but I would have thought the controversy created by the releaase (and the lack of compassionate release in the US justice system) is what makes this death particularly notable. Its what makes his death overdue. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Maybe just mention that it was controversial? <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Compassionate release is the correct legal term for the particular mode of his release: we're not making POV statements if that is the concern. As I said, I'm not dead set against a reworking but don't see what the particular problem is. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC).
 * It's not POV to mention a well-known fact. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   14:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: seems highly suitable for ITN; due to all that has happened. Also, no more blurb rows please :( --Τασουλα (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There's been enough debate recently regarding posting deaths. Lets take a look at WP:ITN/DC. This death does not satisfy criteria 1 or 2. So that leaves us with criteria 3 which reads: "The death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion." This death has not caused any major international impact. If this death triggers riots, judicial reforms, change in policy, etc. that are significant on an international scale, then I will be willing to consider. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/DC (2) does apply. In his field he was a notorious, international convicted mass murderer. Leaky  Caldron  17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does makes sense. Kind of. Striking off the oppose in any case. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, but the update is only one sentence in length, which is not even close to the necessary prose.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but agree it is not yet ready. The blurb is also too long. It only really needs his name, why he is notable and the fact that he has died: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, dies in Libya. Formerip (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with better update and prefer FormerIP's blurb. Khazar2 (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added 7-8 sentences with some reactions to his death. Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 IIHF World Championship

 * Support, of course, once the game ends and the article receives the updates that entails. Resolute 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- It would be great to have some hockey on ITN. We haven't had that in a while, although the Stanley Cup is coming up soon.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Article updated and sourced, marking ready. --hydrox (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Perhaps the following blurb would be better: "Russia wins the IIHF World Championship, winning all its matches and beating Slovakia in the final 6-2. Evgeni Malkin (pictured) is named the MVP of the tournament." Evgeni_Malkin3.jpg Nanobear (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we at least change the picture to Malkin's photo? The current pic of Tokyo Institute of Technology building is not nearly as interesting and informative as the picture of the tournament's MVP and scoring winner. Nanobear (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at our May 2011, 2010, 2009 etc. archvies, none of the blurbs posted the MVP. Given that hockey is a team sport and not an individual sport, MVPs are often of minor importance. --hydrox (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done anyway. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we possibly wikilink MVP? I think many people will have no idea what it means. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Dominican Republic prez election

 * Support- Particularly notable election because of the expatriate issue.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending update per Bzweebl; I feel like I've seen the expat issue covered all over the place. Khazar2 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article still says "Danilo Medina of the ruling Partido de la Liberación Dominicana being considered most likely to win." --BorgQueen (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're taking the statement out of context. The statement is talking about pre-election analysis, not actual results. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needs prose update about the final results. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article seems to have been updated in the meantime; a "reactions" section has also been added. Khuft (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready: Up to date. Results table and a paragraph of prose reflecting outcome and reactions added. --RJFF (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Serbian presidential election

 * Comment You are so hasty and breathless in getting "nominating points" or kudos or whatever it is you feel you achieve that your nominations are littered with typos and mistakes. Further to this, why bother nominating an election result without a single vote being counted? This behaviour of yours is becoming increasingly disruptive, not to mention tedious. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always felt Lihaas should make his posts a little more readable, but early nomination (provided its not inordinately early) of an imminent event (election results, rocket launch, sporting event final, etc) gives an opportunity for other editors to take note that an ITN worthy article is in the works, so that they can chip in and improve the article. Just my two cents. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have sympathy with that view, but we are getting to a seriously bad point when someone can start a nomination where "President" is shortened to "prez" and somehow people are fine with it. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What if we removed "(give credit)" from the <tt>|nominator=</tt> field in ITN candidate? I don't think nominating events for ITN deserves much credit, and have never seen anyone given credit for nominations on their talk page. OTOH, those actually updating the articles do deserve credit. --hydrox (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen, doktorb, comprehend that your 2nd resort to NPA/non-AGF/wikipedia personality politics is not commenting on content. instead of vengence mongering you can contribute content or comment on content. If you dont think its ITNR then discuss it elsewhere.
 * As for the the "give credit," its already futile, so it doesnt matter if removed or otherwise...and as for adding ITNR comments on the day, it happens for sports and its happened in the past that elections are not nominated in time and then stale!
 * Wouldnt be more condicive if these comments of faeces didnt occur?Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, without any intention to open that can of worms; I do not regard this as an event of "wide interest" per the main pillar of ITN, and I doubt any newspaper will be covering this in much detail outside of Serbia; I would support only if the person elected has a very good article. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take this matter to ANI if this comment is taken into account. It is an unambiguous attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. While a ticker will hopefully happen in the near future, there is clear consensus not change our notability criteria for elections, as this user full well knows. —WFC— 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused. Certainly it was not my intention to be disruptive. All I did was mention two things that are extremely important to ITN, namely, that the event is of "wide interest" (listed in the first paragraph of ITN guidelines), and that there is a good update to the article, which is a normal ITNR rule anyway. It is perfectly reasonable to oppose on those two grounds alone. I don't see why it would elicit such a strong reaction. Moreover, are we then suggesting that any 'oppose' votes, regardless of the stated rationale, should be considered disruptive? Regardless, in the spirit of candor, I am still willing to strike the above comment if another user concurs with User WFC's view that it was disruptive. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm bewildered too. I don't agree with Colipon but see no call for AN/I. Khazar2 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He is entitled to his oppose since ITNR has now lost the legitimacy it had of reflecting consensus. The last two discussions on ITNR status for elections have both resulted in no consensus, not a clear consensus.  Therefore they shouldn't be listed in the first place.  Those who continue to vehemently oppose removing anything from ITNR when it is clear there is no longer consensus for many items need to consider whether they are in fact simply killing the entire list.  Crispmuncher (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC).
 * The kindest way I can possible describe the "no consensus" comment is "deliberately misleading". Doktorbuk closed the "remove the smallest 20 countries" discussion himself, recognising that there was a clear will to continue allowing the very smallest country's elections to be posted. Serbia is a million miles away from falling into that category. There has been no consensus so far on the ticker (and hopefully we will make progress on that), but whether with the ticker or the current system, there is undeniable consensus to continue posting elections. As for your latter sentence, I wouldn't shed any tears if defending community consensus has the side-effect of making people realise that, in quiet periods, the present system of large numbers of people opposing anything not on ITNR is unsustainable. —WFC— 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's take this down a notch and take DoktorB up on his kind invitation to tea. We're all on the same team, after all. Khazar2 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hes definatly entitled to his opinion...if anythign the threat to ANY is disrutpive.Lihaas (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- ITNR clearly doesn't mean anything anymore, but this is a particularly important election because of Serbia's political importance and troubles with Kosovo.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support-after article is updated now that the results are out and the incumbent has lost and congratulated his opponent, this is an ITNR and a significant shift in Serbia. Crnorizec (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject is definitely eligible for posting subject to quality, but there is no prose at all on the final result. —WFC— 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with sufficient update, per Bzweebl and Crnorizec. Khazar2 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; The results of any presidential election are notable enough for inclusion, but Serbia's especially. It is the central power of the Balkans.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 10:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suport per Master&Expert. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Results section needs to be updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suport per Master&Expert. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl and Master&Expert.-- В и к и  T   18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional comment as Colipon questioned whether this news was mentioned anywhere outside of Serbia: Spiegel, the major German news magazine, and Le Figaro, a major French newspaper, cover it, among others. Khuft (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Northern Italy earthquake
At least six people were killed after an earthquake in Emilia-Romagna. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  09:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Six people death toll? Seems to border on the 'insignificant' -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose 6.0's are too common - at least 100 every year. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 20:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is quite a minor earthquake.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the reasons above. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per the above. Khazar2 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; It's a very unfortunate occurrence and my sentiments go out to those whose loved ones died in this tragedy, but it just doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion on ITN. At least tens of people would have to be killed before we consider it noteworthy enough for the Main Page.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In various European media, the key point that was highlighted was the destruction to the cultural heritage in the area. While this case may not have been notable enough, an earthquake in a culturally important site (eg. a World Heritage Site) causing wide-spread destruction might be notable enough from an architectural point of view (= minority topic) even if few people died. Khuft (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mild support lots of very expensive cheese (an estimated 200 million euro's worth) is buried under rubble (and probably not salvageable), some historic building collapsed, some quite modern buildingc collapsed (and there will be an inquest as to whether they met building regulations) total estimated damage is 500 million euros. EdwardLane (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Heineken Cup

 * Comment: This is listed on WP:ITNR. This particular final broke a lot of records so is more notable than usual. "Are Leinster now the greatest Heineken Cup team of all time?", praise for "the players who had just delivered a record-breaking margin of victory in the final of rugby's most passionately charged club competition" BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.194.227 (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- This is one of the biggest rugby tournaments of the year and should be posted every time it occurs, regardless of ITNR.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Article appears ready. Formerip (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 Heineken Cup Final is updated and ready. The other article only has a two sentence update, but it does not need to be emboldened.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Preakness Stakes

 * Oppose The Preakness is the middle race in the triple crown, and doesn't get as much media attention as the Kentucky Derby. If I'll Have Another does win the triple crown at the Belmont Stakes, I would definitely support posting it. 22 horses have won the first two races, and end up losing in the third (See United States Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing).-- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Anc516--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Anc--but I'll sure be looking forward to the Belmont. Khazar2 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With both the Heineken Cup and the World Hockey Championship wrapping up today, I don't think there is enough room for another sports entry. But thanks for posting... Suddenly I care about the Belmont Stakes.  Looking forward to supporting a nom for a triple crown winner in a couple weeks! Resolute 19:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I am a major fan of American thoroughbred racing, but unlike most here I respect ITN/R, so since there has no been no consensus to post this in the past, I think that there is no need to post this now.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bab al-Tabbaneh–Jabal Mohsen clashes

 * Comment: The current blurb wording is rather confusing to someone not familiar with the events. Can someone reword or clarify? Thanks,  Spencer T♦ C 21:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Spencer, the blurb needs rewriting. I also don't think that this is a significant enough event to be ITN worthy. Political accusations shouldn't be newsworthy. In addition, the article was updated with only three sentences about the event; not sure if this is enough. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose- Aside from the blurb being terrible, this is a minor event in a major conflict, so it would be weird to post this when we haven't posted anything else from Syria.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 UEFA Champions League Final

 * Players will take part in it. The game will take PLACE tonight. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional support unquestionably ITN in the same way the Super Bowl is. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once updated as ITN/R. Khazar2 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support since it's a conclusion of a very important football competition with much ado and interest through the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once events are concluded. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but pelase don't mention the stadium. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd rather see "...in the final, at Munich."  The stadium name means nothing to me.  Where it is held does. Resolute 20:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Arena managers use sponsored names because they get paid lots of money for doing so. Wikipedia doesn't. We should stick to geography, not advertising. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I believe the stadium was referred to by a different name during the event ("Fußball Arena München"), so the use of "Allianz Arena" might not be strictly correct in this one. Maybe better to substitute the venue for mention of the penalty shoot-out finish instead? GRAPPLE   X  21:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the location of the final is at all important. "won after penalty shoot-out would suffice." Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally I would agree, but seeing as this year it happened to be at Bayern's home stadium I think it may be worth mentioning. Jenks24 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the venue has even become a discussion point on the Reference desk/Miscellaneous today. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- One of the biggest football matches that comes around- ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroopower (talk • contribs)
 * Support + Comment Major event in the football world. Also, is it really necessary to post the location in the blurb? We don't post the location of the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, or the Premier League. Why is it necessary to post the location for this sporting event and not the others? The Olympics would be the only time I would think it's necessary to post the location. Why shouldn't the blurb just be "The UEFA Champions League concludes with Chelsea defeating Bayern Munich in a penalty shootout." -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weird post. You ask a question that has been already discussed. Maybe you don't like those answers, but your post reads as if you haven't even noticed the earlier discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo, there are (or were, depending on when this is read) 6 posts above mine about the location part of the blurb, which I did read prior to commenting. None of which seem to come to any closer to a consensus about keeping/removing the location from the blurb. I didn't post this as a bulleted item under the rest of the discussion because it didn't appear to be going anywhere. Why are you jumping on people (like twice below, which was very over-the-top) for trying to enter the discussion, when it's clear there is no consensus on the matter? The more people comment about it, the closer we can come to a consensus about it. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 13:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of those earlier posts effectively acknowledged that we don't normally mention the venue, then explained why they thought we could treat it differently THIS time. Then you came along and said we don't normally mention the venue. It wasn't a contribution to consensus seeking at all. It failed to even acknowledge the existence earlier comments. The later posts from others, doing exactly the same thing, just made it worse. After the earlier conversation, it wasn't a discussion at all. It was just a series of statements of the form "We don't normally mention the venue". Quite rude really. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support obviously, per ITNR; support completely dropping mention of the place of the final as that's irrelevant. It would be better to mention something like 'Chelseas's first European title'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OMFG. Do you people ever read others' comments? There's a discussion on the venue above. It's obvious that some people think it's relevant, and they gave reasons! Assuming that you did actually read those comments, good manners alone would demand that you respond to them. If you didn't read them, well... (Where IS that rolling eyes smiley?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ITNR but drop mention of the final venue. And Hilo, your reaction is unwarranted and over-the-top — as usual. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The matter has been discussed. Reasons have been given. If you won't respond to those reasons, your opinion is worth nothing. I don't even feel all that strongly over whether the venue should be mentioned, but I do care about meaningful discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The most significant association football event after the World Cup Final.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready: Article looks good, marking ready. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Quebec student protests

 * This is an inappropriate nomination. If the event does not yet have an article, the proper thing would be to create that article first and then nominate it. As a whole I agree these protests have been rather strange phenomenon in a developed country, and may be of encyclopedic interest. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spoke too soon: 2012 Quebec student protests. The article is still very low-quality. Need serious update, copyediting, contexualization, etc. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Created redirect to link them. Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now Still not much an article, or much of an update (only two sentences about this legislation). I think I'd be inclined to support if this was expanded, though. The protests are impressive in size, scope, and consequences. Khazar2 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It would be a mistake to post that article in its current state – it doesn't even being to explain what's going on. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment hold off on the opposes due to article quality for an hour, I will try to expand the article. 65.95.23.172 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A little local difficulty. We (quite rightly) defeated Occupy nominations as self-generated bother, and this fits with that decision nicely. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Myanmar is a local bother too but the only thing we don't post is Ang walking her dog... --180.249.121.221 (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are up to date on these events, over 150,000 students have been on strike for 14 weeks, there are daily protests, over 1000 arrests, it is the largest story in Canada, the education minister has resigned, new laws which many condemn as breaking civil rights are being passed, tear gas and rubber bullets are being used by police, smoke bombs, molotov cocktails by protesters, Montreal has made masks illegal to wear... 65.95.23.172 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the largest story in Quebec. Speaking as a Western Canadian, the local and regional news sources out here has viewed it with a mixture of apathy and bemusement. Resolute 20:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If only eastern Canada had viewed your drought and mad cows with the same level of apathy. *shrugs* That's what we get for showing kindness. --180.249.121.221 (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We tend not to take those with a misplaced sense of entitlement too seriously out here. Resolute 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support 65.95.23.172 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- I brought this up before during the 2012 South Sudan–Sudan border conflict, but just because a major event is a part of a longtime ongoing event, its significance should not be detracted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if this article were at the standards of its sister French version, I would support it. I think the issue now is one of article quality. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with Colipon that this would have my weak support as a better article. It's still very sketchy, though, with the notable omission of any explanation for the protesters' demands, arguments, etc. The related Bill 78 seems a much higher quality article, though--could that be used somehow? Khazar2 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] G8 Summit

 * No-brainer support - Always a major event, and it'd be helpful to have this on the main page during the summit so the eyes of many editors are on it. Article already appears updated enough to post. Khazar2 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. you cant have an accomplishment without the summit beggining, and its wholly unsourced.
 * Article is not updated enough and is short of citesLihaas (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly have very different definitions of "wholly unsourced" and "updated enough" than I do. First, there are obviously at least some sources in the article; second, several paragraphs on the summit were added the day before. I don't mind holding off, but I'm not really sure what you were talking about here. Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Does any RS indicate that this is the 38th summit? It appears to me that to get to that figure you need to carry on numbering continuously from when it was the G7 and even the G6.  That isn't impossible, of course, but I'd like to see some independent corroboration for that, before we post on the main page with something that only exists in Wikipedia-land. Crispmuncher (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It adds on from G6 and G7. See the template at the bottom
 * Also the article is a copy from the previous summit (As the hidden note says) and there is plenty of synthesis and unsourced bits as in the attendees. That needs to be done first. Hold off till tomorrow with a conclusion statement and, hopefully, sources will appear for the attendees. I cleaned out some of the synthesis and other stuff and tagged where need be. A visual look at a long page does not mean its updated. Seeing that there are deadlinks indicates a clear blind copy+paste to expand the pageLihaas (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of how the figure has been reached, I am questioning its legitimacy. None of the news sources I have checked refer to it as the 38th summit - if there is a need to disambiguate that is done by year as the summit official site does  Simply numbering the summits like that in a single sequence may be very convenient for our purposes, but is original synthesis in the absence of any independent (off Wiki) source showing this is not a neologism. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC).
 * update cleaned the rot out and added some sources. Think it should be good to go with a source on the attendees. Right now its just a re-hash of last summit.Lihaas (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait: What's the point of posting this unless something significant is achieved? Colipon+ (Talk) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I usually don't adhere to any previous precedence, though it was posted few times before, but a summit of the 8 largest economies in the world is worth mentioning. We don't need to expect drastic changes announced in public when a summit is held and even the program presented there is enough to provoke major changes in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of record, they are not the eight largest economies of the world. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is completely irrelevant and doesn't change anything. I don't screen numbers to point out what are the largest economies in terms of total GDP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Especially given the timing, with the Greek economic crisis and its dangers to the world financial system as a topic of the meeting. Perhaps the blurb should be expanded to mention this? --PopularMax (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but please wait. Notability taken care of since its ITNR and the article looks good. But lets wait till the summit happens so we can add that bit and then post it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the economic woes continue, it seems that summits are just getting more frequent, and the outcomes are getting less and less meaningful except for the photo-opportunity for world leaders. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait: for a concrete outcome of the conclave. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support, an absolute no-brainer, deserves immediate posting. Any time the world leaders meet (and doubly so in the time of severe economic crisis), that's highly notable and ITN worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral but, in response the idea that any time world leaders meet we have to post it, I'd point out that they meet quite a lot. There is a NATO summit tomorrow, for example, and an EU summit on Wednesday. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and immediate post why are we waiting? This item is ITN/R, so it passes the notability test. They don't have to "do something" have "concrete outcomes" to be deemed "ITN worthy". Full stop. If anyone opposes that, go to Talk:ITNR and discuss it there. The article is of adequate length, is sourced and has no orange or red banners. I'm boldly marking this as ready to get a posting admin to come along, skip past the "waaaaa I don't like posting world leader summits", acknowledge the inescapable fact that it's ITN/R, and post if they agree article is of sufficient quality. PS: I'm IP98, currently on holiday. --180.249.121.221 (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Ready: I dont think its ready, there is nothing in the article that talks about what actually happened at the summit. It still has stuff like "A tentative agenda for the 38th G8 summit will include [...]". I'm not really clued in on the happenings, may be the nom or someone who is more abreast with the summit should please update the article and then it will be good to post. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How can we possibly know what exactly they will talk about if what we are reporting is the start, not the end? It is appropriate for the particular story which we are reporting that we would not know whether the agenda is correct. I believe it is ready.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We are posting the summit and not the preparations for the summit. The summit has already happened (and concluded). I'll try and plug in the details later today. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And yeah, we can change the blurb to reflect the conclusion of the summit. No point reporting only the start of a summit that has already happened and concluded and for which all the details are already in the public domain. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The update regarding what happened at the summit is now sufficient. I think we're ready to report the end of it.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  00:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Facebook IPO

