[Posted] Davy Jones

Nominator's comments: Unfortunately it is another musician death but The Monkees was a significant band in the 1960s, like The Beatles everybody would had at least grew up with or have heard their music at least once in their life. At least he was influential enough to be mentioned by TIME upon his passing. --Donnie Park (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Monkees were significant enough that I know who they were, but not significant enough to be posted ITN IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a little more specific, he doesn't meet either of the three criteria in WP:ITN/DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I don't think this can be opposed for lack of significance. In their day, the Monkees were absolutely massive. If we can post Whitney Houston and REM splitting up, we can surely post this. However, I had a look through the article and parts of it seemed plain confusing. If it gets improved some then I might strike the "weak". --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - lead singer of one of the 5 most popular bands of the 60s and one of the top few "teenage heartthrobs" of the decade. If The Monkees were a contemporary band, there would be zero doubt in anyone's mind about posting his death. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Muboshgu. Not quite at the level of international significance where putting the death up is justified. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Far bigger hit tally than many of those who have been featured here, and profile through the TV show that was way beyond that enjoyed by even the most popular bands today. 66 is untimely death for those who consider that a relevant criteria.Iconic character of era. Without the Monkees TV show, we wouldn't have had the Jackson 5ive and all that came from that. Wikipedia is for 40somethings as well as all you youngsters out there Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As per Kevin, mostly. I am not wet behind the ears (indeed, in two weeks time, I'm even less wet). This is a significant (and upsetting) death of an icon in his time and from a band which did far more than just I'm A Believer. A significant development which fits the ever shifting rules of ITN.
• Support per Kevin. He's right, the Monkees were as important to the disenfranchised youth of the 60s as REM was to the disenfranchised youth of the 90s. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was a bit redundant to support, but his death is top story everywhere, being compared to Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston deaths by the publisher of Billboard. That's extremely significant. [1], I don't think any other member of the Monkees deserve a posting in ITN if they die. Secret ^account 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the strangest uses of the word if I have seen for a long time. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh I meant when, was typing extremely fast and at work. Secret ^account 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --Jayron32 19:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] North Korea nuclear moritorium

 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment not entirely sure that's the best article for it (or blurb for that matter) but this is a significant step under the new leader.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A deal with North Korea about uranium enrichment seems like a BFD to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support highly notable turn of events. --Nutthida (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure I know the BBC is normally a reliable source, but so much of the image of North Korea is from the time when a not very eloquent US President made a mockery of the term "weapons of mass destruction". This whole thing is tied up in the legacy of Dubya propaganda. I'd like to learn a lot more about what the problem really was, and what is really happening now, before saying that this is of any importance whatsoever. HiLo48 (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Change Blurb to "North Korea agrees to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for 240,000 tons of food aid" Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now updated the article and support posting - major diplomatic agreement with international significance. Suggest linking directly to update: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction#Suspension of uranium enrichment --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What the hell, it is a big deal, and I'll support again when they resume enrichment in 12-24 months. We should put North Korea's nuclear program on ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment HiLo48's soapboxy comment notwithstanding, what do we do when North Korea starts enriching uranium again in a few weeks?--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply post it. They'll probably wait a few months before starting again anyway. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Whoa. Didn't see that coming. Marcus Qwertyus 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tokyo Sky Tree

 --61.245.26.23 (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article says the opening is in May but it has been finished today. Needs some updates regarding the tenses, though. --Tone 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Completion of the tallest tower in the world is a notable news. I remember we use to post such records in different categories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable engineering, and completion is more relevant here than inauguration date. --ELEKHH^T 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now, but not in May. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syria

Nominator's comments: Might be good time to do a full blurb on Syria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

strong/oiosu oppose nothign happened a call buy a talkshhop means nada! though the referendum could be notable to get syria -related on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oiosu? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious? -- tariqabjotu 20:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this point, we currently have a sticky for that purpose. --Tone 12:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Tone. If a cease fire is declared and talks being, we can post that. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "calls for" does not mean "something important has happened" doktorb _words^deeds 13:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona 500