 * Support when updated. I have to say that I'm not enthusiastic about this proposal - I've mentioned the bias towards IT-related companies in our business coverage time and again.  However, this is receiving a lot of press attention and reluctantly I'd have to conclude it is clearly notable enough for posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Support- I too am reluctant, but this is simply getting too much significant coverage for a business story to be ignored.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article has now been updated. Khazar2 (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm probably missing something but $16 billion is smaller than any of the five largest sums listed at Initial public offering. Does something need to be qualified here or are some of the figures incorrect? GRAPPLE   X  04:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch; blurb has been modified. I appear to have misread this through sheer jingoism. Khazar2 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Clearcut. __meco (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose its notable only with all the due caveats and not generally as an IPO.
 * also "clearcut" is not a reason since we dont votecount!"Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * support and it is clearcut so it doesn't matter if we vote count or not, Lihaas. You don't set the rules any more than we do. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And neither do you set the rules so dont NPA! COMMENT ON CONTENT, i dint attack othe editors! I simply said we need a reason. Saying its "clearcut" without saying WHY is not a reason! READ the comment efore vengenace -mongering.
 * And whre is your REASON? ALL you said is " and it is Lihaas you dont set the rules" with noting to say why you support!Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Lihaas. Donna Summer deserves to be on top not Facebook. Facebook sucks. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  11:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly, I really wish you'd pitch in a bit at the Donna Summer article so it can get front-page ready... it's still a pretty big mess. Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What an awful, awful rationale. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - This is in the news internationally. Facebook's influence on global culture cannot be denied. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid rationale to oppose the posting of this story, Eugen.--WaltCip (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait Until after trading today to get the full story. --M ASEM (t) 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And those that follow, this is why I said to wait - the lack of any big gain was the more interesting part of this story. --M ASEM  (t) 02:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not too late to change the blurb if you'd like to propose a rephrasing. I'd be game. Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a conclusive argument. Facebook had their money the instant the stock was listed, which was the whole purpose of the IPO. They raised $16B which is hardly small change by anyone's standards. Mark Zuckerberg still has  a controlling interest regardless of what happened today, or even who owns the most shares, because of the way the company is structured.  The idea that shares must shoot up on the day of their IPO to be considered a success  is financial naivete based on the excesses of the last dotcom boom - it is premised on the shares being undervalued when the company actually gets its funds for future investment - hardly in the best interests of the company or its shareholders. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC).
 * It's not just the fact they raised $16B before trading, but what many were looking at is how much they would have gained their first day (which was not much ergo many sources calling it a failed hype). We knew that under 24 hrs there would be more to update - either way the stock went, and thus the full blurb would still have mentioned $16B and the trading result. This would have still been posted either way, but it is better to have the more complete blurb from past candidates. --M ASEM  (t) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Regardless of what one thinks of Facebook, this is a big business/financial story. However, wait at least until public trading has started today (it reportedly will open about one hour from now) to get a more complete story. --Orlady (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Both because of the size of the IPO and also because of the impact Facebook has on popular culture. --PopularMax (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Facebook is one of the most visited websites in the world, and it is of extremely high significance worldwide (therefore no issue of systemic bias). A company will only ever have one such momentous event, and this would be an appropriate time to display it. The only question is article quality. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fail to see any significance or impact to this. Facebook went public to get more money, whoopidee doo; now that it has happened, and aside from tonights 6 o'clock news, you won't hear another news story on it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. In the news is for entries of timely interest. This qualifies. Leaky  Caldron  18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fail - 3rd largest IPO, whoop-de-doo. Not exactly a shock that it was coming. In fact, I'm surprised that the number wasn't 10 or 100 times that. *shrugs* --180.249.121.221 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The element of surprise is not needed in ITN stories.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Donna Summer dies of lung cancer
American singer-songwriter Donna Summer dies of cancer at 63.


 * Support - as nominator --109.150.43.232 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose - for me a good singer. but without the many major hits and major international breaktrough that would support her inclusion in ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seems like every other death is being proposed as ITN candidate. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Her influence was seemingly limited for such a top seller. And the article has way too many problems with writing style and sourcing issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry, people die of cancer all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even famous people. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support easily one of the most influential female singers in history, face of disco music, revolutionized dance music, opposes are baffling, her death came in a time in which several notable figures also passed away. Probably bigger impact than Whitney Houston Secret account 17:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - definitely an internationally iconic figure, worthy of mention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm sympathetic to Secret's rationale above, but the article as it stands doesn't make any of the claims she/he does here save for mentioning the "Queen of Disco" name. The article also has two orange-tag sections. Would be willing to shift to neutral with a major article overhaul (ping me on my talk page if it gets there). Khazar2 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to work on this article as much as possible though I have very spotty time. Secret account 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Unexpected death of a major and international performer. Article in good shape; in my view the tags could be pulled with a little effort. Jus  da  fax   17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No prejudice towards the candidate; we just need to put a stop to the ITN obituaries.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support - clearly notable artist. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  18:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article doesn't bother you enough to even keep you at regular support? Khazar2 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per most others, that while she is famous, she's not world-wide iconic nor her death a major shock/surprise that "Recent Deaths" isn't suitable for. --M ASEM  (t) 18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Big news story here in the UK; well known and pioneer of Disco music. Fairly untimely and unexpected death too. She was still performing. --OfTheGreen (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support One of the undisputed icons of disco in its earliest days. She was an absolute star in all its definitions at the height of her career. Of no question is she "notable", by dictionary standards or ours doktorb wordsdeeds 19:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Please, no more deaths. Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs, fine. Both known worldwide and extremely influential. Maybe Whitney Houston. But no, no to Sassoon, no to Dick Clark, no to Donna Summer, to prevent ITN from becoming a memorial section. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not such a major figure as to merit an ITN listing. --Orlady (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support pending article improvement. Grammy award winning singer often referred to as the Queen of Disco that had a top 40 hit every year between 1976 and 1984, first African-American female to be nominated for an MTV Music Award, 4 number one hits, 14 top 10 hits. ITN is for deaths, as much as some people seem to think its becoming an obituary. If something makes major press coverage, it's in the news. Just because you don't know who this person is, doesn't mean that she isn't insanely famous, influential, and recognized for what she did. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a good case here, but it's a sad irony that so many editors are spending time debating this here, whereas no one seems to have the time to add these claims and their sources to the article. It's gradually improving, but everything from the 1970s down is conspicuously uncited, and the article still seems to have little to no discussion of her impact and importance beyond album sales figures. Why not "make your case" through research and article improvement first? Seems like that would be a key first step in winning over any skeptics. Khazar2 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Donna Summer was one of the biggest stars of the disco era. She dominated the better part of a decade in pop music. __meco (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to consider some sort of permanent "death ticker" addition to ITN for cases such as this one. While her death is certainly newsworthy and would be of interest to many of our readers, I feel her importance falls just short of being ITN-worthy. Unless the deceased is Michael Jackson or a sitting head of state, the inclusion of deaths on ITN will always be subjective and open to interpretation - I think a less-restrictive death ticker would help make our handling of deaths on ITN more consistent. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- There are far too many American singers more notable than her.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Bzweeb. Many musicians are quite famous, so I think we should be more selective in terms of the musicians we put in on the main page.  I would have also opposed the Beastie Boys singer for what it's worth. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Ditto Calliopejen1. and IMHO, neither Summer nor Michael Jackson would ever had been so famous if not for Dick Clark's early influence on the Pop scene and more specifically his show American Bandstand. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Front page news in a bunch of places, maybe less outside of where disco was popular. There is no denying that Summer was influential, she won five Grammy awards, her article notes that she "placed a Top Forty hit on the Billboard Hot 100 in every year from 1976 to 1984" and that, according to Billboard, she had the 8th most successful female career in history, and she even released an LP in 2008 (making her death untimely, for those of you that absolutely require this). "Undisputed icon" is a very appropriate title for this woman. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, essentially per User:Ericleb01. The single I Feel Love is one of those hugely influential pieces that does in fact show that she had substantial international significance.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Although we have in the past featured the deaths of far less significant artists, we really need to consider just how many individuals can be considered to be widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field when that field is anglophone popular music. Was she in the top 20 important artists of our era?  top 50? top 100?  Whatever was unique/influential/innovative in her major hits was far more due to the innovations of Giorgio Moroder than of his vocalist.  Marcus Brigstocke's comments about Quincy Jones' favourite trumpet come to mind.   Kevin McE (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * support Sassoon died of cancer and was osted, and she was far more notable than other deaths like the kiddie author in terms of global stature and fame. For a change a death is actually globally knownLihaas (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would beg to differ. I do not see much coverage of this in Latin American, Asian, or Russian media. I assessed Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs' notability on the fact that it received bona fide media coverage all over the world. But none of the recent deaths, not Donna Summer or Adam Yauch or Sassoon or Maurice Sendak has seen real worldwide coverage. This nomination, given the Anglo-American skew of Wikipedia, is clearly an example of systemic bias (not blaming editors, but blaming the system). Colipon+ (Talk) 13:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comparing the North American music market to Russia or Asia is as pointless as comparing a hollywood film to a home movie. There is no promotion of that music scene outside of local reach, and so its hardly fair to compare the numerous deaths of famous musicians, writers and icons in North America to the lack of any from Russia or Asia. Name me one famous Russian musician that has died in the past 10 years that has received any coverage outside of Russia and eastern Europe, and I will name 50 from Britain and North America. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Counting only people born in Moscow, I'll throw in Irina Arkhipova, Arthur Eisen, Kaori Kawamura and Tatiana Shebanova: your turn (alternatively, restrict yourself to posting opinions and facts, not hyperbole). Kevin McE (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Famous singer worldwide and the news for her death is listed amongst the top everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The death of a major, influential music icon with worldwide recognition is a culturally noteworthy event. -- PopularMax (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those last two comments need calling to account. Words like worldwide are far too often bandied about with no regard at all for their meaning.  What is the level of her fame and recognition in Bolivia/Benin/Bahrain/Belarus/Burma/Bhutan or Botswana? (to name only a few countries beginning with B)  If you believe that she is well known in North America and Western Europe, say that without hyperbole.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Not notable enough. Agree with Colipon's arguments above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm forced to concur with Colipon and Kevin McE.  Spencer T♦ C 03:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support well acclaimed singer, iirc we did Whitney Houston some time back. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whitney Houston death was sudden and tragic, and completely unexpected which meets the death criteria #1, but Donna Summer death was a unexpected, but an average cause of death as she was still in the public eye until a few weeks ago, but kept her illness closely guarded and it was only known though a few close family members and associates. I haven't had the time to expand the update yet, as this article in the current state is unpostable, but I did research Summer though the available sources in HighBeam and Kevin McE does have a point here about her legacy. Also I want to see a passing admin opinion on the consensus here as some of the opposes is based on the "way too many deaths in ITN" instead of discussing her importance within the music industry. Yes ITN/C needs massive reform, but that reform needs to be discussed in the talk page (or better yet an RFC like what happened with FAC), not in the nominations page. Secret account 06:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to think nominations should be judged on their own merits, not the fact that similar items have/have not been posted. No one seems to give a hoot when we have five Nobel Prize stories in one week. Or when there's a slew of elections (and some have balked at the idea of cutting down the number of elections on ITN/R). Why deaths are targeted for this kind of treatment is beyond me. Long story short, I don't see "we have had too many deaths recently" as a true oppose, as it implies that had there not been so many recently, this would have been fine. --  tariq abjotu  07:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral &mdash; I can't decide whether she's notable enough or not. Big name, but big enough? I don't know.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 17:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – unexpected death of a very influential figure in disco, which is an influential genre. Many popular performers, including Kylie Minogue, have said that she was a major influence on them and their work. There seems to be a bias against mainstream entertainers / performers being included in ITN. Writers, academics, figures in minor religions, opera singers etc. of whom very few people have heard are included. However, pop singers, actors etc. who have tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of fans are considered not important enough to include. I believe that the deaths of Paul Newman, Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze were not mentioned in ITN, which demonstrates my point. How are the deaths of a mainstream entertainers who entertained hundreds of millions of people be of less importance than the deaths of people who had no imput on the lives of 99% of people? Why is 'pop culture' for the masses usually considered unworthy of inclusion, yet 'high culture' with a tiny following considered very important? 188.28.218.246 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If Kylie Minogue has a mike shoved under her nose and is asked about any singer who has just died, she is likely to say something similar: it's what people who are concerned about the public perception of them do. I would suggest that any comment made by anyone in the public eye should be taken with a huge pinch of salt unless it is made A) without solicitation, B) without the subject of the comment being present,and C) before the person in question is diagnosed as seriously ill/dead.   Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With Newman, Swayze, and Fawcett, I don't believe that Swayze had such a noteworthy career to even be listed for discussion here, his peak was a few years in the late 1980s and was only known for a couple of films before going back to obscurity. Fawcett had the misfortune to die the same day as Michael Jackson and little notability outside the United States, and I thought Newman was listed in ITN as his acting career was way more significant than other actors that was listed here before, but I would understand any discussion about Newman not being listed. Secret account 06:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Newman was not featured on ITN, despite easily fulfilling point 2. Why do you understand him not having been listed? If he did not qualify, what does an actor have to do in order to be included? The lead of Fawcett's article states that she was an international pop culture icon; she was very famous in many countries, not just the US. Swayze remained famous and popular, despite his later films being less successful than Dirty Dancing and Ghost. Robin Gibb would likely have been excluded had he not written songs for other artists as well as for The Bee Gees. There seems to be an unwritten snobbery in that a opera singer or classical conductor whom 99% of people have never heard of is included because they are admired by a small number of upper class and upper-middle class people whilst popular entertainers who entertain millions of ordinary people are excluded. In what way does Summer, who won Grammy Awards, not fulfil point 2? Her 1970s music has been sampled on songs during recent years by popular artists. An high-profile example is Naughty Girl by Beyoncé Knowles, who had not been born when Summer was in the charts in several countries with Love to Love You Baby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.2.36 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] T-Ray Wireless Record

 * Any opinions? --BorgQueen (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have one, I think X needs to be in this somewhere...I mean um yeah OK I'll support this based on it being minority, interesting and would look snazzy on ITN. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Is this BIG (read: encyclopedic) news? I don't know enough about this area. Is this a landmark/watershed moment (solo dive to Challenger Deep) or just another record that could be broken next week (most football goals in a Euroleague)? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, with technology you never know if someone will shatter another record tomorrow. FWIW, though, this was not an incremental increase but a doubling of the previous record (set nine months before). It's made still more unusual by the fact that the researchers transmitted in a different and largely undeveloped spectrum of wavelengths from current wifi. The BBC considered it front-page news, and when I looked a few hours ago, it was the most read and shared story of the day. To me, a front-page discovery like this carries more long-term encyclopedic significance than a Dutch train wreck with one fatality, but I know that (like my topic) I'm in the minority on that. Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree w/ your example of the Dutch train wreck. But still not sure about this one though.Rhodesisland (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Khazar2's explanation of how major of a technological advance this is.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In all fairness, I should add that I just ran another Google News search on this and was surprised to see that it doesn't appear to have been covered by other major publications--just a number of tech blogs following the Beeb. So I won't be offended if that changes anyone's minds on this one. On the other hand, on my last tech submission, I was told by the voting editors that amount of coverage was irrelevant compared to "significance"... so we'll see if that still holds. =) Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the point we've reached on ITN, I think you could make any argument and no one could definitively say if it's valid or not.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, very true. So feel free to consider my primary rationale that "the BBC and I think this news rocks." Khazar2 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: as I understand it, they've doubled the previous record, but that record was set only 6 months ago. Plainly this is a rapidly-advancing field; the issue is whether this is a particular breakthrough moment that we should be highlighting? The article isn't great either - the updated paragraph is good, but the rest is poor. As a side note, the phrase 'T-rays' is utterly nauseating. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Given that 1.3gbit/s wireless consumer routers are already available on the market, this new leap was somewhat expected however considering that "T-ray" is a relatively new form of data transmission, it may be somewhat notable but the doubling of potential bandwidth is definitely not notable in my opinion. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Minority candidate, intriguing news story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank God for the first science post in eons! Colipon+ (Talk) 19:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek legislative election, June 2012
Things are looking really bleak for Greece, with a Euro exit possible. Some think such an exit will have major consequences for the Euro itself. This is front-page material on most newspapers. Thue | talk 14:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but condense blurb. We've never posted two-sentence blurbs. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they could simply be posted as two different blurbs? Thue | talk 16:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as major news but condense blurb per Strange BorgQueen below. Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the first sentence but Oppose the second; its possible exit from the Eurozone is too speculative at this stage. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support has major implications for international economy, but condense per above opinions. -- PopularMax (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Now we're posting scheduled elections? The election posting is getting out of hand here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree, but the ongoing Greek crisis continues to be one of the top news stories around the world, with major implications for the Euro. Khazar2 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This just isn't a scheduled election, it's a fresh set of new ones following the inability of the current parties to form a coalition. That, not just the elections themselves, is the most notable part. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Trial of Ratko Mladić
Nominator's comments: Big news internationally today, and a subject of considerable interest in terms of Wikipedia coverage. Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait for outcome of trial. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 07:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be pretty impractical considering it's likely to take many months. The start of the trial is a major news story right now, as a look at Google News shows. Prioryman (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per above. Trails have an ending, which is the 'news'. This is just the start, which is not. Wait until the verdict. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His arrest was posted last year, btwLihaas (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Being arrested, and a start of a trial, are far apart in importance. When he was captured, he was a major fugitive on the run for years.  The start of his trial is in no way as comparable as a notable fact. 86.163.80.226 (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Prioryman. These trials are rare enough to still be major worldwide news, and it helps that we've got a very thorough article on this one. Khazar2 (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- For most notable trials in the past we have waited for the verdict, not the beginning.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - To me this is the difference between ITN being a current news ticker and listing of events that have encyclopedic-inclusion importance. Yes, it is news that his trial started, but in 10 years it will be the Verdict that is the important information recorded in encyclopedias. Wait for the verdit, I say. 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs)
 * Wait for the verdict. I find Rhodeisland's comments persuasive. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Carlos Fuentes

 * Conditional support with better update. Oppose for now Major figure in world literature, but Muboshgu below me is right that this is unlikely to be improve enough to post. I've started work on citations and updates, but I doubt I'll have the time to rewrite as much of this as needed. Let me ping WikiProject Lit for help. Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose 83 year old man dies, happens to be famous, but not in such a way that he changed the scope of his field. Article is in bad shape, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Without a doubt one of the most notable Spanish language authors in years. Major figure in literature across all Spanish-speaking countries, not just Mexico. Although the article could be better, I always vote assuming a scenario where the article would be up to par.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The full article appears to have been rewritten and sourced now. It could use more expansion discussing his work from scholarly sources (I'll try to get on JSTOR and do more of this tonight), but it no longer seems to have orange-tag level problems. Fuentes is named by most sources I've looked as Mexico's most significant novelist, and an influence on all Latin American literature through his role in the famous Latin American Boom. I'd also ask that per the ITN criteria, editors take into account the quality and length of the update this received in the past 48 hours: . Khazar2 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Followup - Some scholarly sources discussing his major works have now been added to the article. Khazar2 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I'm familiar with Fuentes work having studied it in college, he was one of the biggest literature figures in Latin America. Secret account 01:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Low level of consensus, news getting stale.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to get non-Angleo notabes on the main page. In the interests of lglobalising beyond the systemic bias it is good to post thisLihaas (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Still ready - Appears to have five supporting editors and one oppose on minority topic... are more comments needed? If so, let's solicit them before this gets even more out of date. Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

New French PM

 * 'Oppose. We do not post Cabinet appointments generally, which is what this is. The French PM's powers are few and the BBC has previously referred to the ex-PM being the equivalent to deputy PM in a Parliamentary system. So, nothing important. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose for the same reasons as Strange Passerby. In particular since for the time being JM Ayrault will form a kind of tarecaker government until the legislative elections in a few weeks' time (the result of which we'll obviously post then). Khuft (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- There is common precedent not to post unelected leaders.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not really true. Do you think we won't post Prince Charles' eventual coronation? That said, I oppose in this case for the reasons given above and because I have a feeling that President Hollande may be at the centre of a number of ITN-able stories over the coming weeks - we ought to be choosy. Formerip (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, I hadn't thought about that. Although I still oppose.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Strange. Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd normally support if the PM is in a cohabitation with the president. He isn't. – H T  D  12:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Palestinian hunger strike

 * Support, but maybe the blurb could be improved: A hunger strike involving over 1600 Palestinian prisoners ends after Israel agrees limits to detention without trial. Formerip (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: but the blurb needs to be modified; mostly for neutrality, hence I agree with FormerIP. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The text saying there's been a deal to end the hunger strike seems to be referring to events in 2001. I'm puzzled. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, however the article needs to be updated and if long enough it can have it's own article.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose unless and until the issue I raised above is resolved. --Dweller (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may need to be more specific. What text is it that refers to 2001? Formerip (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "2012 mass strikes" deals with this nomination but it's clearly not updated enough and has cite tags .___. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The suggested link above is to Palestinian prisoners in Israel --Dweller (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've given the article an update. I don't think it matters that much exactly where in the article we link to, though. Formerip (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support if blurb is rewritten to remove the non-neutral "inhumane conditions". Khazar2 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  00:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Syrian election

 * Oppose we shouldn't be posting rigged elections. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to judge whether it's rigged or not, but we can edit the blurb to say that it's been condemned by international observers. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tyrannus Mundi. I checked the archives; for the 2010 Myanmar elections, the blurb read as follows: "Opposition parties concede defeat to the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party in Burma's first elections for 20 years, after the National League for Democracy boycotts the elections." I guess something in a similar vein could be written for the Syrian "elections". Khuft (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that elections are on ITN/R, I don't see the value in posting them to ITN/C before the relevant articles have been updated. —WFC— 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it ironic that some users oppose the election ticker because it lends "undue weight" to elections, yet the current ITN has effectively become an election ticker - give that 4/6 (and soon 5/6) stories are elections-related! Utterly absurd. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference being, that after a few days all these elections will have disappeared from ITN, while the Election Ticker will always be there, even when there are no current elections of note. Khuft (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems fair until you take a look at the National_electoral_calendar_2012; if there are not changes to ITNR guidelines, and if I'm doing my calculations correctly, an election will always be part of ITN at 80-90% of the time during the year in ITN. In fact this year we have hardly had an ITN template that did not include an election of one sort or another since Kiribati! Colipon+ (Talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the ticker, do it in the relevant section. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support without clause pending update it's not up to us to decide what elections are legitimate and which aren't. The fact is that the Syrian election will receive more international attention than the Serbian election (or some bloke kicking a ball into a net 60 times), and we owe it to WP readers to post material that they are actually interested in. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (that bit in brackets should be the case, but probably won't be)


 * Support pending results and sufficient article update. It seems ludicrous to discount an election because some observers view it as being rigged. And honestly, will anyone listen to Colipon about the ticker? The opposition arguments are not very strong in my opinion (although I will admit I'm biased). B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the Russian legislative election, 2011 was marred by allegations of fraud but nobody suggested that we pull it because of that fact. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, discuss the ticker in the relevant section instead of spilling it into every election nomination. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. No less important than any of the other elections the last couple of days. __meco (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support whenever official results are available, with a blurb that highlights the controversial aspect of the election. Khuft (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can highlight the controversy. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No need for the blurb to address anything other than results.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * esults due soonLihaas (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way that this can be saved so that it will not be deleted by AnomieBot tomorrow?  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bam. It has. Now what? --Τασουλα (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now we wait for the results, assuming that they haven't come out yet.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting in "Syria elections" into google here comes up with: "Syrian elections boycott", "The farce of the Syrian elections", "The Middle East Channel: Taking Syria's elections seriously": FYI, sounds utterly confused situation at the moment and it's unclear when the results will be announced (But I think we can all be assured of who X is going to be). --Τασουλα (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well we know one thing, this X is a powerful being. If he/she wins the election, World War 3 will likely start soon. Hopefully that doesn't happen. Oh, and Support for the reasons stated by Meco, after the update and the results. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 05:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as a parliamentary election in a sovereign country. Nothing sets this apart from the parliamentary elections in other countries, and those who dispute it's significance because the election is rigged clearly have a point here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * due tomorrow, also the 2nd para info can be added to th pageLihaas (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Salutations to the Honorable Mr. X.--WaltCip (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am a keen supporter of X. Even when he isn't standing, I always spoil my ballot by writing his name in one of the boxes at random. Formerip (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Even for though the election may be rigged, it is significant who it has been rigged for. LukeSurlt c 22:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "Rigged" doesn't mean "non-existant" Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, well, we're inching closer; seems like the official results have been announced today on the Syrian Arab News Agency website, with the slight defect that instead of providing the numbers according to party lists, they provide the full list of everyone who has been elected, without stating which party they belong to. The opposite problem of having X, is having 250 Syrians you've never heard of... Khuft (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How abut "Winners are announced in the parlamentary election in Syria?Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think that would help; the article would have to be completely re-written then. By the time that would be done, some split according to party lines will probably be available somewhere. Khuft (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone cut-and-paste renominate this again at the end of the day? I will be away.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

2011–12 Euroleague
– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove "winning their first Euroleague championship since 1997" that trivia i available on the team page (or should be)
 * Its also NOT updated, there is no prose update to the article.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * but the phrasing about not winning for x years or since x year is also in the MCI blurb. Shouldn't we be consistent? Oh, and BTW, UNITED FOREVER! Rhodesisland (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Man City's was special. It was like 40+ years. Now I don't wanna go down the "when is the boundary for specialness" but compared to Man City's drought this was significantly shorter. Olympiacos has also been strong in the semifinals in the last half-decade; Man City only became competitive three years ago.
 * (With that said, I heard that Olympiacos also fought through an epic comeback.) – H T  D  14:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would be interesting to see a European basketball story on ITN. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is in fact updated if you look in the lead, it is the same amount as the Premier League article, and about the blurb it is the same as the blurb City have which was posted and appears on the main page.
 * In the interests of conistency for ITN articles we should not be slective in choosing a "4-line update" requirement sometimes but not others. Both should not be posted, and abjotu insists below that a bigger algerian update i not enoughLihaas (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I'm all in favour of decent updates and all, but in an article which anyway contains little prose, I think it's much more important to make sure all tables and numbers are up-to-date than requiring a precise 4-line-update in prose. I'm assuming our readers would anyway be mostly interested in the plethora of tables and numbers than in potentially worthless descriptions. In terms of blurb, I'm in favour of a shorter blurb; 1997 is not so long ago after all. Khuft (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In terms of overall fan base, this does not come even close to NBA or the Premier League. I would argue that all five top European football leagues have many more international fans than this league - and we only post the Premier League. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as it's a very important basketball competition on its own. Comparison with any other sport, especially football, is a comparison of apples and oranges and doesn't fit within the ITN standards for sports established here. If you judge by using a football league as a decisive criterion, then I'm afraid that only football stories will suffice to go on the main page. On the other hand, Euroleague in basketball equals to the Champions League in football, not to the Premier League or any other national football competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose that this is ITNR is egregious. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  22:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it's egregious or not to be listed as ITNR is something that should be resolved elsewhere. Meanwhile, please provide a firm argument to oppose it with no invalid use of ITNR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR. if you don't think this belongs on ITNR, you should have addressed that earlier. This is not the time or place for that. However, the article is NOT READY. The update is only two sentences long. If you looked in the Premier League one, you would see that there was a thorough two three -paragraph update with its own section. The requirements clearly state that there must be a sufficient prose update, so to say you don't think that should apply would first need consensus.  B zw ee bl   (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is really good example of something that has managed to sneak into ITNR and really should be there. The proposal to include it got one supporter and no other commenters (Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_2). The BBC chose not to schedule this championship, but to broadcast it Internet-only, which gives an indication of how significant it is as a sporting event. On the other hand, we rejected this year's FA Cup final as not a big enough deal... Formerip (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * However, it was easily added to ITN back in 09 it seems without any objections, which is how ITN/R was mostly formed. Ignoring everything on ITNR that had insufficient discussion seems unnecessary. The fact that everything is done much more thoroughly nowadays does not mean we should reconsider everything. Most candidates on ITN/C a few years back only got a couple respondents, yet things were still posted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is the clear relative obscurity of this particular event. If there wasn't much discussion about including the Superbowl or the World Cup, then that's one thing, but this is another entirely. Formerip (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that most sporting events on ITN/R are not at such a high level of notability as the Super Bowl or World Cup, yet they were posted in similar fashion.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Formerip: You seem to point out on the inclusion of EuroBasket in ITNR, while this nomination is about the conclusion of Euroleague. Please, be sure that you know the difference between them when talking about it, but this is definitely not the right place to discuss the matter of ITNR anyway.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never come across anyone who does know the difference between the two things. What is it? Formerip (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize you were pointing to the wrong discussion. EuroBasket is a tournament for national teams, while Euroleague is for club teams.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think this will be a perfect opportunity to see where we stand on the issue of an ITNR item garnering somewhat significant opposition, and perhaps set a precedent for future postings of this sort. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On first look, this looks like an awesome idea (very easy to finally get rid of 2 GAA ITNR items! Two items, would you believe!), but there will come a day where people would be ganging up on the ITNR items one by one it'll be close to empty by this time next year. In sports, aside from gimmes (Olympics, World Cups, we'd be left with the the likes of European club competitions such as UEFA Champions League and the Heineken Cup, while North American-centric sports would've been wiped out. LOL at prospect of exclusion at ITN of the most significant championship series of club basketball. (heck, ITNR doesn't even have the most significant basketball tournament for national teams!) – H T  D  04:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is 'ganging up' on an ITNR item any worse than 'ganging up' to create it... it seems to me 3-4 users here already oppose this post; had all these users simply showed up at its original 'induction' to ITNR, it would have never passed in the first place. <P>I also don't suspect that popular opposition will bring down too many items. Maybe 20%-30% of the current ITNR content. But I think Hurling and Gaelic football are two examples of events that really need to go; that is not to pick on the Irish by any means. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's always someone who'd hijack these things for their own personal vendettas. Anyway, we'll see. – H T  D  22:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality alone, and before I'm accused of being anti-basketball note that I came close to opposing the Premier League season article on quality grounds. I would like to remind all editors, even the three who feel that their opinions now determine sitewide consensus, that under the current system article quality is the only valid opposition to an article on ITNR. In fairness at least one of those editors has tried to change ITNR itself, but in the meantime we need to make the best we can of what we have. Rather than try to get this specific article removed from ITNR, to instead deliberately disrupt ITNC to prove a point is neither constructive, nor collaborative, nor likely to achieve anything given that the article is not currently of high enough quality to be posted. —WFC— 18:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- ITN/R is a guideline that reflects the consensus of the community and must be followed, so if you want to oppose this on any grounds other than article quality, you need consensus to remove it from ITN/R first.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, you can doggedly cling to the hope that sometimes common sense wins out over officiousness and perverse outcomes are avoided. Formerip (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a selective application of the guidelines. The quid pro quo is that items on ITNR should have clear consensus for them.  The above discussion shows that this is far from the case.  The correct course of action in that eventuality is to strike its ITNR status.  As various discussions recently have alluded to that is almost impossible at present since minority voices tend to assert a lack of consensus as an argument for retention (the guidelines are premised on the opposite).  If something shouldn't be ITNR we shouldn't post regardless because someone managed to get their pet interests listed years ago while everyone else was looking the other way. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
 * However, I wouldn't put Euroleague in that bunch quite yet. Of the four that oppose, one provides no reason, one is based on an incorrect assumption, and one is based on article quality. So really, if the article and update are deemed sufficient, this only has one valid oppose.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Endorse Crispmuncher. The very principle of ITNR is that if an item is nominated every time it occurred, there is likely consensus to post it every time. Evidently with the above nomination, this is not the case. Strike from ITNR indeed. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one user has provided a rationale as to why the Euroleague championship in general should not be posted. That is not consensus to strike from ITN/R.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, the more comparable sporting event to the Euroleague is the Heineken Cup; the season article's page views is competitive vs. the H-Cup on match days. And the H-Cup is easily passed without much discussion in these parts. – H T  D  02:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, I think the point remains that, absent any sort of objective criteria, what is important and what is not at ITNR (and ITN) in general is entirely subjective and basically arbitrary. Arguments can be made both ways usually, as has been at this case. Both sides may well be convinced they are right, but there is generally no conclusion. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't think there's any criteria at all, on regular noms. – H T  D  02:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We can barely agree on whether this is notable at all, never mind making a decision on its place at ITN/R. As far as I can gather, this is hardly the pinnacle of the sport and cannot be guaranteed notable enough for a place on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 08:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note for Editors - A discussion has been opened on ITN/R to decide if this (and/or hurling and/or Poker) be removed from ITN/R doktorb wordsdeeds 14:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Cadereyta Jiménez massacre

 * Support per nom cmt; this has received a far bit of attention in the UK too. Gruesome. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- 49 deaths isn't always ITN-worthy, but having them decapitated and found on a highway is plain frightening.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Significant, high-profile, not centred on the Anglo-Saxon world, and widely reported. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Ohconfucius Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-state attacks of such a high toll would always get posted even in Iraq/afghanistan, so this is more notable. Though in the last week or so havent there been multiple finds adding to the weekly tally?Lihaas (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we know for sure who caused the deaths or is it just presumed? If it's not a fact we should add allegedly or some such qualifer. Same rules as apply to journalism.Rhodesisland (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article I sourced confirmed that Los Zetas claimed responsibility for the attacks. Other news articles from other sources are saying the same thing. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 17:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still say we should have included "allegedly" or phrase it like, "Los Zetas claim responsibility for" ; but that just might be my old-school journalistic sense coming out again.Rhodesisland (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011–12 Premier League

 * Comment I'm a football fan, and personal preferences for 1998–99 and 2005–06 aside, this has probably been the best season in the last 20 years. So my support for this going up can be assumed. But the prose is very disappointing in that article. Showcasing bare-bones prose and comprehensive statistics is not a good example for newbies who might stumble upon the article. It will inevitably go up sooner or later, and the subject matter richly deserves to, but I hope the prose is revamped before the posting admin clicks save. —WFC— 15:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, at least we know know where X is based. —WFC— 15:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All users in the vicinity need to start building a militia. It is our only hope.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What. A. Game! – H T  D  15:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow. Prose is still shameful... but wow again! I think the blurb should definitely mention the circumstances: greatest finish to a season ever. 1989 included. —WFC— 16:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the greatest sporting event I have ever seen in my life. Period.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a good change in ITN and it's interesting for many people around the world. Should be posted when the article is ready.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. Post ASAP (once updated, of course). Jenks24 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fucking post that shit'. I can't feel my hands. GRAPPLE   X  15:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a more related note, maybe what just happened should be mentioned in the blurb? Or is that unnecessary?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodbye X, hello City.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for all my excess comments, but I just realized that the section called Personnel and kits has an orange level tag, which will need to be fixed before this is posted, assuming that 2011-12 Premier League will be the emboldened article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the season article is too formidable to fix up in the short term, Manchester City F.C. or 2011–12 Manchester City F.C. season are easier to update. – H T  D  16:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, perhaps add ", their first top-flight championship since 1968"? Sceptre (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, absolutely f*cking unbelievable. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 16:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AWE$OME - post now. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  16:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support clearly notable football news. Should be posted as soon as possible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, suggest wording; In a totally unf*ckingbelievable end to to the season, Manchester City F.C. wins the 2011–12 Premier League, their first championship since 1968. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Blurb should mention that Joey Barton is an As*****.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that Joey Barton is an Asterisk? —WFC— 18:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I was in a pub which had both games shown on adjacent screens. Never known an end of season day like it. my heart is still thumping! Amazing scenes. Americans - THIS is why we love football. Notable? Not half doktorb wordsdeeds 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy support That was the most dramatic event in the history of premier league football. --Marianian(talk) 19:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, now that I've calmed down I've added some prose about todays events and fixed the issue with changes in captaincy. It's not perfect but should be good to go. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - though the blurb should include "two goals in injury time" and "first english title since 1968/in 44 years". Mentoz86 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 2011-12 Premier League is ready.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support No explanation necessary. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 19:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Major sporting event, international coverage. --   Luke      (Talk)   19:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Formerip (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support natch. The update could use a couple more refs though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment We really don't need a blurb mentioning the first title since 1968 or that indicates the way the club has won the title. Simple wording with maybe mentioning the second title in the club's history would be proper.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment actually it's very significant that it's taken 44 years to win this title, especially given a lot of our foreign readers may not even understand you could have two clubs in Manchester.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kiril I believe it is actually the club's third title. Jenks24 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is third.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's obvious that many editors have wasted their time posting here, and that we need better education on what ITNR means. Otherwise, why are there pointless posts like "No explanation necessary"? HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From ITN/R Page: "...the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted. NOTE: This is not intended to pre-empt other ITN criteria regarding inclusion, such as inclusion of unusual and particularly important events." It still has to be posted here, and we still need a consensus on posting it prior to posting it. Ergo, with an event as significant at this, you'll see all kinds of obvious support votes, including silly comments, blank comments, and overly long and drawn out comments such as "No explanation necessary", which I should get an "A" for effort on. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Better blurb, please Surely, no one actually believes this is the blurb that should go on ITN. Can we get something that sounds a bit less curt and a bit more informative? --  tariq abjotu  20:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about: 'Manchester City win the English Premier League, their first league championship since 1968'? It's still short, but at least a bit more informative without going into scores etc. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or: Manchester City F.C. clinches its first Premier League championship in 44 years by defeating Queens Park Rangers F.C. with two stoppage time goals.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted I tried to avoid some of the English variation complications by rewording the blurb, but I wasn't sure it was alright to say "The 2011-12 Premier League ends". Getting rid of the year, I instead went with "The Premier League season ends". I assume that is correct to say, but, if not, let me know (or just change it if you can). --  tariq abjotu  22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is "In association football" necessary?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe when ever a Football-related article is posted, ITN uses American/association/Australian ect to distinguish them from each other. When the Super Bowl was posted it said "In American Football..." --Τασουλα (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When football is mentioned, that I (reluctantly) agree with. But why have the first three words at all? It seems strange that we feel the need to disambiguate for the Super Bowl and Premier League. —WFC— 23:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that too. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Think there's a bit of redundancy in there, and "title" is probably more correct than "championship". Would "In association football, Manchester City win their first Premier League title since 1968" be more economical? Formerip (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would be correct since the Premier League is only twenty years old and its previous title was actually a Football League title. --  tariq abjotu  00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually yes that's correct. But also, it makes our current blurb incorrect, because City have won a number of league titles in the interim, most recently in 2002, as can be seen from the article.Formerip (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Use "top flight", then link it to English football champions. – H T  D  00:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not to clarify which "football" is being referenced; it's to clarify which sport is being discussed since, you know, not everyone knows what the Premier League is. This is done for sports other than football (of any kind), unless the sport is mentioned somewhere else in the blurb (e.g. by prefacing the winner with "tennis player" or "golfer" or it's apparent from the vocabulary used). --  tariq abjotu  00:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But for all other recent sporting events that have been posted, when the sport has not been specified in the name of the event, it is not specified in the rest of the blurb either.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like which ones? (Other than the Kentucky Derby. I noticed that one, basically when it was put up, but because it said "ridden", I let it go as that suggests it's a horse race. However, in the past [like in 2010, the last time it was put on ITN], "In thoroughbred racing..." was added.) --  tariq abjotu  02:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bahrain Grand Prix does not mention auto racing, and saying Formula One is like saying Premier League.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Grand Prix". "Formula One". Both are recognized as regarding auto racing. I definitely think "Formula One" is more recognizable to people who don't follow the sport than "Premier League" is. Further explanation seems unnecessary, especially when the story isn't the outcome of the race, but rather the protests. (Same goes with the Los Angeles Dodgers story.) I wouldn't be shocked if you found a true sports story that didn't mention the sport, as consistency is not at 100 percent here, but the point is this is not, nor has it ever been, exclusive to football stories. For some events, especially individual achievements, it's much easier to just mention the profession (e.g. "American golfer"), but that's not always possible. For examples of where this "In [sport]..." has been done before, you have to go back a bit of time since we don't post sports events often, and many that we do post have the sport in the name of the event: "In auto racing...", "In baseball...", "In basketball...", "In Gaelic football...", "In golf...", "In cycling...", "In tennis...", "In ice hockey...". These are all from the past year. --  tariq abjotu  03:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems good enough of an explanation for me. Thanks for discussing!  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Carroll Shelby