Nominator's comments: In addition to being one of the most important races of the year, this year's Daytona 500 has a series of unusual happenings that are causing people to call it "the wildest ever". If deemed worthy of inclusion, I will be happy to improve the quality of the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Most important single race on the NASCAR circuit, on par with the Indianapolis 500 in terms of significance. The Daytona 500 is on-par with a Golf or Tennis Major event in terms of how it is treated within racing. This one also had some unusual events, as noted in the nom. --Jayron32 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some perspective, please. Tennis majors are truly international events, with players from many countries from all over the globe. Golf less so. NASCAR? Minor news outside the USA. This posting may be justified, but such hype is unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article needs more references, especially in the race summary. Spencer^T♦C 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Minor interest sport. doktorb _words^deeds 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then explain why we have eight events from this sport on ITN/R, including one pertaining to this league. --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• While I do think it's significant and do think it deserves posting, I really can't argue with HiLo48's argument that it's really not of international interest (so far as I know NASCAR doesn't even hold races outside of the US), and it's interest within the US even seems to be somewhat regional (more interest the further south and east you go). If consensus comes out that this is of enough international interest to post by all means consider this a support, but I have my suspicions that my perspective of its suitability for ITN is different due to living in the US, so otherwise neutral. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASCAR occasionally has Canadian and Mexican races, I believe, and they now have Canada- and Mexico-specific seasons. --Golbez (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted last year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The results of the Daytona 500 was posted several times before, including last year. NASCAR is the biggest level of stock car racing, the most popular auto racing circuit in the United States, with the number of fans beating every sport but American Football. The main reason it's not as international as Formula One is because of their schedule doesn't give it enough time to travel to different counties (they had races in Japan before though). I would Support if we posted last year championship race and result, which was considered by many auto racing observers to be the best ever? I remembered they posted in previous years but I can't remember if they did last year. Way more popular than Indy Car here. If Danica Patrick won or finished in the top 10 it would have been a no-brainier addition for many of the commentators here. Even then Patrick participating in the race was global news [3] and a significant milestone in women sports. Secret ^account 04:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see the significance in this one. Mtking ^(edits) 05:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Right from the article: "The Daytona 500 is regarded as the most important and prestigious race on the NASCAR calendar, carrying by far the largest purse". Should probably be on ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not from the South, don't care for NASCAR so much, but in case people don't bother to read the article, it was postponed to the next day for the first time (by rain), then a racer crashed into a jet dryer (they dry the track with jet engine exhaust) which burst into flames and delayed the race so much it didn't end until 1 am, thus making this a little more than your garden-variety Daytona 500. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Reposted] Pritzker Architecture Prize

Nominator's comments: Most notable prize in architecture, widely reported globally, ITNR. --ELEKHH^T 01:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until an article has a suitable update. I don't think the page of the prize itself will work (all the winners are listed in a chart, so an update would not meet ITN guidelines); and the architect's article needs expansion. Spencer^T♦C 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

itnr DOESNT need support/oppose. Further, oscar was prematurely posed.Lihaas (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support The article is in not fit state. Interesting subject nonetheless. doktorb _words^deeds 06:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the award article, we should highlight the laureate's one. At the moment, it's a bit short indeed. Regarding the oscars, that was another case. There was a long article with lots of prose and updated table of laureates so the posting was in no way premature. --Tone 08:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, I changed the blurb accordingly. Both articles have been further improved since. --ELEKHH^T 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator. The Pritzker Prize is often considered as the greatest and most prestigious award in architecture. It is also listed as ITN/R. Low quality of the article is only a timely problem that should not thwart the news to be posted on the basis of notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITN/R. The updates say all they can say. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pretty much per 76.18.43.253. The article is sufficient, the update is sufficient (not sure what else could be said, and if anyone thinks something specific more should be added, then add it!), and it's an ITNR item. --Jayron32 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily removed. A 2-sentence update to the article is insufficient by even the most minimal of ITN standards, regardless of whether or not the item is ITNR. Feel free to restore once the article has been updated more. Spencer^T♦C 03:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? First of all the whole article is new, is itself an update, as through this prize Wang Shu's international notability is clearly established. But a prize is a prize, I don't think an encyclopaedic article needs to go into details of who was the jury or whatever. Of relevance is Wang Shu's architecture, not the circumstances of the prize. Previous ITNs on the Pritzker Prize have been similar. What piece of essential information do you miss? --ELEKHH^T 03:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expanded the blurb about the award. It certainly should be OK to post now, but I don't want to do it myself since I expanded the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Costa) MS Allegra

Nominator's comments: The article needs work, but right now there isn't a lot of info. Fire, adrift, no one hurt, tugs en route. Tagged it minority re: Technology. Note this is similar to the incident on Carnival Splendor a year and a half ago, albeit on a smaller, older ship. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Besides the fire, nothing too terrible has happened. If it escalates to a full-scale disaster (as in Pirates hijack the ship, etc.) then I would reconsider. Spencer^T♦C 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear me. nothing seems to be going right for them at the moment. If there is mention of the incidents with the concordi and possible wider investigations (shutting them off the seas) then id support.Lihaas (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chardon High School shooting

 – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most fatal shooting in history, but a school shooting receiving lots of coverage nonetheless. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tragic, but not ITN worthy imo. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose plenty of news coverage but Wikipedia is not a newspaper? Right? One dead too? Cmon. Tragic and all, but please. --Nutthida (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, and after the news cycle dies, I will nominate the article for deletion. Speciate (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't waste everyone's time nominating it for deletion. The article would certainly be kept and much editor time will be wasted arguing it. That said, I don't feel it is significant enough for ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thaddeus is right, on all counts. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Although tragic, the shooting is not of international historical significance. -- Luke (Talk) 23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No international historical significance; what would be significant is if politicians in the US grow a collective backbone and realised that in a civilised society citizens have no need own guns and that this sort of crime could be avoided by banning general gun ownership. Mtking ^(edits) 07:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your soapbox, and go and live there for a while. 58.7.251.19 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, countries with highly restrictive gun laws never have school shooting. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Death count is too low. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update The death toll is now three. I don't know what the "minimum" is people would consider needing to get to ITN, but I'm letting you know of the update. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rio de Janeiro school shooting made ITN. It appears to me that the only major difference is that it didn't take place in the United States. EDIT: OK, I understand that the death toll is 10 for RdJ and three here, but we also featured 2010 Shanghai fire which only had one death and its historical significance was unclear at the time. My memory is fuzzy but I also recall debating heavily about a shooting in Germany that may/may not have been featured. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As has been stated already, unlike other shootings of its kind, this seems to be minor (tragic, but still). These kinds of events need to have a wider significance and there is not much to come from this that we haven't already heard doktorb _words^deeds 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington derailment

Nominator's comments: This is one of the most significant train accidents in recent Canadian history in terms of deaths and injuries. --Natural R_X 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, article probably should be deleted for non-notability. Speciate (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, I have addressed notability on the talk page. --Natural R_X 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is somewhat amusing that an incident with 3 deaths and 46 injuries has its notability questioned, while the school shooting above with 1 death and 5 injuries already has a support. Not really a comment on merits of either entry, I just like the incongruity. Resolute 23:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever, that other one wasn't listed here when I made my comment. They both are unencyclopedic minor local news items that will be forgotten in 100 hours. Speciate (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subject is plenty notable enough for an article, but not significant enough for ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the threshold for a rail related incident to be included on ITN? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no official or unofficial level of death/destruction needed to make ITN. Sometimes, an event that results in one death can be highly significant, sometimes an event with many deaths can be insignificant. For a disaster whose interest is based primarily on human deaths, I personally look for 20+. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's all qualitative, but this feels more like a tragic traffic accident, compared to the one in Argentina which was more like a disaster. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready?] Former Ukrainian minister Yuriy Lutsenko sentenced

 — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The update is decent, it's a high-profile politician, tentative support. --Tone 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose: Update is good, but the news coverage is not that substantial and I don't feel his former position is enough to warrant posting on its own. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The EU, US State Department and others have sugested it falls into a continuation of trials in Ukraine that look dubious........ But it does seem to me WP:SYNTH to state it like that in ITN... I am a bit surpriced it is not "bigger news" "outside Ukraine". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article looks good, and it's one of those that if we put on the front page, we'll actually be meeting our remit of directing people to updated articles that reflect news. Let's shy away from the "not enough news coverage" angle here for once, it's significant and we can afford to put it up, so let's do so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur al-Hadi takes over as Yemeni President

Nominator's comments: Change of head of state ----Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Mayor event, is worldwide big news. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this is the third time this has been nominated and the article still is in poor shape. If someone really wants this posted, they are going to have to do the article work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did not knew that the "shape of the article" was a criteria for ITN before I voted (never voted for an ITN before), sorry for that... It is indeed now in a too bad of a shape to post it on the mainpage of Wikipedia via ITN... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks' latest disclosure

 --BorgQueen (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nothing particularly dramatic about Wikileaks releasing stuff, especially when the target is a company nobody knows or cares about. If the leak results in something major happening, revisit then. Resolute 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to our article: Stratfor has been cited by media such as CNN, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and the BBC as an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues.[3] Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA".[4] Your claim that it is "a company nobody knows or cares about" is simply untrue. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A notable event as this secretive organisation is laid bare in a manner never seen before. Highly controversial and very current, relevant and important doktorb _words^deeds 21:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the media, at least in the US, has been strangely silent... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange because as already mentioned, it appears on CNN, and certainly has global coverage. --ELEKHH^T 10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created an article here on the leak. If this happens to go through, then you'll probably want to link to that instead. Silverseren^C 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I updated the proposed blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - whether people know or care about the company aside, Resolute is pretty much correct. This is very interesting, but many people were anticipating another major, significant leak, and the fact that it just turned out to be Stratfor emails was an anticlimactic disappointment. If the leak results in something significant, we should by all means post it, but I don't think this release itself is worth posting. Swarm ^X 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per doktorb mostly, nothing of this magnitude happened so far in this area. Certainly more notable than a train crash - currently posted. I am fully for high standards, but also for consistency. Maybe ITN should broaden its view and not only count those immediately affected by an event but all affected, on long term. --ELEKHH^T 10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC gives up kidnapping

Nominator's comments: If the nom gets support, I will try to deal with the orange tag on the bolded article. Note that our coverage of this topic appears quite poor at present. --FormerIP (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support, we've posted announcements of ETA ceasefire and similar. But indeed, the orange tag is a problem in the article. --Tone 18:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmmm - What section of the giant article was updated? These groups tend to break their agreements, or splinter apart into a dozen other groups that continue the practice. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't yet updated, but it would be the section headed "kidnappings". --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it clearly states "article needs updating". Sorry. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - If some actor "promised" to give up drinking, would we post it on ITN? Factions, parties and political individuals make promises all the time. It doesn't get to ITN. Why treat these guys different. If they released a bunch of kidnapped victims or turned in their guns, that would go on ITN. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Don't really believe them tbh... But have they announced what's to happen with their current hostages? If they release them, it would be something worth posting. Nightw 12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]84th Academy Awards

Nominator's comments: ITN/R and seems to be a foregone conclusion, but since it starts tonight I figured I would get the template posted --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Biggest night in the film calendar. Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we usually bold the film or the event? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. To be exact, X wins Y awards, including best picture. --Tone 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. We should only wait for the ceremony and the Oscars to be awarded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do now... doktorb _words^deeds 04:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and suggest blurb to read "The Artist wins 5 Oscars, including Best Picture, at the 84th Academy Awards." This is ITNR, and the article looks in fine shape. --Jayron32 05:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few bolded parts of the table and a lukewarm paragraph in the lead? That's a poor excuse for an update. -- tariqabjotu 09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what all Academy Award articles have been doktorb _words^deeds 10:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERCRAPEXISST...it needs a prose updae. otherwise we can pos ANYTHIGN thats ITNR (a la Yemen below)Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. If you find that there is information about the 84th Academy Awards that is missing from the article, no one here will stop you from adding it. Demanding that others do work you could easily do seems silly. For the record, I find the article sufficient, but if you do not, there is no one here trying to stop you from making it sufficient. --Jayron32 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW this had much more prose than BAFTA or BIFF both of which got speedy posted without contest. I just don't understand how the Dakar Rally, which is ITN/R, got nixed on the grounds that it was almost all results tables, and later everyone fawns CMD getting the "golden bear" at BIFF and posts in less time than it takes to say "Berlin International Film Festival". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Golden Bear" not "golden bear". Lugnuts (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Ladin compound demolished