 * He was a giant in his field, granted, but I think that's going to be a tough sell, especially given the spate of recent death postings on ITN. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Can someone put a template up for this please Edit:Thankies ^_^) --Τασουλα (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - Am I missing something? He only raced for one year (perhaps two seasons if there are such in racing), only competed in 8 races, and didn't win any of them. How does that make him a legend in the racing community? Honestly confused. 01:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that make him a legend in the racing community? I'll answer that for you - 3 cars - AC Cobra, Shelby Mustang and Ford GT40. Donnie Park (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He was known as a race-car designer, not driver.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...the winner of the 1959 24 Hours of Le Mans, a fact you overlooked. Donnie Park (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, I did miss that also. I was looking at his Formula One stats and the biggest win of his career is buried in his bio.Rhodesisland (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Terrific contributor to motor racing, widely admired, and his legacy continues today, but he died of old age. Shelby is notable. His death isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with HiLo48; He was significant in the auto industry, but his death doesn't have "major international impact that affects current events" (from ITN/DC criteria). His death didn't make news headlines, and the only articles that I could find were buried. The article has yet to be updated with a "Death" section as well, which is a requirement for posting. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He only has to pass one death criteria to be posted. You admit that "he was significant in the auto industry," so shouldn't that mean you support by criteria #2?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support there are plenty of less notable deaths and events that made it into ITN, Mr Sendak for example; we even had had world handballing championship mentioned earlier this year. It should be noted that Mr Shelby was influential in the field of sports cars, as well he helped to contribute to Ford's first victory at Le Mans, so to the automobile industry as well as to sports cars and Fords, he is no doubt is highly influential. Donnie Park (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sendak had been healthy and died of an unexpected stroke. Not the same. I don't dispute Shelby's notability. But his death isn't notable. HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, had Wikiepdia existed at the time when his arch nemesis Enzo Ferrari passed away, there would had been a tremendous support to get that nomination listed. Donnie Park (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hypotheticals never help nominations. HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As has been articulated above, this person does not meet many, if any, of the criteria for front page inclusion. Not an important enough death. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose same reasons as Doktorbuk mentions.12:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: WP:ITN/DC requires "at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death." I don't see that in this article. --RJFF (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All nominations are proposed assuming that the article will be updated. The article is not a reason to oppose, just a cause for concern.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: doesn't this highlight a weakness with ITN/DC?? He was clearly notable in his field (DC#2), and we've passed many other recent deaths on that very criteria. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: for people like me who have never heard about his person, could the blurb at least be changed to "Automobile designer Carroll Shelby dies at the age of 89" or sth similar, in case this goes through? Khuft (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose he is a legend who revolutionized the sports car industry, but he's an example of a person that impacted an relatively minor subject, thus a less global impact and notability than some of the people who we listed lately. Dying of old age from a "very lengthy illness" doesn't help. Secret account 22:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- Please focus on the death criteria. The only valid opposition to make is why he is not notable in his field, which I think would be a ludicrous argument. There is no way that he doesn't pass death criteria #2.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- Someone has to set this straight: expected or unsurprising deaths do not diminish the nomination unless you are trying to pass it through criteria #3, which should not be the case here.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- I know, consensus is against posting this, but no matter how bad you think the death criterion are, they clearly state that only one criteria has to be passed, and at this point there is no one arguing that Shelby does not pass criteria #2. The update is one paragraph in length, which is considered sufficient by the criteria. The article is B-class, so it is good enough to be posted. You can remove the ready tag if you believe that the update is insufficient- although preferably you should just add to it- or if you believe that Carroll Shelby was not "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field."  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough of a consensus, so I've changed the tag from "ready" to "admin call needed" just so it's clear for any potentially passing admin (who may not be familiar with ITN works, we've had a few of those in the past) that it shouldn't simply be posted without judging the discussion. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Bzweebl that this person most definitely passes ITN/DC #2, and as such should be posted if we consider those rules sacrosanct. If we oppose it then perhaps it is due time that we revisit the death criteria. I personally believe ITN has become too much of a 'memorial' section lately, with a new death posting every couple of days. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how sacrosanct those death criteria are intended to be. My understanding is the item should meet at least one of them to be eligible for posting - nowhere does it say that meeting one of them guarantees posting without regard for consensus. It isn't the equivalent of ITN/R. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has always been my understanding too; ITNDC is merely criteria that need to be met for an item to be considered for posting. It is not a gimme. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not ready. There is no consensus to post this. This needs to fit one of the criterion in order to be considered for Main Page inclusion, but that's not enough for it to be posted. --  tariq abjotu  06:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I have been under the wrong impression for a while. Perhaps this could be reflected in the criteria, or is this something obvious that I should have realized?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Orbit Tower

 * Comment - I'm unmoved by the "could be" a centerpiece--do we know if it will be? When we do, it might be more relevent to posting. Also, did we post anything about China's Bird's Nest when it was unveiled? It seems to be the most relevent comparision for this posting.Rhodesisland (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to have been nominated.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one fudgingly ugly tower. I've seen practically no stories about this thing in the media (and I'm glad not to of done >_<) but despite my personal distaste, it is architecturally interesting; but "could be" is not great for ITN. Also, I would of thought the main stadium would be the centrepiece, they usually are. --Τασουλα (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how often do you ever see architecture stories in the news? It is not a widely reported topic, and this is probably one of the more major stories to come out of the sector as of late, so it is needed to balance out the big three on ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was going to mention that actually, that has no baring on my view here; I was just personally glad ;) I agree that there aren't many stories of this type around though. --Τασουλα (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom once orange tags on article are dealt with. Khazar2 (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Would be good to cover this as the Olympics are now less than 3 months away. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the run up to the Olympics, there are plenty of structures being put up and this is no likely to be different to anything else. Donnie Park (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - it's a minority topic, it's a quite unique building, Lord Coe and the organisers of the Olympics believe that the Orbit Tower will be the focal point of the area post Olympics. Interestingly, it wouldn't be the first time that a tower is the most interesting feature of an Olympics venue: the tower of the Helsinki Olympic Stadium became the icon of the 1952 games. Khuft (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's either unique, or it's not. It cannot be quite unique. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, it's unique. Khuft (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait until it's actually open to the public. This was just showing it off to the media. Besides, the article needs some serious work (lots of orange-level tags) before it could be posted anyway. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree about defining the "moment it opens to the public" as the key moment to highlight this news. If we think back to Burj Khalifa, the defining moment was the unveiling by Sheikh Mohammed al Makhtoum, not whenever people were thereafter allowed to actually get into it. Khuft (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I updated the two problematic sections on Construction and Use. I think the article should be mostly fine now. @Bzweebl: you included the tag re: needing an expert from the WikiProject Architecture - not sure whether you were referring to other chapters of the article as well? Khuft (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The main problems have been solved.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Despite all the money that has been wasted on it, this is not the most significant Olympics-related structure in London (that would be the main stadium), nor the most attention-grabbing tall building currently being finished there (that would be the Shard at London Bridge), and it's arguably not even the most prominent public sculpture project of the moment (the statue of Genghis Khan at Marble Arch, for example, rivals it). AlexTiefling (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what you mean by "signficant". While the Bird's Nest in Beijing was significant from an artistic perspective and created by the renowned architects Herzog & de Meuron, the London Olympics stadium is pretty standard fare. Khuft (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support obviously, a major new landmark completed in London, considered "Britain's largest public sculpture", with plenty of coverage in both popular media as well as the (much less considered on Wikipedia) art world. Would be great to see ITN lifting the bar, and paying a milligram of attention to something other than crime, politics and sports. -- ELEKHHT 08:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question is this considered sufficient consensus in this case then? It's a minority topic after all... Article looks fine (indeed better than many of the election articles). Khuft (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- This is on its last day of discussion and there does seem to be a low level of consensus. Does any admin want to judge if it's ready?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. This was a close call, but I see sufficient consensus for a minority topic.  —David Levy 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Spain anti-austerity protests

 * Support- That is quite a large-scale protest.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * i cleaned up the 212 page but its quite blatantly pov and poorly written.Lihaas (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning support - I have to say, the article is a total mess - basically just a ticker of everyday happenings updated on an hourly basis without giving much thought to due weight and overall significance. I would change to full support if the article is fixed to remedy these issues. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as the article is basically a cronicle of the the protests since early 2011. The 100.000 number is just an estimation according to the article; nothing seems to differentiate this from any other day of protest except the estimated high number. Also, the 1 year anniversary of a protest movement in Spain is not per se noteworthy in my opinion. Unless the number is confirmed more precisely, and some info is added about special events that happened on that day (did they have special rallies? attack the police? cook a giant paella? destroy a few bank oulets?) I'm not willing to support this. Khuft (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Saudi Arabia-Egypt

 * Comment: what is the 'minority' category that this supposedly belongs to? Colipon+ (Talk) 02:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. I was thinking business at the time, because for some reason, one of the articles about it that I was reading had it in their business section.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - already posted this incident a week ago. Nergaal (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can recall, we posted the scandal itself, not the complete reconciliation that is happening now.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." The article has an entire section that has no content and is tagged as such, and the section will need to be expanded or removed before the article can be considered. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Any other opinions? The article has improved a lot since. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as a good ending for a conflict that was important to be on the front page recently. Decent update. Secret account 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a very important event in geopolitical terms, certainly. As the conflict emerging was posted the resolution is of no less importance. __meco (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Not comfortable linking the Ahmed al-Gizawi scandal with the aid. Source does not mention Ahmed al-Gizawi. Unless a source exists drawing a direct connection between the aid and the specific diplomatic incident, the blurb shouldn't be posted. Also - another critical fact, only 1 billion of the 2.7 billion in aid is coming from Saudi Arabia at the moment. The other money hasn't been released yet, so we can't say Saudi Arabia has "sent" Egypt 2.7 billion USD. Wikifan Be nice  08:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've altered the blurb. While the sources do not mention the name of al-Gizawi, they do mention the recent diplomatic crisis: "An Egyptian official said last month Saudi Arabia had agreed to transfer funds including the $1 billion deposit by the end of April. But a week later Riyadh recalled its ambassador following the street protests in Cairo set off by the arrest of an Egyptian lawyer in Saudi Arabia." --BorgQueen (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm saying there is not enough evidence (IMO) to link Saudi Arabia's aid to Egypt - which isn't a new development - to the brief diplomatic incident. Saudi Arabia's financial commitments to Egypt is much bigger than this al-Gizawi scandal. It just seems rather ORish to circle the aid around the scandal when reliable sources aren't framing the news that way - example. And as I said before, Saudi Arabia has not sent 2.7 billion USD in aid. In fact, some of the aid is not "being sent." At least 700 million USD will involve the purchase of Egyptian treasury bonds. Wikifan Be nice  11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The CBS news article you mention as an example in fact describes the al-Gizawi controversy in great detail. And the new blurb does not say the aid has been "sent". Please feel free to suggest a better blurb, if you have any. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep reading: "Egypt's Minister of International Cooperation, Fayza Aboul-Naga, said the deposit is for eight years and is part of Riyadh's previous commitment to Egypt." Much of the "aid" Egypt is "receiving" from Saudi Arabia was agreed to prior to this diplomatic incident. The source does not explicitly tie the incident and the aid. And like I said before, Saudi Arabia is not "beginning to send 2.7 billion in aid" - the 2.7 billion is part of a financial aid package, a sizable chunk of which includes the purchase of Egyptian treasury bills. This really isn't a huge story, I wish more discussion was allowed before posting. Wikifan Be nice  21:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gunnar Sønsteby

 * Question- I have never heard of him, so I'm not quite sure what to make of this nom yet. It would help if you posted some sources proving his death's effect on current events, because just proving how important of a person he was is irrelevant to any death criteria.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to only have started making rounds, here's one from The Telegraph to show it's made Anglosphere news but it's the only one I saw without resorting to digging. FWIW I'd support with a some further news stories to back it up, the most decorated war hero of a nation is probably a better news story to stick up there than a guy who (re)invented a haircut. GRAPPLE   X  23:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will wait a little longer on this one before I decide my opinion, but good chance I'll support.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a couple more: The Washington Post and The Scotsman. Lampman (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on interpretation of ITN/DC, and also the fact that this has no impact on current events per se. I guess an argument could be made about him being "prominent in his field", but then... what is his field? World War II resistance? Colipon+ (Talk) 02:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not claim his death has an impact on current events per se, I nominate him according to part 2 of ITN/DC: being an "important figure in his...field". He was arguably the most important figure in the Norwegian resistance, certainly the last of any importance to die. The Norwegian resistance was also among the most important in Europe (see Roosevelt's Look to Norway speech.) Lampman (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - WHO? can we keep the ITN away from becoming RD? Nergaal (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful."  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * weak support we keep talking of western this and that as bias, but we should realise that its biased/racist to exclude that too. As something thats non Anglo/French/American western this should be notable IF a source thats RS cites him as the most decorated NorwegianLihaas (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ITN is not an obituary. Old (albeit notable) people dying of natural causes is not news. Moreover the article isn't actually in the state that I would consider presentable as a front page item, and there has been no prose added to reflect his death (WP:ITN/DC requires at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death!) --RJFF (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose might've been important in Norway, but in the grand scheme of things doesn't seem important enough. I can list a ton of commanders from WWII who were more noteworthy.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   15:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have no doubt that our colleagues over at no.wikipedia would put this on their front page. Here we need to temper our world-wise attitude somewhat and the balance of argument doesn't fall on inclusion. Not convinced that he has the notability for front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 04:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Our colleages at no.wikipedia in fact have a separate "recent deaths" box on the main page, just below "Did you know?", thereby preventing the ITN section turning into the Obit section. Not to diminish Gunnar Sønsteby, Maurice Sendak, Vidal Sassoon and Adam Yauch, but perhaps that should be considered here, too. 31.185.38.198 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Algerian election

 * Support, but why does the blurb say Bahamian? I think it's a mistake, so I fixed it.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll tell you what, we need to watch out for this X. S/he appears to be taking over the democratic world. —WFC— 11:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that. Also I support. All hail X.--Τασουλα (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would be slightly concerned about X rather than hailing him/her. I'd like to know a little more about X before accepting him/her as ruler of the democratic world.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for X, but it's the FLN who have (clearly) won. --RJFF (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * X always comes third from last. Formerip (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Result, reactions are there. Ready to be posted? --RJFF (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks for your work.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. That's not prose and parts of the article read like the election hasn't occurred yet. --  tariq abjotu  22:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Election and results sectionand reactions updated. Its standard prose accepted on articles. (unlike France that was posted without anything)Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash

 * Support ~ With news reports saying all 47 people are dead, I would say support. I would say that regardless mainly because of the circumstances. It being the first crash of the new plane and on it's second flight.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- a significant number of people died in a modern airliner. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 08:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – significant number of deaths, unusual circumstances (not just a regular commercial flight), large amount of coverage.  I ♦  A  08:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – unusual and notable event. Crnorizec (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But no mention of the number believed dead? Rhodesisland (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speculation? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Vidal Sassoon

 * Oppose to prevent ITN to becoming a memorials section. Also, old, expected death. Not extremely influential globally. Though not low notability either. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yeah I've heard of him, but I don't think he's that influential. His age and natural causes make me less inclined. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, far from having the international significance to be on the main page. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * UndecidedNot sure how influential he was in the field, just because he had his own product line (even Briteny has that) doesn't mean he was one of the largest names in his field. Someone convince me. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - His influence on style (rather than just products) in the 1960s was unparalleled. I honestly cannot think of a more important hair stylist. It's a minority field, to be sure, but quite a significant one, and one in which Sassoon was the leading figure. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending update as usual needs a whole paragraph and ideally some reactions from other prominent people. If you read his article you'll see defined a number of styles in the 50's and 60's, and "revolutionized the art of hairstyling.". I strongly oppose ITN/DC #2, but right now it stands and this passes it. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- As much as I hate to put a hairstylist on ITN, he does pass criteria #2, as IP pointed out. Additionally, whether or not the death was expected or not is irrelevant unless he is trying to be passed through criteria #3, and when it is the case that the unexpectedness of it makes it have a larger effect on current events. That is not relevant in this case, so the argument should not be valid.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "whether or not the death was expected or not is irrelevant unless he is trying to be passed through criteria #3"; this was the same argument I was trying to make re: Sendak and Dick Clark. Thanks. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * though I still haven't made up my mind about Sassoon....Rhodesisland (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * strong support and highly notable in his field. Far more than that kiddie writer. Also minority topic (culture) and not an election for ITN ;) Hes definately known within the commonwealth and europe. Dint even know hes still alive, houghLihaas (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sendak, the kiddie writer, in his field--children's literature and education-- was a giant! Ask any elementary/grade school teacher or librarian. He was known the world over in his field. I'm not saying Sassoon wasn't, just pointing out that Sendak was huge in his field.Rhodesisland (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasnt globally noteworthy as a giant in his field as Sasoon was, and far more globally noteworthy.
 * Anyhoo marked ready as updated.Lihaas (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Counters systemic bias with respect to women, and a giant in his field. Has there ever been a more significant hairstylist? I'm not sure. Read the NYT obituary--he basically was the person who changed women's haircuts from the stiff, molded styles before the 1960s to what they are today.  Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly meets ITN/DC #2. I understand why people are opposed to putting an elderly hair stylist up, and accept that it isn't entirely snobbery. What clinches it for me is that this is a field which we could do with improvement in. —WFC— 11:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Again: ITN is not an obituary, old (albeit notable) people dying unsurprisingly of natural causes is not news. And marking this as ready although there is no consensus (consensus is not majority) to post it, is unacceptable. --RJFF (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have re-marked as ready – if an admin judges that there is not consensus then the article should not be posted, but update-wise the article is ready. 11:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support He revolutionised the way women looked. There would have been no Swinging Sixties and possibly no sexual revolution. Leaky  Caldron  12:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support One of the stand out figures of his profession, and a profession that is widespread enough and used by enough people to lend obvious notability to its leading figures. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Support I do not get why are we opposing an influential hairstylist from entry, even non-fashion people know who he is, you see his name on TV adverts and in the supermarkets, if for example Ralph Lauren or Karl Lagerfield die in the future, are we going to oppose a nomination as well, we can try but it will be controversial to. Donnie Park (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Posted. A picture is available; if someone could update the template accordingly, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're seriously posting haristylists on the main page now? FFS, let's just make ITN an obituary and be done with it! Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But then we'd miss out on all of the elections... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion to reevaluate ITN/DC, there were no takers. *shrugs*. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will happily take on that discussion, IP98, because I think the state of affairs in ITN has trended worse over the past year or two, overreporting deaths, elections, and sporting results/records. Can you link me? Colipon+ (Talk) 19:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that if one is serious about changing the balance of articles that appear on ITN one either needs to make a strong effort to nominate other types of news. As it currently exists, there is a consensus to post (in no order) 1) elections; 2) deaths of highly notable people; 3) ITNR sports; and 4) disasters where significant loss of life occurs.  Opposing these things mat or may not work on individual articles, but opposing alone won't change the balance. There may or may not be support for more articles on say business, to pick a random topic, but its really hard to say since such articles are very rarely nominated.
 * Failing that, I feel we need a community-wide discussion about the project's purpose. Our balance of postings certainly does not correspond to the media's preferences, but that may or may not be a problem. Whatever conclusions 5 editors (being optimistic) reach are very unlikely to carry enough eight to make significant prescriptive changes, which is what seems to be asked for above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a dearth of nominations is partly to blame, but I would also note that an underlying 'mission' is stated at the top of the ITN page - to cover topics of "wide interest" that has recently appeared in the news. The pattern of posts (deaths, elections etc.) is not the result of bad faith, but it is just a systemic issue. Don't know what could be done prescriptively... It is also true that perhaps we all "oppose" too easily. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We post surprisingly few deaths, something like less than 10 this YTD. I'm going away for a few weeks on Saturday, when I get back I plan to try and build some actual statistics on number of posts by category, country, region, etc. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My comment here may be relevant. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama endorses Same-sex marriage