Nominator's comments: Don't have much time to look at this but given the extraordinary notability of bin Ladin's death this seems to be a worthy nomination to me. Reminds me of Boris Yeltsin demolishing the site where Nicholas II was shot in the Soviet period. An update is needed but it seems feasible in the scope of the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC) --Johnsemlak (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

far from ntable an dbarely in the news widely. its also an issue a year ago, not today. (Although on the anniverary it may be notable)Lihaas (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to differ in opinion on its notability but there's front page coverage at the BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, and Xinhua. Seems to be wide coverage to me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, very minor part of the wrapping up of a major story: akin to announcing the release of a prisoner whose conviction was notable, or completion of the execution of the will of a person whose death was ITNworthy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose buildings get knocked down all the time, this one just had a notorious occupant. The front page of BBC also has Oscar predictions and we're not going to post those are we? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the clear and well articulated reasons given above doktorb _words^deeds 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at Comandante Ferraz Brazilian Antarctic Base with two people dying

Nominator's comments: People died and structures destroyed in Antartica must be here--Feroang (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC) --Feroang (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)--[reply]

Marked ready as a quality sourced update and length. I wouldnt support it personally, though it could be a minority topic (when do we feature science in Antarctica?)Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sad, but it is an intrinsically dangerous place, those who died were not individually notable, two is not an extreme death toll, research base has not given rise to high profile discoveries, low profile in news media (6th in World news on BBC, no entry for Comandante Ferraz on Lemonde.fr, not in top 11 world stories on elmundo.es) Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support news out of that region is pretty rare, and it was a total loss of the facility, so I'm inclined to give it a pass on the notability scale. Decent update. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, we really don't get many news from Antarctica and the article is fine. --Tone 16:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because very few people live there, so not much news emerges. It does not make minor events more noteworthy. At is peak, the population of Antarctica is about 1% of that of the Cape Verde Islands: have we had 100 times as many stories from there? Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm not sure how that's relevant, except to suggest that population is not directly proportional to the number of stories from a region nominated on ITN. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that if it is not surprising that a place has few stories, it is not a reason to promote stories. There are 100 times as many human reasons to have a story from Cape Verde, but we don't lower our threshold to include that place either. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very few people live in the International Space Station but if this is destroyed, that is a News too. Right now we have 3 news from America and 3 more from Europe, 1 from Antartica not gonna hurt.--Feroang (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It wasn't the only base in the antartica. Agree with Kevin, it wasn't that notable a base before.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Who on earth has marked this 'ready'? It is a tragic accident but nonetheless wholly inappropriate for the front page. Is it highly notable? Unusual? Work placed deaths happen all over the world, that it happened in a remote location is just a curious additional extra. I can't understand why a nomination with oppose votes is marked 'ready'. doktorb _words^deeds 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every posted nom has at least one oppose. I can't imagine how ITN would function if one oppose disqualified an item for a [Ready] tag, and thus prevented it's posting. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't understand the hate on for this item. We post similar items all the time: mine collapses, fly ash spills, oil rig fires, hell if the toilets don't flush on the ISS it gets front page coverage. Too bad, I really thought this would be an easy pass. 2 for, 2 against, minority topic (science) get Ready tag IMO (no I didn't set it, but I think it deserves it). --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The habits of the editor who put on the ready tag on this have been raised at WT:ITN. The practice of these tags was introduced with no discussion at WT:ITN, and there is no clear guideline about when it should be used. We have a template that allows indication of whether the article has been updated, so I can't see what purpose it serves. But it was never agreed that it is a way of someone trying to close the discussion. I would ask the unregistered editor to recount: I see 4 opposes. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 now, 3 when you posted your reply. I don't care much about the ready tag editor. From the guidelines above "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header. A [Ready] tag should not be added by the nominator of the item." Seems pretty clear to me. *shrugs* --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, doesn't seem to me to be have lasting impact. Interesting things happen in Antarctica all the time; boreholes to buried lakes, country-sized ice shelves breaking loose, and so forth, and we run those. Speciate (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voter suppression in the 2011 Canadian federal election

Nominator's comments: This is very significant due to the possible impacts it had in the results of the federal election, including whether some candidates won or lost. --Natural R_X 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose claims and possible impacts, two things that are no good at making to ITN. -- Ashish-g55 00:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have changed the blurb accordingly, even though it was a headline from earlier, but I never saw it in the current events. --Natural R_X 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add to my comments that this is notable because the phone calls that were made are in violation of the Canada Elections Act. --Natural R_X 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until such time as it goes from being a claim to being actual legal action. --Golbez (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states there is actual evidence of voter suppression, not just a claim. --Natural R_X 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant until an official body (like a court) has stated such evidence has merit. --Golbez (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, mere investigations are not news, and this won't really be news unless it results in the election results changing, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for final verdict. Once Elections Canada is done, they'll convene a royal commission, and we should get the final verdict some time around 2025. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahaha, so much truth. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to future events?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: ITN has previously rejected a similar case, that had a final decision: Pimentel vs. Zubiri electoral protest. –HTD 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It's quite a curious case and I can see why it could attract interest to a wider audience were it given front page prominence. I can see 'the other side', however, as it is only one small opening part of what will be a wider investigation doktorb _words^deeds 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[(Re)posted] 2012 Quran burning

Very notable, likely to influence the situation in Afghanistan negatively.Oleg-ch (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking ready pending support. Good article and updated (although one needs to note the withdrawal of ALL ISAF advisors as well the investigation which does not involve Afghans and the section of the interior ministry being used purely by ISAF personnel())Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but query the proposed blurb. It makes it sound like the Quran-burning directly caused the 23 deaths. Like they were standing too close or something. Maybe 23 people are killed during protests following the burning of Qurans by US forces in Afghanistan. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very notable. Axe the "Muslim holy book" and just include quran. The phrase just makes the blurb redundant. Reword the blurb to be more neutral, infers the US literally set fire to the quram but from what I read it seems the burning was unintentional. Blurb implies guilt and malice. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "unintentional" is correct. It's not like they just fell on the fire. Could perhaps use the word "incinerated" so as not to confuse with Quran burning as we know it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with the provisions given by Wikifan. This number of deaths would be ITN-worthy if part of an ordinary bomb blast; the religious uprising and international crisis hooks makes it triply notable. Shrigley (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question FormerIP raises a good point. Was this a Florida style book burnin' or were these copies destroyed using a procedure routinely employed for other material at the base? If the latter, incineration is correct, if the former, keep the burning. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the exact circumstances of the burning are unclear, but reports have used the word "incinerator". On the other hand, the burning seems to have been discovered because Afghans happened upon the charred remains. I don't see how that fits. Maybe we'll have to wait for Wikileaks. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support definitely ITN worthy. incorporate wikifan's suggestion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It looks like protests are spreading to other parts of Afghanistan. The German and British government pulled their civilian employees out of Afghanistan. There is a lot of news coverage of the protests. -- Luke (Talk) 03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The issue isn't one word. The problem is "set fire." It is very inflammatory. Incinerate is rather hyperbolic and I cannot seem to find the word used in a source. FWIW, most reliable sources have yet to assign guilt, rather the focus is mostly on the 20+ people killed in the ensuing protests. Better phrasing would be, "x people are killed in protests after the burning of Qurans at a US military base." Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Set fire" is indeed inflammatory. --FormerIP (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 05:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to have been removed for some reason. ITN really needs an update now. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:ERRORS, the article included copyvio. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the adding user why he did so but he hasnt yet replied. Ive also reworded a lot of stuff there so if theres no reason we can remove it tomorrow.Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support re-posting - important ITN item. Please repost asap. Jusdafax 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-posted the copyvio appears to have been addressed. Article could really use some work (IMO), but the consensus was to post as is and copy the copyvio was keeping it off the MP. I did rework the blurb language to try to be as NPOV as possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"were" burned though...the ssue is the protests not the burning and that is a result of the burning.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new Yemeni prez