 * Meh. An in-interview endorsement isn't really a monumental presidential action... Juliancolton (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's one man's opinion, hardly ITN worthy. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't make much sense since it's not legal at federal level anyway. Brand meister talk   21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Though it doesn't change policy, it signals a major shift, as he is the incumbent POTUS, in an election year no less, and this was totally unthinkable in the 2004 election (Howard Dean was seen as out of the mainstream for supporting civil unions). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose has no effects, no major news, private opinion anyway with no change in law.  Snowolf How can I help? 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "one man's opinion"; granted that one man is possibly the most powerful man in the world (Prez of the USA) but still not even any discussion of policy change let alone an actual change. Now IF he were backing a constitutional admendment to grant the right...that I would SUPPORT here and IRL! Rhodesisland (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not a policy decision, and not something the executive is capable of enacting in any case. We didn't cover David Cameron's support for same-sex marriage, and he is responsible for, and capable of leading the passage of, national legislation on the topic. Dear though this topic is to my heart, I honestly can't say this story is worth the column inches. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not to undermine the importance of his remarks to the LBGT community, but they don't change anything. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is not a policy change, merely an opinion change. No far-reaching effects on current events whatsoever.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - For some inexplicable reason this doesn't seem like an uncommon opinion to hold in today's culture.--WaltCip (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No actual impact on anything in the world. Plenty of people share Obama's view. Doesn't change anything. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pre-election interview is not front page news. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant event, globally reported. It seems many of the Opposes above are from Americans tying this to the US election cycle. Such editors need to accept that Obama is a globally respected person whose opinion has made headlines all over the world. The comments are BIG! HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama's a democrat, and is highly unlikely to be reelected judging by the most recent polls. That inherently reduces the value of his opinion, which I suspect is why a lot of people object. Juliancolton (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. No. I strongly suspect you're both wrong. I'm a Brit, and my opinion is not related to the US election cycle. It is not related to the President's party affiliation, nor to his chances of being re-elected. It's just that this is only him expressing an opinion. It wouldn't matter if he were a Republican, or an Independent, or sure of a landslide, or at the end of a second term. It doesn't matter because same-sex marriage is a legislative matter, and the Presidency is an executive position. He can say the moon is made of green cheese if he likes; no 'Green Cheese Amendment' will be forthcoming. HiLo48, please don't presume that the 'Oppose' entries are all from Americans; Juliancolton, please don't assume that all those opposing this posting actually take the President's views less seriously, or oppose them. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alex - I quite deliberately said "many", not "all". Please read more carefully what people write. I appreciate your opinion on Obama's views, but don't package it in ill-informed bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @JC. Obama is leading in the polls. I suggest sticking to known facts, not introduce what looks like badly informed opinion. Leaky  Caldron  19:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why so serious? :) Juliancolton (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your comments to be highly intolerant and rather biased, HiLo48, and I'm also quite sure you would be adverse to posting this if the current President were - say - Bush. Also, Obama is actually trailing in multiple polls as of late. --WaltCip (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Intolerant in what way? Biased in what way? And no, I wouldn't say the same thing about Bush because he never had the international respect Obama has. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How you managed to shoehorn another statement about Americans being provincial into a U.S.-based nomination where nearly everyone but you opposed is beyond me. But, nevertheless, bravo. --  tariq abjotu  02:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How you managed to fail in your attempt at a personal attack by failing to name your target is beyond me. Was it me? I really can't tell. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not new to Wikipedia. I'm sure you've figured out by now how indenting works around here. --  tariq abjotu  08:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be frank, my impression is that indenting often doesn't work, so my question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Only one man's opinion, in one country. Interesting, but not that important globally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A very powerful and influential man, and one regarded very highly internationally. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Apart from published opinions of recognized experts of their field, personal opinion of anyone–no matter how influential–are highly unencylopedic. Even if such positions might find a mentioning in the author's biography, I vehemently oppose posting anyone's personal opinions to ITN, not even the Pope or the POTUS. --hydrox (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Syrian election

 * Oppose we shouldn't be posting rigged elections. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to judge whether it's rigged or not, but we can edit the blurb to say that it's been condemned by international observers. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tyrannus Mundi. I checked the archives; for the 2010 Myanmar elections, the blurb read as follows: "Opposition parties concede defeat to the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party in Burma's first elections for 20 years, after the National League for Democracy boycotts the elections." I guess something in a similar vein could be written for the Syrian "elections". Khuft (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that elections are on ITN/R, I don't see the value in posting them to ITN/C before the relevant articles have been updated. —WFC— 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it ironic that some users oppose the election ticker because it lends "undue weight" to elections, yet the current ITN has effectively become an election ticker - give that 4/6 (and soon 5/6) stories are elections-related! Utterly absurd. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference being, that after a few days all these elections will have disappeared from ITN, while the Election Ticker will always be there, even when there are no current elections of note. Khuft (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems fair until you take a look at the National_electoral_calendar_2012; if there are not changes to ITNR guidelines, and if I'm doing my calculations correctly, an election will always be part of ITN at 80-90% of the time during the year in ITN. In fact this year we have hardly had an ITN template that did not include an election of one sort or another since Kiribati! Colipon+ (Talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the ticker, do it in the relevant section. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support without clause pending update it's not up to us to decide what elections are legitimate and which aren't. The fact is that the Syrian election will receive more international attention than the Serbian election (or some bloke kicking a ball into a net 60 times), and we owe it to WP readers to post material that they are actually interested in. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (that bit in brackets should be the case, but probably won't be)


 * Support pending results and sufficient article update. It seems ludicrous to discount an election because some observers view it as being rigged. And honestly, will anyone listen to Colipon about the ticker? The opposition arguments are not very strong in my opinion (although I will admit I'm biased). B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the Russian legislative election, 2011 was marred by allegations of fraud but nobody suggested that we pull it because of that fact. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, discuss the ticker in the relevant section instead of spilling it into every election nomination. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. No less important than any of the other elections the last couple of days. __meco (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support whenever official results are available, with a blurb that highlights the controversial aspect of the election. Khuft (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can highlight the controversy. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No need for the blurb to address anything other than results.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * esults due soonLihaas (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way that this can be saved so that it will not be deleted by AnomieBot tomorrow?  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Maurice Sendak

 * Oppose - while a great author and book (and I was considering noming this myself), death by old age + limited volume of work would make this a poor ITN item. --M ASEM (t) 13:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's the "limited volume of work"? Dozens of books, several major awards, several films -- doesn't seem limited to me. And he was old, but he was active (for example, giving radio and TV interviews) until shortly before his death. --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, one reason this death took me by surprise: although the man was 83 years old, as recently as January 2012, he was a guest for 2 consecutive nights on The Colbert Report. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear: my immediate first thought on hearing this news was that it should be an ITN. But if we're sticking to our guns here on the level of importance for a person's death to be noted in ITN, Sandak's passing doesn't meet those (and hence why we have the Recent Deaths part); in particular, if a significant component of ITN is the ability to update an article to reflect the ITN aspect (as was the case in the more untimely death of Adam Yauch), death from complications from a stroke at 83 isn't a whole lot to write home about. I do hope that the extended obits can be used to flesh out the article even more in the future. --M ASEM (t) 17:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against posting this story - another argument is systemic bias. AFAIK, these children's books didn't make much headway outside of the United States and Western Europe. But still, if we were to 'stick to our guns' about deaths criteria, #2 might apply: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Though, how we define this "field" is crucial. Is it "Children's books"? "Literature"? "American literature"? Colipon+ (Talk) 20:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in terms of what entertainment/creative people generally get posted in ITN in terms of a recognizable body of work. Basically, I would suspect most people could only attach one, maybe two books to his name, even if he was much more proficient than that. --M ASEM  (t) 13:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every famous author is as prolific as Stephen King. I imagine that people remember F. Scott Fitzgerald for only one book.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can someone point out why this author should be considered notable? From the article, I get the impression that he is well-known mostly due to the controversy surrounding his books. How significant are the awards he has received? Nanobear (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When the New York Times obituary starts with "Maurice Sendak, widely considered the most important children’s book artist of the 20th century..." that explains it all Support Secret account 14:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really have enough data to support or oppose, but I think what New York Times means is that he was the most important children book artist in the United States (it's a national paper, after all). Nanobear (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With New York Times obituaries it is a exception, as they are globally known and recognized for the quality of their obituaries covering notable subjects, more than any other source. To be the subject of a extremely detailed NYT obit indicates a global impact. Here's another source that explains his impact The GuardianSecret account 15:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph source doesn't suggest he's widely considered the most important children book artist. Nil Einne (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that The Telegraph source mentions that he was the most important, I said that the source further explains his legacy in children literature, honestly better than the NYT piece. Secret account 06:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Recieved the highest honors possible for his field of work which spanned over 60 years. far more worthy to be on there than MCA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.139.222 (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't commented on this page a lot recently, but I think this one's got to be a support for reasons stated more elegantly above than I could myself. — foxj 15:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe that if we were to post every person who dies of old age who made a contribution to his or her field of expertise, we would be posting deaths left and right (and in many ways, we already do.) There is a link to "Recent deaths" and I think that serves the readership well. Much like elections, deaths are given extreme undue weight on ITN. Unless the person is absolutely exceptional and has widespread global appeal (Michael Jackson or perhaps if Obama were to die in office), I am opposed to posting deaths of individuals otherwise considered very notable in their field. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment This is why I think we should not list any obituaries on ITN. too much bickering on who is worthy and who is not. This was the policy up until a few years ago. Rare exceptions were made for heads of state. We should return to these rules.--173.49.255.227 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, even under the rules in 2006-2007, there was still a lot of bickering. We just posted less Nil Einne (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We bicker about a lot of things at ITN. Deaths are actually one of the few areas where ITN has reasonably useful criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The criteria was a good effort at making the deaths postings more steamlined in ITN, and I do applaud the editors. I think such criteria would be useful for elections ITN postings as well. However, the problem remains that these 'low-hanging fruit' posts on ITN get through much more easily than stories that perhaps require more digging, contextualization, nuance, and does not easily fit under a 'category', making ITN essentially a platform for reporting election results and obituaries. I believe this skew compromises the otherwise objective process in which other sections of the Main Page are evaluated. I digress, perhaps it is better to bring up this discussion elsewhere. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral; Yeah, well loved the world over I think is what summarises Maurice Sendak and her works. I was read her stories countless times when I was younger but really...83? Nothing untimely about that. And about her being more noteworthy than MCA, that's just your opinion at the end of the day. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maurice Sendak's penis would like to have a word with you over your use of pronouns...-- Jayron  32  16:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...In his dreams --Τασουλα (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support According to the New York Times and the BBC, possibly the most important children's author of the 20th century. Can't get much more important in terms of general fiction than that. caz | speak —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Weak support He is best-selling author. Widespread appeal? As an person -- not as much as most, but many of his books are noteworthy; 'Where The Wild Things Are' is in the top-ten of "all-time bestselling hardcover and paperback children's books" as published by Publishers Weekly. You go to a libraire in France for instance and I'll guarantee 'Max et les Maximonstres' will be there; I should know because I bought a copy from one not too long ago. Likewise in the Arab world and its respective language. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the lead of the "Wild Things" article: "The book had sold over 19 million copies worldwide as of 2009, with 10 million of those being in the United States," and it has been adapted into an animated short film, an opera, and a live-action feature film directed by Spike Jonze." --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Significant in his field, probably the most famous and well-respected children's book author still alive (well, until he wasn't). -- Jayron  32  17:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs update currently one sentence. Do a couple of paragraphs with reactions from prominent people in his field, and you can probably clear ITN/DC #2 and get an easy support. Note that op-eds don't pass WP:RS so if you want to call him the "most important children's author" you'll need to cite something that does. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely significant in the world of children's books. His name should be right up there with the likes of Dr. Seuss. Probably most of us has had at least one of his books as a kid. There was also a popular children's TV show based on a series of books he illustrated. Definitely significant enough in my mind for ITN. As for the update, right now I think that's all that can be said until more information is released, so I don't think it should matter. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 21:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- As long as he was "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field," then this should be posted. In my opinion, there is almost no doubt that he has fulfilled this requirement. All arguments that he died at an old age are futile, because in no way is that a death criteria.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - According to the New York Times and the BBC, possibly the most important children's author of the 20th century; just becuase he was old doesn't mean his death was "expected"--death by stroke is very sudden and can have no other noticable indicators. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A prominent person in his field and a death which has been covered in numerous media doktorb wordsdeeds 08:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until the death section is expanded. Two lines doesn't cut it.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once sufficient update is made. Major figure in a major field, receiving international coverage (e.g., Al Jazeera ). Khazar2 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support big name in his field. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   17:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per the number of sources calling him the most important children's author of the 20th century. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  20:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Syrian election

 * Oppose we shouldn't be posting rigged elections. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to judge whether it's rigged or not, but we can edit the blurb to say that it's been condemned by international observers. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tyrannus Mundi. I checked the archives; for the 2010 Myanmar elections, the blurb read as follows: "Opposition parties concede defeat to the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party in Burma's first elections for 20 years, after the National League for Democracy boycotts the elections." I guess something in a similar vein could be written for the Syrian "elections". Khuft (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that elections are on ITN/R, I don't see the value in posting them to ITN/C before the relevant articles have been updated. —WFC— 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it ironic that some users oppose the election ticker because it lends "undue weight" to elections, yet the current ITN has effectively become an election ticker - give that 4/6 (and soon 5/6) stories are elections-related! Utterly absurd. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference being, that after a few days all these elections will have disappeared from ITN, while the Election Ticker will always be there, even when there are no current elections of note. Khuft (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems fair until you take a look at the National_electoral_calendar_2012; if there are not changes to ITNR guidelines, and if I'm doing my calculations correctly, an election will always be part of ITN at 80-90% of the time during the year in ITN. In fact this year we have hardly had an ITN template that did not include an election of one sort or another since Kiribati! Colipon+ (Talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the ticker, do it in the relevant section. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support without clause pending update it's not up to us to decide what elections are legitimate and which aren't. The fact is that the Syrian election will receive more international attention than the Serbian election (or some bloke kicking a ball into a net 60 times), and we owe it to WP readers to post material that they are actually interested in. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (that bit in brackets should be the case, but probably won't be)


 * Support pending results and sufficient article update. It seems ludicrous to discount an election because some observers view it as being rigged. And honestly, will anyone listen to Colipon about the ticker? The opposition arguments are not very strong in my opinion (although I will admit I'm biased). B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the Russian legislative election, 2011 was marred by allegations of fraud but nobody suggested that we pull it because of that fact. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, discuss the ticker in the relevant section instead of spilling it into every election nomination. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. No less important than any of the other elections the last couple of days. __meco (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support whenever official results are available, with a blurb that highlights the controversial aspect of the election. Khuft (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can highlight the controversy. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No need for the blurb to address anything other than results.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * esults due soonLihaas (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way that this can be saved so that it will not be deleted by AnomieBot tomorrow?  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bahamas election

 * Support when the article is updated.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is unfortunate, but seeing how the ticker has now lost traction, we run into the undesirable reality of having too many elections on ITN. Thus we now default to whether or not microstate elections should be posted and whether ITNR guidelines need to change. In this case, Bahamas comes close (perhaps not quite) to microstate level. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. If you have a problem with ITN/R, you will have to get it fixed first. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh believe me I have tried. For months. But given consensus-based decision-making model, any one editor can come and filibuster changes to a deeply flawed ITNR guideline. I am certainly not alone in opposing microstate election posts. The current state of ITN is ridiculous. It is now a full-fledged election ticker. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also in an election-heavy week like this one, we would be well-advised to heed WP:IAR. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep trying then, but if its on ITNR, it isn't going to be skipped over here merely because you can't get it off ITNR and want it to be. In other words, though your personal will is not being followed on ITNR doesn't mean that this is any better of a venue to get your personal will followed.  Keep trying at ITNR, because, though you have not had success there, you are actually less likely to have success here.  -- Jayron  32  18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I explicitly stated that many other users have voiced their opposition to current ITNR guidelines. Please do not construe this as "my personal will". Colipon+ (Talk) 18:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wheres the prose update requireD? Granted its better than the non-existant French update but its highly selective on ITN what constitutes an update!Lihaas (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Syrian election

 * Oppose we shouldn't be posting rigged elections. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to judge whether it's rigged or not, but we can edit the blurb to say that it's been condemned by international observers. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tyrannus Mundi. I checked the archives; for the 2010 Myanmar elections, the blurb read as follows: "Opposition parties concede defeat to the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party in Burma's first elections for 20 years, after the National League for Democracy boycotts the elections." I guess something in a similar vein could be written for the Syrian "elections". Khuft (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that elections are on ITN/R, I don't see the value in posting them to ITN/C before the relevant articles have been updated. —WFC— 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it ironic that some users oppose the election ticker because it lends "undue weight" to elections, yet the current ITN has effectively become an election ticker - give that 4/6 (and soon 5/6) stories are elections-related! Utterly absurd. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference being, that after a few days all these elections will have disappeared from ITN, while the Election Ticker will always be there, even when there are no current elections of note. Khuft (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems fair until you take a look at the National_electoral_calendar_2012; if there are not changes to ITNR guidelines, and if I'm doing my calculations correctly, an election will always be part of ITN at 80-90% of the time during the year in ITN. In fact this year we have hardly had an ITN template that did not include an election of one sort or another since Kiribati! Colipon+ (Talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the ticker, do it in the relevant section. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support without clause pending update it's not up to us to decide what elections are legitimate and which aren't. The fact is that the Syrian election will receive more international attention than the Serbian election (or some bloke kicking a ball into a net 60 times), and we owe it to WP readers to post material that they are actually interested in. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (that bit in brackets should be the case, but probably won't be)


 * Support pending results and sufficient article update. It seems ludicrous to discount an election because some observers view it as being rigged. And honestly, will anyone listen to Colipon about the ticker? The opposition arguments are not very strong in my opinion (although I will admit I'm biased). B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, the Russian legislative election, 2011 was marred by allegations of fraud but nobody suggested that we pull it because of that fact. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, discuss the ticker in the relevant section instead of spilling it into every election nomination. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. No less important than any of the other elections the last couple of days. __meco (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support whenever official results are available, with a blurb that highlights the controversial aspect of the election. Khuft (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can highlight the controversy. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No need for the blurb to address anything other than results.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * esults due soonLihaas (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way that this can be saved so that it will not be deleted by AnomieBot tomorrow?  B zw ee bl  (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Snooker World Championship

 * Support - it's ITN/R and it's not an election :-) The article could be further updated though. Khuft (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn, that was fast. I also tweaked the blurb. Nergaal (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly think the blurb was better before Torqueing (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "Ronnie O'Sullivan wins the 2012 World Snooker Championship." It's more concise, and scores are rarely included in blurbs. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bongwarrior, it wasn't a thrashing, it wasn't close, the score is somewhat meaningless, Ronnie won, full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this go on top? It's the most recent story? —WFC— 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I asked it in WP:Errors. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is the largest event of the year in snooker and will end tomorrow. The winner will get a quarter mil pounds. Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved from previous day
 * Ronnie O'Sullivan wins the 2012 World Snooker Championship.
 * Comment Sure, but it's still an ITN/FE.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only future by a day, it looks like. I don't think there's anything wrong with a slight head start, since the discussion will probably take at least that long anyway. Since I'm not familiar with snooker, I have no opinion on the matter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Or I could have looked at WP:ITN/R and noticed that it was listed there, making the need for a day-long discussion pretty unlikely. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It's now definitely over. Ronnie O'Sullivan defeats Ali Carter 18-11 to win his fourth title.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R and a very good update. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The update looks fine. The overall style of the article isn't to my tastes, but has helped ensure that the article has developed in a balanced way. —WFC— 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fahd al-Quso

 * Oppose- The only death criteria that could apply here is "the death has a major international impact that affects current events," but a single terrorist's death rarely (bin Laden being a notable exception) affects current events. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Bzweebl. Khuft (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ITNR Elections
With this exciting famous first opportuinity we could use the election ticker mentioned in the Hungary nomination below and fleshed out at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections.Lihaas (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. For the avoidance of doubt I support a ticker, and I agree that this is a logical time to launch it. But can someone show me how this ticker will look, and clarify how we intend it will work? From what I can make of the discussion there was general agreement that there should be roughly four or five elections on the ticker at once, but the only mock-up I've seen has twelve elections including quite a lot of ugly subscript. —WFC— 07:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Was there really a consensus for an election ticker? Seriously? Let's not forget these links are going on the main page, where we're supposed to feature quality content, selected facts , speedy updates. We don't want links on the main page to crappy content. Wikipedia is not an election ticker, there are plenty of websites for that.  Night w   11:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What if the page hasn't been updated?
 * 2) What if it's a one-sentence stub with nothing to help the reader at all?
 * 3) What if the article is riddled with POV problems, an edit war, original research, a copyright violation??


 * Sorry if these questions were already answered in the discussion. But to be practical for these particular cases: France and Greece both have tags on them, and the Serbian one needs a cleanup.  Night w   11:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues were discussed, but could use more discussion and your more than welcome to add there. I think we decided to give it a trial run (i guess for a month) and then go back to the drawing board to evaluate it. The usual update quality would still be needed...and we decided that some local election could sometimes fill 1 of the slots there. The french election tag was for the large candidate part not sourced. Armenia is sorted and i havent checked our serbia yeLihaas (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC) t


 * Oppose for now - as I mentioned on the discussion page, I am willing to be convinced that an Election Ticker may be a solution to the "small country elections" dilemma, but trying to implement it in a rushed way, without a discussion having occured here (remember WP:CONLIMITED - a limited consensus by a small group of editors may be overridden by a broader consensus of the whole community) is in my opinion quite unacceptable. In particular, as WFC highlights, there isn't even an example of how the Election Ticker would look like for the 4 elections mentioned below! Also, major points are still totally unclear - which elections will be highlighted? Only current ones? Also upcoming ones? After how many days will elections featured in the Ticker be removed? Why wasn't the Election Ticker discussed here earlier, instead of 1 day before these elections? Khuft (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in Hungary below several days ago. The outlien so far whichi suggested above, would be a trial version. Everone is welcome to discuss and proposals hae been invited as well. Further the utl;ine would look as it does on that page. Take off one line of ITN add the link to the calendar with the word "Elections" in bold and then follow by the names of said 4/5 coulntries linking to the election page. Again subject to quality of the article. the other stuff of changing will be per ITNC/ITNR nom's an d changed with a time frame we discuss for the next election due to be posted. This is why we call for discussion. Alternatively at this rate wwe wil hae 4 political/election articles taking 4 different slots.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Main page is not a place for trials, especially one with such a small consensus to do. We'd be better off served skipping the smaller countries.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   15:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * htheres not "better off" without consensus either. Its ITNR so when the update is done it will be poste.dLihaas (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Question/Comment How do you intend this to work? Not some Javascript scrolling text I hope. I didn't know there was a huge discussion (too huge to read) going on regarding elections. Just post them as per norm. So what we got 4 in a short time, they'll expire off fast. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose to test (and also see my comment further down) I wasn't convinced by this proposal at the discussion page, and the consensus presently exists only among a very small group of editors (four or five I think). There needs to be a much wider consensus to enable any kind of trial on the main page. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- I have always viewed the ticker as the perfect compromise between bias towards and against smaller countries, and agree that this would be the excellent time to do it due to the large amount of elections going on right now, as Lihaas pointed out. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Another ticker mock-up
A mock-up was asked for, so this is my best effort at one. I am relatively inexperienced, so the formatting is essentially a copy of the previous one with some slight changes. B zw ee bl  (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like this could work, but cities like London is a bit much. I thing that "parl." and "pres." can be used to decrease the space taken. Nergaal (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was suggested that a slot would be left open for elections that were not those of sovereign states, and that this would be selected on ITN/C by nomination. The London one was just a guess as to what might be posted in that slot. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem. It would make sense to create a special regime for elections were it ever the case that ITN ever posted so many elections it couldn't cope, but that doesn't actually happen. On the other hand, it does not make sense to create a regime whereby poor quality content will get linked from the front page. Formerip (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, elections on ITN have been recognized as a problem for years and have been discussed many times, so I think you would find consensus that this is a problem needing a solution. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion closed with three times as many editors opposing that proposed change as supporting it. That's not a mandate. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the opposition was not to change itself, but rather to the proposed change. There is consensus that we need change, but the problem is getting people to agree on what change, which has proven to be impossible, one of the reasons we are currently having this discussion. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion where this consensus was established? Formerip (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not established in one discussion per se, but can be assumed from the countless discussions that have taken place regarding changes to ITNR on elections. Reading through each discussion, it is clear that the vast majority have indeed supported change. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's just nonsense. The correct thing to do would be to launch a discussion on the talkpage under the header "should there be a change to the way ITN deals with elections". That's how consensus is determined. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair enough. I have no problem with you doing with that. It seems like a fine idea. B zw ee bl   (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, somewhat strongly. The whole point of tickers is to unify a single event with continuing updates, such as the Olympics, which is its original usage. It has since been appropriately applied to other events as well (e.g. Arab Spring), but I feel something like this is what leads to abuse of the ticker. It should be reserved for special circumstances; specifically events, not for thematic purposes (such as elections in this case).  Spencer T♦ C 00:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I've found the heavy risk with tickers is that the article being linked is not being continually updated with ITN-worthy updates; I'd wish to minimize this altogether by being careful about what events to ticker in the first place.  Spencer T♦ C 00:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The ticker is not for thematic purposes. It is to limit the large amount of elections that completely swallow up ITN quite often. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in principle (beyond the fact of it lacking consensus which I stated above). I have two primary reasons for opposing this: firstly, it gives undue weight to elections by prominently marking them off in a special field. People often accuse ITN of being too politically oriented, and this would hardly help. Secondly, it fails to solve the problem of microstates being given undue weight&mdash;which was the original point at issue&mdash;since it reduces them along with all other states to the same place. Yes, this doesn't preclude important elections from being posted to the main section, but it still leaves microstates (potentially along with other things like regional elections) on the same basis as other states. If that's not an issue, then why are microstates an issue at all? (For the record, I don't think that they are, since I'm inclined to trust the criterion of sovereignty rather than editors' assessment of the notability of a state, and I'm also very much in agreement with Tariq in his comment about notability here.) Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature. Personally I haven't gone through that in full yet.  I made some initial notes but considered it not worth pursuing further while the very same nominator made a separate proposal to can ITN entirely.  I may or may not be the only one there, but any assertion of consensus seems premature while for the bulk of the discussion the whole of ITN has been under a sword of Damocles.  Now that discussion has closed leave this one a bit longer for consensus to form.  This would be a big change and it has to be seen to be truly reflective of the balance of opinion. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC).
 * Theres the futility o that "vote! Wikipedia is not a democracy, its based on consensus discussion on content not personaility politics because none person wants to exact revenge on another so votes aainst. This is not city council!Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with personalities and frankly I am sick of this attitude. AGF does not place anyone beyond criticism and bandying it about too readily (as you have both with me and others recently) is itself not assuming good faith.  As for not a democracy how is that remotely relevant - you don't know what my points are.  I have four pages of A4 considering this in detail and was only part way through when I stopped because I saw no point in investing another couple of hours on this while you were fighting on another front to axe your very proposals.  It is not against anything to point out I have a substantial number of arguments left to make and I need a little more time to make them. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I share some of your frustrations with the user in question and agree he can brush up on his Wikiquette, but the 'election ticker' was the work of multiple editors with diverging views, including myself, that advanced this idea as a middle-ground consensus solution workable to almost everyone. I anticipated backlash once it is suggested here because it seems like a couple of users hijacked the agenda and is trying to push it onto the rest of the community - but in reality there was a lot of deliberation from all sides before it was put to the test here. I urge you to at least skim through the discussion to see if we can seek any common ground on this matter and keep personal comments away from this page. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, but I'd like to respond to the opposition first. It is fair to say that consensus is 'premature' on this issue. There seems to be two issues - a number of editors do not see there to be a problem at all, others see there to be a problem but doesn't agree with the solution, others yet would like to advance this solution. On a balance, it seems the users discussing this issue are split on quite a few levels, but that leaves us with the undesirable status quo. If we are saying that there is not enough consensus for the elections ticker, there is perhaps even less consensus for retaining the status quo, as it has been raised over and over again as a problem by a very wide range of users. The ticker is the closest we have come to a solution on this issue, and is supported by a number of editors whose opinions originally differed (particularly between Bzweebl, Lihaas and myself) - representing a lengthy process of discussion, consultation, and compromises, and reflects the best available 'going consensus' on this issue. <P> Moreover, right now is an opportune time - as there are about five to six elections going on this week, all of whom would normally pass the ITN/R threshold. It would mean that potentially 4/6 stories on ITN this week would be election-based, something that I am sure is not desirable to any of us. We can do this trial run an see what the reaction is from the community at large (not just the ITN/C regulars) and then work from there. <P>Moreover, there needs to be some recognition from the 'pro-status-quo' users that there is obviously a problem, and instead of continuing to simply filibuster all changes, to suggest a workable change. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just putting a band aid on the problem. The discussion you cite wasn't enough to gain consensus, mainly because it was tucked away into a little subpage.  There ought to be a full RFC on the issue.  As for having 4 or more election stories at once, I think we can use common sense and not post the minor ones.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   14:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm moving round to Hot Stop's "common sense" view on this, but I would note that Colipon's comment is slightly misleading, since few editors other than the three he cites participated in building that proposed solution at all. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read that discussion, it would seem there are four users who supported the idea from the get-go: myself, Bzweebl, Lihaas, doktorb; WFC was leaning towards favouring the approach, judging by his responses to my list of 'challenges', and HotStop was opposed to it but now seems leaning towards support. Khuft was ambivalent. That leaves with basically only you that opposed the idea then and continue to oppose it now. That is not to say that your opposition isn't warranted, but I don't think my characterization is misleading. In fact, given that all these users began with such divergent opinions, I actually think it's very impressive how far we've come in achieving consensus. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, leaving aside the two or three people whose views you've extrapolated, I'm correct in saying that there are few people other than those you brought up who participated. Also, as far as being warranted goes, I'd say that referring to the objections as absurd, irrational, and patently ridiculous does not really show a good faith approach to the matter. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer/Background info: Please see discussion here Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Elections: may address some of the issues brought up by editors opposing this plan. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's please also remember that the original key concern, as far as I understood it, was elections in microstates (Kiribati, Palau, Barbados, and the like). None of the below countries counts as a micro-state; even Armenia, the smallest of these four, is way bigger and more important than any of the microstates that cause so much criticism. Thus, using the original problem (should micro-state/small country elections be highlighted on ITN?) to advance the Election Ticker in this case is simply misleading. As for the argument of having 4 elections at once - well this simply happens sometimes. If 4 items are election items on ITN for a couple of days, I think we will all survive - we just have to find enough other stories the next few days so that the elections "fall off" the ITN list... Khuft (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I absolutely hate the parentheses, albeit marginally less than the subscript. Just put the relevant countries up and let those who are interested click through. —WFC— 19:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I originally was going to do that, but then the issue came up that Serbia was having two elections, and it would be weird to write Serbia twice. I didn't want to make this distinction of presidential or parliamentary only for Serbia, so I put it for all of them in the parentheses. Do you have any alternate suggestions that might work better? B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I would make Serbia a special case. —WFC— 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of new mock-up

 * I like that a lot more. It shortens it to one line, which is crucial, and eliminates the clearly unpopular parentheses. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The current state of the postings is undesirable to most. I have revamped the election ticker to make it less convoluted. While I understand there is considerable opposition to this proposal I still consider it much better than indiscriminately slapping every single election happening this week as we have been doing. Colipon+ (Talk) 00:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the problem why not simply remove elections from ITNR (a solution I increasingly support), since this also indiscriminately slaps every single election onto ITN? To reply to your point in another section: you stated above that the present ITN is already an election ticker; if that's the case then how would this change it? The point about undue weight is that elections are being given a special field of their own, not that they're present. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two things. 1. it reduces the weight given to elections, particularly in a week like this one. 2. It is meant to abide by the principles of curbing systemic bias by maintaining small-country posts, and does not arbitrarily discriminate based on a country's size and influence (a sticky problem from the past). This marks a concession from both sides of the debate.<P>I recall in the ITNRE 'backroom' discussion, you had fairly consistently argued for retention of existing criteria (i.e. status quo), yet when that option proved unpopular among the majority and we collectively proposed a ticker, now you are opposed to it and saying that you support removing elections from ITNR altogether. Instead of opposing everything that is thrown your way, could you propose some sort of workable solution that is aimed at advancing instead of derailing consensus? Colipon+ (Talk) 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone changes their opinion to support you, then they're "advancing consensus"; if someone changes their opinion but remains in opposition to you, then they're "derailing consensus"? That sounds a lot like the "consensus" has already been decided from the beginning. The entire point of consensus is to drop unpopular opinions and look for a compromise. As for being consistent, you'd do well to re-read what I stated in support of the status quo, which was explicitly very tentative. I didn't want to go into discussions of particular people, per WP:PERSONAL&mdash;discuss suggestions, not people&mdash;but since that's been broken repeatedly I feel I'm justified in making this response, and now that I've done so I'll withdraw from this discussion. I'm not comfortable with the way this discussion has turned into accusations of irrationality. I was only making points that I felt deserved to brought up, and I'll happily support whatever result is reached. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean for this to be personal, and I am sorry if it sounded like that. I am a little frustrated that we haven't been able to reach a solution that fully workable to everyone, and simply tired of endless criticism without an ounce of constructive feedback on how to move forward. All I am saying is, if you don't like any of the ideas, then propose another workable solution. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to disagree. Seeing a few versions of the ticker now (which, BTW, all miss the Greek election results - certainly of more importance than the London ones), I do feel that putting blurbs of the elections themselves on ITN is preferable. The hugely important French presidential elections get totally obscured - the election of F Hollande was however one of the most notable event in the last few days, and certainly more notable than some of the items that would remain listed on ITN (e.g. the Bolivian nationalisation, which was noteworthy at the time, but outdated by now). In all, I feel that the drive for the election ticker has become disconnected from the original problem - i.e. that the elections in micro-states have undue weight on ITN (none of the currently discussed elections is a micro-state election). Now it's being argued instead that the election ticker should be used to combat the amount of election blurbs on ITN - a totally unrelated question! Ultimately, it seems to me that the election ticker has become a solution in search of a problem... Khuft (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Armenia

 * Ready- Update is thorough and this is ITN/R.  B zw ee bl  (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] France

 * This is jinxing lol – H T  D  11:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Most notable election of this day. --bender235 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but wait for article update - although Sarkozy has conceded, we don't have a vote breakdown yet. Formerip (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Reuters is calling it based on projections. This alone is enough for a major headline, though i understand waiting for results. for sure, a no brainer once votes are tallied, if not sooner.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.131.36 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. BBC are calling it, too. Seems to be accepted across the board. GRAPPLE   X  18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Nicolas Sarkozy has conceded on French TV. Khuft (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Several news sources and agencies have declared his victory. Article in great shape and updated. --hydrox (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. Enough update at this point. We should add the photo as well. --Tone 19:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Elections results ALWAYS need a prose update (Reactions, etc) and confirmed results which has by precedence been grounds for WAITING on the result. All the support in the world doesnt mean anything for ITNR (which doesnt need any support or oppose (other that on the update)). Currently there is NO UPDATE whatsoever and nothing confirmed. The 1-line on the lead is also unsourced and says "projected"! PULL ASAP -- What quantifies this as "enough update"Lihaas (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Pull (though a bit less melodramatically than above) - the body of the article hasn't taken into account the second-round results at all. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC) &mdash; More than that, as far as I can tell the vote counting has not finished yet at all and the results given are merely an estimate. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The update's fine. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * where is hthe update? Also do not remove tags without a reason.
 * This elucidates that you dint even read the page to say theres a "fine update". because the page is large doesnt mean its updatedLihaas (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the section called result. And grow up. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek

 * Thea rticle is ready with 99% election result counted...more so than the rubbish of france. But what with the western propoganda tool that this is it wont be posted everLihaas (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support posting. Article seems fine to me. Blurb should be "New Democracy wins a plurality in the Greek legislative election." What do you mean by western propaganda tool? Khuft (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull. This is the wrong story because, in the context, it is not possible to win on a plurality. The story will either be the formation of a new government - which, if it happens, will not involve New Democracy - or the failure to form a new government. Formerip (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, New Democracy did receive more votes than any other party (= the definition of plurality commonly used here), and due to a bonus of 50 delegates awarded by Greek law, even received more seats in the parliament than it had before. The fact that it's unable to form a government (which was only announced after this was posted) may yield more ITN-relevant news going forward, but doesn't change anything concerning the results of the legislative election itself (which is the news we want to convey to readers via the bolded article). Khuft (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can "win" via a plurality in single-winner elections, but you can't normally do so in legislative ones. Better say instead of "win", use "emerges with". – H T  D  05:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This highlights one of the inherent weaknesses of having blurbs for everything on ITN. We are forced to pick and choose what we deem to be the most important 'one-liner' to describe the event, when it's probably better to just have the link and get people to click through the nuances. Right now the Greeks are still having trouble determining who will form government - posting any blurb is premature. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Serbia