Nominator's comments: Other nom may have gone stale, this is curren t(today) Lihaas (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not while the article is as it is: the opening sentence describes him as the vice president: oppose any blurb that suggests that there was a meaningful democratic exercise. Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, just needs source (i cant find the numbers of his win). Also there is no suggesting in the blurb saying it is a "meaningful democratic excericise" or not. standard bklurb per all these things.Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet article needs a copy edit. The fragment "al-Hadi voted at about noon." is un-sourced. There are no sourced in the boycott or violence sections. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Some comments: firstly the blurb should say 'an uncontested election'. The election article is very poor and cannot be bold-linked in that state. Al-Hadi's article is in a slightly better shape, but is still uncomfortably short. I have no objection to posting this, but one or both articles need some major work first. Modest Genius ^talk 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR already sas subject to an update. The current prose is from tv, so needs an online source.

There is also nothing and no precdent to mention "uncontested" users can read that on the page. we dont need to push a [pov. it doesnt even say he WON an election, just says afeter being elected.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a great deal of POV in simply saying "Hadi wins an uncontested election". I support mentioning that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau

Annan named UN-Arab special envoy

• Nom. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support now this is a good, even handed way to get Syria on ITN. There is no good update though. What's his mission? Who is he meeting? When? What outcomes are expected? etc. Should probably go in the Syrian Conflict article, not the Kofi Annan article. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this point, we've just posted a sticky about Syria. --Tone 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Conille resigns as PM of Haiti

Nominator's comments: Resignation of a world leader. --Rrius (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support notable enogh for me. Also less represented part of the world. Reasons: added instability in a powder keg...ogoes along with other factos that create uncertainity.Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant sourced update.Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I'm removing this. Resignations are not technically ITN/R. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Estelle of Sweden

Nominator's comments: The birth of a second in line to the throne of any country seems notable to me, also there hasn't been a new blurb for a long time. --80.220.67.189 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obvious oppose, if ever there as one" please, its not even lining the throne.Lihaas (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article lacks citations and apart from the fact that she was born and who her ancestors are, there's no real content available. Also, I don't remember posting births of people in direct line for the throne (somehow I expect a lengthy debate when it comes to the British throne, but at the moment, the quality of the article prevails for me here.) --Tone 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, just as much I would oppose the birth of a child to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. A baby being born is not news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, we should only include heirs apparent or presumptive, at most. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no- just because there hasn't been a blurb for a while, we don't elevate non-news to news (we don't have 30 minutes to fill so the ads have something to go round them). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2012 Buenos Aires train crash

Nominator's comments: 550 people are wounded in Argentina after a train accident. The number of the deaths in unknown yet. Probably 40+. Please improve the article. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Very high number of killed and injured, and the accident happened in the capital city of Argentina. Train disasters are not all that common in developed countries. This will probably have implications for rail security in Argentina, and maybe in other countries as well. Nanobear (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - but only when the article has been bashed into some shape. 50+ killed is a significant number and the crash is ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support per above. A relatively large train disaster, and Argentina is rarely seen on ITN. GreyHood ^Talk 19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been expanded since this comment. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously a very big disaster with high death toll and damage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support only if article is expanded. At the current 1.5 paragraphs, it is not fit to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major disaster in a country rarely seen on ITN.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I will work in this article and try to expand it as possible. Cambalachero (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Done, I included all the info I found (except for trivia, such as specific passengers telling their minor stories). Of course, more info may become available as time passes and more details get known and further reactions take place. Cambalachero (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Markign ready as substantial update/. though the title need a change. Cant it go on the station page instead ofthese needless recentism pages?Lihaas (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The number of injured people has grown from 550 to 676 since the morning (see article for more recent references). I updated the blurb with it. Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support thanks to a great job by Cambalachero --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. Spencer^T♦C 01:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds killed in Homs; Colvin, Ochlik, too