 * Comment. Could we hold off posting these nominations until there's actually a, well, nomination here? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the purpose of nominating these was to make a point that if we don't implement the ticker, we will be forced to have four elections posted because they are all ITNR. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you! Alternativly we could have a ticket rmoved if there are no current worhy elections to post. (we should add that to the discussion proposal)Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Probably can slide Syria in here as well. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bahamas election is also this week. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point should be clear enough now. Ticker or not, we need to change ITN/R for elections. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cautious Support - article could be further updated, but at least seems to include the end results in terms of seats (though a bit of cleaning would help; sometimes the coalitions are mentioned, sometimes the individual parties). Blurb could be "The coalition Let's Get Serbia Moving led by Tomislav Nikolić wins a plurality in the Serbian parliamentary election." It's fine discussing the election ticker and all, but could we also not forget the 4 elections themselves? Khuft (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article Let's Get Serbia Moving is in a deplorable state. An article like that should never be front-page content. Please remove the link. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated Let's Get Serbia Moving a bit, so that it looks slightly less ugly. In any case, the page of Nikolic's original party Serbian Progressive Party doesn't look much better or contain much more content... Khuft (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, but this is one of the reasons it is inappropriate to indiscriminately slap each and every election onto the main page - the primary purpose of which is to showcase articles. These are not articles that represents what WP has to offer. In this case if we continue to insist posting it, I would move that regardless of whether it's LGSM or SPP, that we de-link those to avoid embarrassing the entire Wiki community. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an interesting note: this story is not even on ITN on the Serbian Wikipedia. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, different wikipedias seems to have reached different consensuses or working codes on how to operate. On German Wikipedia, there's a Yulia Timoshenko ticker/stable link - a topic that hasn't been discussed lately here at all, for instance. On English wikipedia - as far as I understood the discussions - the consensus is towards a rather broad publishing of election results, with a heated debated about which countries are too insignifant to highlight. The Serbian parliamentary election would have made the cut in any case according to what I understand is the current state of the debate. Khuft (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather vs. Miguel Cotto

 * Oppose No boxing title should appear here until the sport(?) of boxing creates a single, proper international body to define such things. And every wieght division? I don't think so. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This nomination is not about every boxing organization's title bout for every weight division. – H T  D  11:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't? Then you're selecting just one fight from one management body. No way. HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a boxing entry on WP:ITNR (would you believe lol). It stated we'd use discretion on what fight to include. Just think of this has a national domestic football league, out of about 200 national domestic top flight leagues, there's only one on ITNR. – H T  D  12:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No domestic football league I'm aware of has a couple of other leagues in the same country claiming to also be the championship league. Boxing is such a mess it's impossible to know what's really important. HiLo48 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible. You'd only have to look at the media coverage (which was the point of the now-deleted-since-it's-like-deferring-to-ITN/C-ITNR entry). I don't think a WBO flyweight title match held in Thailand will be reported in RTE unless there's a riot or something. Same thing with an Australian football championship in PNG, or a basketball championship in Scotland, or a rugby championship in Peru. – H T  D  12:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Only one of many (70 to 80) possible boxing titles, and something of a fringe sport nowadays in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fringe sport? The article has more page views than some ITNR items' finals. – H T  D  11:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, fringe sport. Here in the United States at least, boxing was at one point nearly a national pastime. It now ranks somewhere between UFC and professional wrestling in our sporting consciousness. Of course there is some interest when a big money/big name prizefight rolls around, but the "sport" as a whole is largely ignored. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think boxing is as a fringe sport in the US as say, ice hockey or even horse racing. Yesterday, this was the top story in US sports websites, eclipsing the Kentucky Derby, and the NBA and NHL playoffs. – H T  D  00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Mayweather is the most significant boxer today, and this was an important title defense. -- Jayron  32  12:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you say. Do the other boxing bodies agree? Do their current "champions" also agree? Boxing is a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't say a damn thing about it. I just report what the news sources indicate by the level of coverage this fight is receiving.  My personal opinions about boxing are irrelevent to whether or not this should appear on the main page.  Just whether or not this particular fight has been in the news to a significant level, and whether or not the articles have been updated.  That is my only criteria for deciding whether or not to support any particular item.  As soon as I start letting my personal feelings on the matter to affect my judgement, it isn't supportive of the ethos of Wikipedia.  -- Jayron  32  12:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would support posting the results of a "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao" fight (if that ever happens), mainly because of the level of media attention and prowess of both fighters. While Cotto is a great fighter, I don't think it's on the level of what a Mayweather/Pacquiao fight would be. Grading what is significant or not will ultimately be opinion-based, since almost every notable fight usually has one of the many boxing titles for each weight class on the line. From there, there isn't much else to go by other than opinions. That's why I can't remember there being any coverage of boxing in ITN for a long time. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the last one was Manny Pacquiao vs. Miguel Cotto. We got to have one Mayweather fight before Mayweather-Pacquiao, if that ever happens. Among of Mayweather's last 4 fights, this seems to be the 2nd most notable, after the Marquez fight which was opposed with the same illogical reasons (not yours). – H T  D  00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The last ITN posting of a boxing match that I can find was Pacquiao vs. Mosley in May 2011. Since then, there have been several other nominations, including one for Vitali Klitschko a few months ago. Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, because of the way boxing is structured compared to football/baseball/american football is (as in, with a regular season, playoffs, and championship), public opinion is what ultimately decides if a fight is significant or not, since it's the fans that will put butts into the arena seats, or pay money for the Pay-per-view. Boxing fans will have their favorite boxers, which will usually sway their opinion, and the casual fan will usually go with whether they've heard of the boxers in the match or not, or what friends/coworkers or SportsCenter says is a big fight. It's a terrible way of measuring it, but I don't see a better way to do it for sports like boxing or UFC. Personally, I think that most boxing matches just don't get enough attention to be ITN-worthy, even the ones I pay to watch. What would make a "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao" fight ITN-worthy in my mind is the fact that even though each fighter is far apart on the particulars of the match, you see a ton of media coverage about their disagreements or speculation on when/if they will fight, even though the match looks more and more unlikely every day. Fights like Mayweather/Cotto get attention around the weigh-in on sports websites/TV like ESPN, then the results come out, then not much after that. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- Regardless of what title this was for, it was one of the biggest boxing matches for a while now. This was one of Mayweather's biggest fights, and he is a modern sports icon. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Kentucky Derby

 * support we posted the Grand Natonal and the Kentucky Derby is a house-hold name in the world of Horse Racing too, HOWEVER the article on the horse that won is small and such. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very well known race. Notable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR but the link should be 2012_Kentucky_Derby and it could use a better update. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Once 2012 Kentucky Derby is updated, of course we should post (ITNR). By the way, is "jockeyed" correct? Jenks24 (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Should be "ridden". Thanks for picking that up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll Have Another and 2012 Kentucky Derby have both been expanded. Albacore (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support 2012 Kentucky Derby actually has a decent update to it.  Spencer T♦ C 19:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It doesn't get much bigger for horse racing than the Kentucky Derby. Should be a definite posting. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Epsom Derby may be bigger, but .... anyway, this is now posted on ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 FA Cup Final

 * Support. The oldest and most well-known national tournament in football. Nanobear (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose it might be old, but it's still a very narrow set of teams from an international standpoint. There are so many football cups globally and every one is special to someone. We already have Premier League for the UK on ITNR, so for this to go up, then 2011-2012 cup has to have been out of the ordinary. Was there an upset? Some scandal? Disqualification? What? --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose: fourth time? What's important about that? Happens every year, this isn't the champions league or anything of international impact in the sporting world. How about the NCAA and Orange Bowl events being opposed? See this in the same light. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Main difference between this and the things you're referring to is that this is a high-class professional tournament in a sport that is deemed to be the most popular in the world. Furthermore, it is completely needless to see it in the same light with a sporting events that definitely lack of professionalism and decent level of play.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're oversimplifying things here. The FA Cup is not the highest level of football competition even in England.  Yes, it involves professional teams, but most of the top teams don't put out their best lineups until the final.  Calling it a 'high-class professional tournament' doesn't agree with the fact the teams clearly view the EPL and the Champions League as far more important competitions, and hence put in more effort.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, in Kiril Simeonovski's mind, there are any low-class professional soccer tournaments? HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The A-League :) Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to John: You seem to make confusion between the FA Cup and the Premier League. The latter is a tournament played in a league system which identifies those teams who will compete in the European leagues and those who will be relegated in lower-classed leagues. So, the Premier League is a high-class tournament on the grounds that the other played in a league system are placed lower on the hierarchy in the English football. On the other hand, there is simply not a such hierarchy regarding the domestic cups. The FA Cup is the main domestic cup and automatically is the strongest one, though it is massive that includes participation of clubs in the lower leagues. Some may argue that the Carling Cup is familiar competitive tournament, but it's a different story and hardly comparable. Moreover, you mention the Champions League and the Europa League that are continental tournaments with the latter being a second-class tournament. I don't deem it appropriately to use them as a specific cutoff in this case, because they differ from the FA Cup in the system of play and the region that they cover. Lastly, this Cup is one of the very rare domestic football cups played in more than one country and the final game is usually followed by an essentially larger number of spectators of any football game in any other leagues throughout the whole season. Many always claim that ITN should document something that is important for the English-speaking readers, and though I don't agree entirely on it, this is something that obeys the scale towards it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill you've sidestepped my argument that whatever the importance of the FA Cup in English football generally, it's simply not regarded as that important by the top English sides that routinely field 'B' teams in the tournament while focusing on the EPL and the Champions League. Due to that I am not comfortable with labeling it a 'high class professional' competition.  I would agree with your last sentence; however, even in England I'm not convinced that the FA Cup final receives any more coverage than any one of several high profile league matches (e.g. the Man City/Man Utd match a week ago).  If you look at sports coverage today on websites it appears that coverage of the FA Cup final has already been superseded by coverage of EPL matches which will influence the league title.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a relative matter to discuss for the ranking, but I'm pretty sure that the English officials have a high regard for this Cup besides the significance of the Premier League. For the final game yesterday, Chelsea and Liverpool did not play with their 'B' teams and the game was followed by roughly 89,000 spectators at Wembley, which is the highest attended football match this season in the English football, and the main page of BBC Sports portal was shadowed with every single information about the game.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's doubtlessly considered important by English officials who market the event; but the EPL managers who field substandard teams for its managers clearly think otherwise (the final nothwithstanding). 89,000 attendance is an impressive number (if its actually true, as there were a number of empty seats at the stadium).  But there are 80000+ attendances every week in Spain and it's only a moderate attendance figure for US college football.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For Spain you're right, but last year we posted the conclusion of the domestic cup. BCS Bowl Game is something that I continuously oppose every year for many reasons, and last few times it was not attended by more than 80,000 spectators.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chelsea have won the cup four times in the last six years (seven in total, blurb is incorrect), so its barely newsworthy. If it were a lowly English team winning the FA Cup in unprecedented circumstances for the first time, then maybe I would support. But it's a Russian oligarch's plaything defeating a US sports corp; nothing to see here. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Top spots news here this morning; article has been very well updated. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  22:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's "here"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would guess Australia. Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one would think so looking at Mtking's user page, but it's not news at all where I am in Melbourne, Australia, hence my question. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As already noted, soccer does seem to have an awful lot of championships. If it's not in ITNR, it needs a pretty good explanation of why this occurrence is special. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there are other more important soccer awards every year. Nergaal (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support it's a widely followed event, that should be enough. But hey, at least we're being consistent now and not putting any non-ITNR events on. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is an important enough event in the huge football world that deserves placement. As for other important soccer events, sure we can have soccer at ITN more than once a year... __meco (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Liverpool was robbed. Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope we're not seeing a non-objective POV on display here ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support An important and historic event in English football doktorb wordsdeeds 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on! As has been previously pointed out, it's not ITNR, so you need to explain WHY it's "An important and historic event". HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the FA Cup. It begins in August and runs until May. It is the world's oldest football cup competition. It's notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So there's nothing special about this years comp compared with other years. It's not in ITNR. So not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Run-of-the-mill match that doesn't deserve frontpage coverage.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppose while I think this is more notable than the scoring record, having two soccer items on ITN would be complete overkill. -- Plasma Twa  2  10:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Especially since we'll have the winners of the Premier League in a week (per ITN/R). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Just in case it does get posted, can the posting admin please note that "Chelsea defeat" is correct in British English. Formerip (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems no worse than 2012 Kentucky Derby. Grey Hood   Talk  20:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Except that the Kentucky Derby is on ITN/R and this isn't. Nothing points to this "FA Cup" being unique compared to the others. Want the rather routine sporting event to pass the notability requirement while still being routine, go nominate it on ITN/R. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- I would have supported this, but the Premier League winner is coming up too soon, which is far more notable than this. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as this was substantially well-covered elsewhere. Replace this when the Premier League champions are known. – H T  D  00:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The FA Cup is featured in this Monday's Featured List, currently on the front page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the same grounds as Bzweebl: the Premier League will be up next week, and the Champions League not long after that. To an Englishman such as myself, the FA Cup means every bit as much and is arguably still the pinnacle of the season, but on a global basis the latter two are of far more interest. —WFC— 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Japan without nuclear power

 * Comment: While interesting, I'm leaning towards oppose because the reactor is temporarily shut down for maintenance (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what the article appears to say). If it were permanently shut down (leaving Japan indefinitely with no operating reactors), then I would be willing to support.  Spencer T♦ C 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While on the surface it looks like a routine maintenance exercise, in reality the Japanese government has until now refrained from restarting any reactor that was shut down for maintenance since Fukushima. Given that Japan had 54 nuclear reactors overall, having them all offline for maintenance is really not a routine act. In particular, local politicians oppose the restarts - the restart of Oi Nuclear Power Plant for instance has been delayed by concerns from the governors of the surrounding prefectures. Thus, we are de facto in a situation where no-one knows for sure when nuclear power will be produced again in Japan. Khuft (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (decided on support, see below). I'm inclined to agree with Spencer here, since if I've understood it correctly this looks like a simple case of something being blown out of proportion in the media. I don't really "oppose" it per se though and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having had a neighbor running around gleefully all yesterday telling everybody that Japan has decided to shut down all their nuclear power plants, I think we'd only propagate the misconception by posting this. __meco (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I'm inclined to agree with Khuft actually. I was planning to oppose, but 54 reactors (100%) offline is a big deal. A plant might stand offline for years before being defueled, so I think this is an important development. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Khuft's response above convinces me that this is more of a notable and unprecedented event than the original nomination may have implied, and merits being placed in ITN. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, in theory - I wasn't sure about this one, but it does seem pretty significant, and I would assume that it's a minority topic as well. But I don't think that the updates to the power plant article are of sufficient quality, and the more logical bold link would surely be Nuclear power in Japan anyway, and so far only two lines have been added to that article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose first off, the article is in horrendous shape. Secondly, if this is only maintenance I just don't think it's important enough, unless something else happens.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   03:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest bolding Nuclear Power in Japan, which is also in bad shape. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- Even if this is considered to be a routine event, which I don't think it is, it has implications that are certainly notable. In addition, I would agree that Nuclear Power in Japan should be bolded. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Tûranor PlanetSolar completes travel around world

 * Comment. I tagged this as a minority topic (technology). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I presume this claim is based on the use of photovoltaic cells. People have been navigating the world's oceans using solar power captured by a different mechanism (wind) for millennia. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC).
 * You win. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   04:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Adam Yauch

 * Support Where would the rap music be without the Beastie Boys. Donnie Park (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * support: per above, btw the blurb gives his age as 48 not 47?--Τασουλα (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad. Sources are mistakenly saying 48 based on year of birth (he wouldn't have turned 48 until August). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Member of a major 90s groups and leading hip-hop band. Probably not on the same level of Houston, but definitely of greater importance than many recent deaths posted. Wikifan Be nice  19:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I was on the verge of opposing as an irrelevant celebrity death, but the beastie boys were still active, with grammy awards (nom and won) and decent chart positions for their recent albums. I don't know that we can post the death of every influential 90s musician, but since they were still at it, and prominent in their field, I think his death and the presumed end of the beastie boys makes this "ITN worthy". --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I would have supported anyway, but as a totally subjective example of MCA's influence, one of Calgary's major radio stations has been playing nothing but Beastie Boys for the last three hours.  It would be nice to see some improvement on the article before going up. Resolute 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Helped popularise rap rock and advanced the rap genre in general. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  21:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Premature, if not wholly surprising death. Yauch was a massively influential figure in modern music. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support helped open the way for hip hop from a subgenre with a limited fanbase (along with Run-DMC) to the mainstream public, helping advance one of the most influential and popular types of music there is. Member of one of the very few hip hop groups in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Secret account 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but article could stand a bit more updating. The most recent update appears to be one sentence long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready? I've added a number of sources and fleshed out some of his bio. I've added a few sentences on reactions to his death, and a sentence on the cause of death not being reported as of yet. The article size is roughly the same as it was before his death, but as you can see, that last version had a lot of unsourced cruft that has been deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good to me. I've marked it as ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Question re blurb: Who was known as MCA? Beastie Boys or Adam Yauch? It's a badly structured, ambiguous sentence. (And no, I don't know. Not my scene. I just like seeing better quality language in ITN, and we should never confuse our readers.)
 * Posted I tweaked the blurb to fix the grammar issue noted above. -- Jayron  32  23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's still ambiguous to me. It's still not clear which one is MCA. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "his" is a singular pronoun that takes a singular, male antecedant. The name "Beastie Boys" isn't a single male human, and so the dependent clause unambiguously refers to the name "Adam Yauch" immediately preceeding it.  Since the blurb on the main page uses the word "his", a native speaker of English wouldn't be confused in the slightest.  If, however, you have a better phrase, propose it.  -- Jayron  32  23:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I didn't realise that the "blurb" we see in this nomination sub-section is different from the "blurb" that actually appears on the main page. Confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inquiry Why does the blurb not say "of cancer"? Is it a secret?  Is there no room?  Is the cause uninteresting? μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I don't think the cause of death is usually included in ITN blurbs, except possibly murders or other misadventures. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time the blurb was posted, the cause of death had not been officially released; the Wikipedia article noted that at the time. You could check the timestamps to confirm this, if you really cared.  -- Jayron  32  23:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

59th National Film Awards

 * Comment This is a global encyclopaedia. National Film Awards? Which nation? Obviously I can look it up, but if you're serious about this nomination, you won't make everybody look it up. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its Indian. Should we write "59th Indian National Film Awards" then? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have thought New Delhi gave the game away there! LukeSurlt c 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, no clear significance. Unlike the Oscars which are covered by international media, there does not appear to be much significant coverage outside of India. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: International media coverage is not a criteria - Indian cinema does not have many consumers outside the Subcontinent+Afghanistan. However, this does not seem to have received much attention even within India. I know this is the "official" one sanctioned by the Ministry of I&B, but I think the Filmfare awards get more attention. At least the main webpages of The Hindu, NDTV or ToI dont cover it prominently. Like I said, not asserting that media coverage is the defining criteria, but it is usually indicative of notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather, it has been covered in major Indian newspapers like Hindustan Times, HT2, Indian Express, Deccan Herald, The Hindu, NDTV. Thanks. - <span style="font:italic bold 12px/30px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt Talk 12:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Picture gallary by ToI, ToI.§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose One country specific. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 06:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pick on this (especially since I've opposed this myself), but thats not a valid ground for opposition: if you scroll up to the top of this page, it reads: "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what you point to relates to something else. For example, the Agni V launch posted a few days back was also limited to India but had larger ramifications, hence merited inclusion. Whereas, National Film Awards really dont meet that criteria, its not even on the headlines of Indian websites but may merit inclusion on the India portal. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 09:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Just Kidding!) You cant call Agni V as something related only to India. China is scared! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)
 * You've been watching too much Times Now ! . Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * rilliant! taht tag-tag propoganda crap really offers nothing. The worst in indian media ;) BUT as for china beign scaed? Seriously? What can it do? Chinall easily pummel us back ;) Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To discuss that point further (just for academic reasons), this would fall within the same criteria as the Filmfare Award (which, I just checked, is in WP:ITNR), so if this was notable enough, it could be posted like the Filmfare Award. That it related to India alone shouldnt stop it. Besides, even if it is India alone thats more than 1/6th of the entire human population. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The low news coverage is probably because NFAs are announced well ahead of time, just like how all government awards are. These were announced in March. All Vidya Balan pics were used then by newspapers. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose issues of relevance aside, the awards themselves were announced nearly two months ago. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a normal practice followed for National Film Awards in India since its inception in 1954. Awards are declared in a press conference and then awarded by President/Vice President of India in another ceremony. Thanks. - <span style="font:italic bold 12px/30px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt Talk 17:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not just for NFAs. This is applicable for all Government awards and honours and decorations like Bharat Ratna, Param Vir Chakra, etc. These are decided by jury. They are not given on public votes through SMSs. They don't have any nominees as such. Winners are decided from a vast pool of about 300+ entries. There are no OMG-I-won-it!-I-cant-believe-this moments in these ceremonies. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW BAFTA and AMPAS main categories are almost exclusively populated with US/UK, not exactly a global focus. Given the large English speaking population in India, I think this deserves more than "blah blah blah regional focus". --98.203.99.251 (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This doesn't have any good excuses why it's not ITN/R, so someone needs to explain why this year's event was more notable than those of previous years. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This year is the only incident where two films have been awarded with Best Feature Film awards, namely Deool and Byari since 1954 with Byari being the first film made in the Beary language in last 100 years in Indian cinema. Thanks. - <span style="font:italic bold 12px/30px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt Talk 11:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] The Scream

 * Support. Big news for the fine arts world, which is rarely represented. Eep. Weren't the estimates about a tenth of this figure though? GRAPPLE   X  01:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Major news for the whole world, not just the art world. The painting is universally known. B zw ee bl   (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- per Grapple and Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the few works of art that non-art fans like myself know by name. I'd support even if the price wasn't a record. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Record sale of a very notable piece of art. Truthsort (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- This is a bit premature, but I can't imagine that there will be much, if any, opposition to this. B zw ee bl   (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above, who can oppose this? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull if the only notability is the sale price, then a number of paintings including No. 5, 1948, and The Card Players, even without inflation adjustment. List_of_most_expensive_paintings. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources describe this sale as an auction record, and it's also one of the most widely recognized paintings of all time. Still seems newsworthy to me. Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrugs I didn't think my pull would succeed, but I do think it was a silly rush to support a rather mundane business transaction. Not any different than Facebook buying Instagram IMO. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If Instagram becomes a household name that endures for 120 years, then we'll definitely have to reconsider not having posted it. ¬_¬ GRAPPLE   X  00:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Instragram wasn't nominated. It's too bad that we don't have a Google time machine to see if anyone knew or cared about that painting before 1990. Who bought "the scream" this time anyway? --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may no ealise but youve jsut completed discredited your whole artguement on that last .q.Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hungarian presidential election, 2012

 * Support, but the article has not been updated yet. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time we took a stab at the ticker? Colipon+ (Talk) 02:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Do we have consensus to set it up? Or does it need to go through !voting on WT:ITN? B zw ee bl   (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say how the procedure would work out for something like this. I think posting it here as an ordinary "candidate" would be best - that would get the most visibility and also the admin's attention. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying we should post the ticker itself as a candidate? B zw ee bl   (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lionel Messi breaks Gerd Müller's single season scoring record

 * Support unlike some cricket stuff we've posted, this is a pretty big deal. I removed "all time" from the blurb since that could cause confusion.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   20:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment what an odd comment, no-one has ever got 100 100s, and it probably won't happen in our lifetimes again. This record has been "broken", not "set".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. That's a pretty impressive feat and I doubt we'll see it done again any time soon. Maybe include the actual number though? GRAPPLE   X  20:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support don't usually give my support to sports Trivia but this is big news in the worlds most popular sport (It is, isn't it?)--Τασουλα (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...due to nonsensical and unexplained nominator's comment. (We really need better quality discussion here.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And a nonsensical oppose helps how? <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   22:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as a nonsensical response o the oppose ( and now others will say "nonsensical response to response")...lets not resort to attacking the indiv's opinion...he has ihis, you have yours.Lihaas (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, tbf, it really is a nonsensical response to a nonsensical response to a nonsensical oppose. Its littered with misspellings and nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.52 (talk • contribs)
 * C-C-C-Combo Breaker ! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support I guess it's noteworthy as the last record was from the 70s - though may we add to the blurb how many goals(=68) Lionel Messi scored in total? Khuft (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus: Gerd Müller's name has an umlaut... :-) (as we're on the subject of misspellings) Khuft (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- I wouldn't generally support something like this, but it's one of the biggest records in the biggest sport. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not 100 centuries in cricket maybe, but this is totally and 100% arbitrary. This is unbridled sports trivia and just as meaningless as the 23rd perfect game in baseball. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is 100 centuries in cricket maybe fine, but not this? Also: records per se can be newsworthy - actually world records e.g. in athletics are even on INTR, if they fulfill one of 3 conditions (unusually large margin, after a very long time period, or in a highly publicized event) - the second one would be fulfilled in this case... Khuft (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I support this nomination, I don't think this is ITN/R. It is a European record, not world. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, agreed - I was just taking the ITN/R policy as an example when records can be considered ITN-worthy. In any case, a world record may make little sense in this case - maybe someone in the Malawian second division scored 88 goals this season; this would be of little relevance as the second Malawian division is certainly of less overall quality than the European leagues... Khuft (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Malawian division is of less overall quality, but I would hazard that a similar record in south America would make news. I opposed the cricket item, but could see some logic in it (100 innings of 100). It had also never been achieved before, we didn't post his 99th century, and I doubt his 101st. This is an arbitrary record in a regional league, it's 100% sports trivia and has no place on the front page of WP. Stand by my absolutely not. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose there have been countless records suggested for ITN - as well as the perfect game from a few weeks ago - that have not been posted and creating an exception for cricket/soccer because they are the largest sports in the world is wrong. This is just a record; it will be broken one day. It isn't a championship, or even a landmark accomplishment in the sport, so it should not go up. -- Plasma Twa  2  00:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait — given the season's not over, why not wait and post his final tally as "setting" a new record, rather than his breaking the old one? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because what is significant will not be his undoubtedly very high final tally, but his actual breaking of the record. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Breaking of a 40 yr old major record in a major sport to me is clearly news. Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is like the MLB's season home run total, right? – H T  D  01:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the MLB would consist of 50 or so leagues then yes, it would be like it. Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does FIFA consider the La Liga as a "world league", coz the IBAF recognizes the MLB as one... – H T  D  02:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this should be the record scoring per season across all the 150 or so national association football leagues around the world. Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this is baseball's equivalent to hitting .400, huge feat in the football world. Secret account 02:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, it seems there's some consensus to post, but the update's lacking. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   03:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - every other week Messi breaks a new record (most-scoring Barca-player, most goals in a La Liga-season, most goals in CL-knockoutstage, first to become topscorer in CL four years in a row etc.). To me this is one of those records you haven't heard of, but when Messi breaks it, then it's all over. I mean, Müller have some notable goal-records (most World Cup goals, most goals in Bundesliga, most goals in European Competition, most goals for Germany), but this record isn't even mentioned in his wiki-article, so it can't be that noteworthy. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I support in principle, though the blurb is vague. It should at least specify the number of goals he's scored and make it clear it's in all competitions, not just La Liga.  I know it says European football season but I imagine that will not be clear to a lot of readers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not the same readers who wanted the baseball perfect game posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a major record in the world's biggest sport.  Resolute 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – the best goalscoring season ever. —WFC— 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted - consensus is to post and the update is adequate, even if not spectacular. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus? LOL. There's none of that here. I don't have really strong feelings either way on posting, but let's get serious for once on what a consensus really is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By my count it was 10-5 in favor of posting (with one wait). I know consensus (supposedly) isn't vote counting, but still.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I reckon a consensus has to see some acceptance by those opposing that the Support view has some merit. There is none of that here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is (always) based on the quality of arguments, not merely the numbers (although a 2:1 ratio usually requires strong reasons to override.) Consensus does not mean that everyone sort of agrees (all opposes think the supports have some merit). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW my oppose was titled "absolutely not" and didn't give the supports any merit. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fail - Didn't know it was a counted vote. Will find some drives-bys to support some random bits of sports trivia in the future. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bolivia nationalised electric grid

 * Oppose - The use of the term 'pink tide' makes me think this nomination is somewhat politically motivated. But more seriously, a friend with close ties to Bolivia described this as 'the annual May-day nationalisation'. It's my impression that this is a predictable and unsurprising aspect of the current government's policies. In this respect it is unlike the recent Argentinian nationalisation, which occurred precipitately, in the context of a complex international dispute both with Spain and the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: As per the article, this directly affects 74% of Bolivia's total grid. Top news in the BBC Latin America page. Strong reactions from Spain and EU. In pure economic terms, this does not compare to YPF (USD 35 bn) but that does not take away from its notability as the company runs 3/4 of an entire country's electric grid. All in all looks pretty notable. IMO, a more notable recent development in Argentina shouldnt take away from its notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Clearly a significant development, even if the fundamental fact of the nationalization is routine. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support major development, as Bolivia has threatened to nationalize many foreign companies. Crnorizec (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Major event in the business world (a minority topic!) and important for the whole of LatAm and beyond. Khuft (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment article is ready with solid update for anyone to mark it as such.Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Tyrannus Mundi. Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Tyrannus Mundi. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A significant development for the region. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support nationalizations are actually not so common in the current global "free market". An interesting development, with a decent update. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Excellent update, overwhelming consensus. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia terrorists arrest

 * Comment: The article is not really in a presentable state. I would hate to slap that onto the main page. Perhaps rewriting the article would make the case more convincing. (plus, just in general, there are too many "terrorist"-related posts on ITN. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with the comment that it is the first Islamic terrorist case in recent time in Europe with so many victims - barely a month ago, 7 people were killed in Southern France by an Islamic fanatic (2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings) Khuft (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- In the grand scheme of things, news like this is, unfortunately, far too common. B zw ee bl   (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening of Suzhou Metro

 * Comment. A prefectural level city isn't comparable to a city (even accepting the distinction with the urban core) -- on the list of urban areas by population Suzhou is ranked at #88, below many US cities. The fact the city has a long history isn't relevant to the discussion. A more convincing argument needs to be made for the notability of this development, especially given the brief nature of the news link provided: systemic bias shouldn't be used as a carte blanche for anything outside of the West to be posted. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I agree the brevity of the source makes this entire story look rather tenuous - but then we are an encyclopedia and we don't only expound on conventional 'news' stories in ITN. Point taken about 'prefecture-level', but again I mentioned city proper as a pre-emptive defence against that argument. If you want to argue agglomeration then the Suzhou-Wuxi-Changzhou-Kunshan-Taicang area is basically one gigantic city with some 20 million residents similar to the NYC-NJ region or Greater LA. I digress... the point is, this city is among the world's largest. This is a minority topic. + systemic bias. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point about the definition is that you're comparing it against other cities to show notability, so you need to use roughly similar definitions to avoid comparing apples and oranges. If it's viewed as an agglomeration then to show notability it should be compared against other agglomerations, not other cities. However, if it's viewed as an agglomeration then this is a story affecting only a particular part of that agglomeration. As I said, there should be some firmer indication of why this is notable, instead of why it might be seen as less notable (i.e. systemic bias) -- e.g. demonstrating broad coverage in non-Anglophone newspapers. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage in Chinese media, for example, has been significant. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tyrannus Mundi's point. Chinese cities often confuse people in the West for semantic reasons - a "prefecture-level city" usually denotes sth akin to a region or a province in a Western country, or a prefecture in Japan, and not a city in the Western sense. You could compare it to Madrid: Madrid proper has approx. 3 mn people, while the Community of Madrid (= a region of Spain) has approx. 6 mn people. Or to Osaka: Osaka city has 2,7 mn inhabitants, while Osaka Prefecture has 8,8 mn. Similarly: saying that "Suzhou-Wuxi-Changzhou-Kunshan-Taicang area is basically one gigantic city with some 20 million residents" is a somewhat arbitrary definition - given the proximity of all these cities to Shanghai, you might as well argue that they are all part of the Shanghai metropolis... This is not to say this news shouldn't be posted - it might well be - but it shouldn't be considered on the basis that Suzhou is a major world city - it's not even a Top 10 Chinese city... Khuft (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree with posting this on the tech minority topic grounds (we haven't posted infra developments for a while, have we?), but there are a few concerns: the commercial service actually began already on 28 April, so if we posted this we would already be 4 days late on top of the usual 2-5 days to establish consensus. On a much more minor note, the article needs some WP:MOS polish. Generally speaking, there are lots and lots of infra development works in Eastern China, and a metro opening in a city of 4 million (urban) is arguably notable, but infra works being a minority topic I would tip to support; bias or no bias, West or East. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This is the biggest infrastructure news for a while, which is a minority topic that gets even less prominence than the other minority topics, and counters systemic bias, which we have had a lot of recently. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Sale of LA Dodgers

 * Support Big purchase, the biggest ever. Please fix the proseline in the updated section, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I can fix that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, thanks! -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 21:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Due to the record-shattering price. Khazar2 (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This is one of the biggest business deals all year. Definitely notable. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I remember that we had the announcement for the purchase several weeks ago and now it seems that the waiting time to conclude the deal has paid off and this should go on the main page. Something worth $2.1 billion in sports is essentially a very important thing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question just out of curiousity, what was the previous record? Or where can I find our article on such purchases? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous record was $1.47 billion for Manchester United in 2005. B zw ee bl   (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Oh, and BTW, UNITED FOREVER! Rhodesisland (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Was that posted here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, HiLo! Someone check to see if there is a precedent! Rhodesisland (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was never nominated. B zw ee bl   (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Post posting oppose No significance at all, this should have been listed on her longer than this to allow for more intput given it is likely to be seen as contentious. Also the cap badge on the main page reminds me of the good old CGA days - are we realy saying that is the best image for all the stories we have listed ? I see no discussion about that ? Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it is that you think that this has "no significance at all?" B zw ee bl   (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sports teams, like all companies change hands all the time, There is no attempt to explain why a deal to buy a company for $2.1b that will get little coverage outside the world of baseball or the US is of any real significance. This should have waited until more contributors had a chance to discuss it, there was no need to rush and post with less than six hours discussion. If you ever want to know why non-US contributes feel that there is a bias towards US centric stories look at this as an example. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part about the previous discussion and preexisting consensus to post this when the sale was finalized?
 * Did you miss the part about this breaking the record (set in 2005) for the most spent on a professional sports franchise? (This obviously doesn't occur "all the time".)  —David Levy 05:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This was posted and then pulled as it turned out it was still at the agreement-to-sell stage. I had retracted my support at that time once it was clear the deal hadnt actually gone through, but yes, Support now that it has. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jolly good, was just about to come and renominate this myself given the consensus last time was that we should wait. -- Plasma Twa  2  07:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And there as no mention here that this as posted? Lihaas (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wut? -- Plasma Twa  2  00:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Violated procedure. Clearly we must pull it.--WaltCip (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Dale Oen

 * Oppose While tragic, does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:ITN/DC; a silver medal in one Olympic event is probably not enough to make him "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support based on the persuasive arguments below and worldwide news coverage I'm seeing. Khazar2 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. He's not important enough to qualify here. __meco (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Three times European champion and reigning world champion and "Swimmer of the Year" makes him important in his field. He was also regarded as one of the favorites for the 2012 Olympics. --Lilduff90 (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. His death is getting notable coverage from several international newssites, such as CNN and BBC, where it is the top article in the sports sections (and was top story at the BBC earlier). This serves to prove he was notable outside Norway, where he is currently the top story in all media. --Lilduff90 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * support - got worldwide attention because of his 2011 win just a few days after the 2011 Oslo attacks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Lilduff90. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with reservations. Current world champion + unexpected death = notable, but we must be careful about setting any sort of precedent. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The death of any athlete in the prime of life always gets news media attention, but this man was not exceptionally well-known previously, and (sadly) there is nothing unusual about the circumstances of his death. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor notability in a specialist field.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait for cause to be determined and announced. If he literally exercised to death, or if some performance drugs wiped him out, then I think it would be an easy support. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:ITN/DC: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." He was reigning world champion and olympic silver medalist at 100m breaststroke. But since his cause of death is not yet known, I would wait per the anon above me. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How long does it take to get the results from the autopsy? __meco (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The preliminary autopsy gave no answer to the question of his death. The final autopsy report will be presented in about 8 weeks time. __meco (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It could be anywhere from a few days up to more than a month for the autopsy results, so waiting until it's released may not be a good idea. I think his death meets the criteria for WP:ITN/DC, so it should be posted. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 21:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- With one silver medal being his best performance at the Olympics, I don't know if I would call him "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Additionally, since when has "unexpected" been a death criteria? When and according to whom was he Swimmer of the Year? He never won the Swimming World Swimmer of the Year, only the European one. B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone dies at the age of 92 having done nothing major in the lives for the past 20 years, it's not notable. If a current world champion dies unexpectedly in their 20s, it's notable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nowhere is that mentioned in ITN/DC. B zw ee bl   (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The unexpected part is historic, it was removed after some discussion/controversy when the criteria were update . Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Reigning world champion swimmer dies at age 26. Easily meets the criteria for WP:ITN/DC. Should be posted. -- Aleksar1989 (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose After having to fight to get Dick Clark listed because of his "lack of international" fame, even though his New Year's Eve broadcast is watched by millions around the world every year and even though he influenced pop culture the world over in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, I'd have to hold this swimmer to the same standard. Definite lack of international fame. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not surprising to see that there are no single-line "Who?" opposes here... – H T  D  02:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. We can't go around posting every young death. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not any young death. Current world champion in an Olympic discipline in a high profile, genuinely international sport. Support.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Rhodesisland, I argued for Dick Clark even though I wasn't personally familiar with his work, and I'm going to do the same here. This young man was clearly among the most significant male swimmers of our time. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I really feel that deaths need to meet an highly exceptional standard to be posted as its own blurb on ITN. Like Michael Jackson. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just how many "world champions" are there in swimming? – H T  D  03:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, the article is not presently updated satisfactorily.  But besides, I feel that this is less notable than the death of Sarah Burke, who was noted in the media as being influential in making her sport an Olympic one.  One silver medal and a world title in a single (non-Olympic) race isn't enough notability for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)