• Nom. Notable per Hetherington-Hondros precedent. --bender235 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Some of the most dedicated, respected and renowned journalists in their fields. Beyond notable. doktorb _words^deeds 11:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose NYT chap died last week without mention. Judges assassinated without mention. Nothing intricnsically notable here. Only european notability (if that). Although i would definately support a sticky for syria. (and libya's post-war conflicts)Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYT reporter Anthony Shadid died of allergic reaction to horses, not shelling in Horms. That's a slight difference in my books. --bender235 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of the first western (french) reporter of france 2 killed in early jan. Same violent death as this in my bookLihaas (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not usually a valid complaint. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its cited as a precedent above...not to mention the OR reasoning listed above tooLihaas (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Doktorbuk. Edit: More than happy to explain further. Both were notable, award-winning journalists; Ochlik's photography was featured in numerous prominent works internationally and just this month he was awarded 1st place in the general news category of the World Press Photo of the Year contest (one of the most prestigious in the world). Colvin had won two British Press Awards. The deaths drew reactions from Rupert Murdoch, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, etc. Swarm ^X 14:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain, since we dont vote count, where this 'ORIGINAL RESEARCH "dedicated, respected and renowned " comes from? Reason indicated since.Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her eyepatch. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this is pointy an arguement to illustrate anthing. Nothing is "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" especially since the same deceptive reasoning is cited as a reason for support below it needs to be queried how that true

But an "eyepatch" doesnt indicate "dedicated, respected and renowned" in any field. Just the same as a fractured arm doesnt.Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She had an eyepatch. Your argument is invalid. Swarm ^X 04:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, vastly different case from Shadid (I supported that too, for the record). Killed in a military attack, veteran journalists (especially in Colvin's case), not dissimilar to last year when we posted the photographers getting killed in Libya. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both notable and have already articles on Wikipedia, it would be nice if the 100 deaths of yesterday city bombardment is mentioned too --aad_Dira (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: Why is it, actually, that we have a February 2012 bombardment of Homs and a Siege of Homs article? I changed the link in the blurb to the latter, but eventually those two articles should be merged. --bender235 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there is too much information for one article so the most notable part(s) are split out, as per standard Wikipedia practice. The Feb bombardment is the correct article for the update and link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose original blurb. This reeks of double standards. Two Westerners get killed and suddenly we post this, after weeks of dozens of Syrians per day being killed whilst we did nothing? Neither journalist seems to have been particularly notable or well known beyond their field. The only reason we're even considering this is because they're from the West. Modest Genius ^talk 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it to you that that's a POINTy oppose. I can understand Lihaas' oppose on grounds we didn't post Shadid's death or the death of the first French journalist. But yours seems to be based on the premise that 'if we don't post Arabs dying, we can't post Westerners dying', and that to me is trying to make a point and being disruptive to ITN by making it. For what it's worth, Colvin was a veteran foreign correspondent. Surely you don't expect journalists to be known "beyond their field". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Modest Genius, but I think you're misjudged on this one. Yes, ordinary citizens are killed every day. That's a tragedy we mark in our own ways within and beyond Wikipedia. But here we have two....symbols, if you like, of the Syrian violence which transcend the domestic and represent the world-wide. There is always support for nominations which involve the killing of civilians by Syrian forces and indeed there has been at least one such story posted on ITN this year. That these journalists happen to be from the West is a detail parallel to, but separate from, the wider context. doktorb _words^deeds 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone nominated a story about civilians dying in Homs I would support it. I just don't think that two Western journalists should take precedent over hundreds of Syrian civilians. You're welcome to disagree with me if you like, but I'm not being deliberately WP:POINTy. Modest Genius ^talk 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that ITN needed two white dudes to die before the carnage in Syria gets in but MG beat me to it. That's not a straightforward oppose though, as ITN needed something from Syria to be posted, since, as IP 78 said, ITN has had blow-by-blow coverage in the Greece situation. –HTD 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The question is whether going with this particular angle is POV. My conclusion is that it is not. Russia and China consider Syria to be an internal situation which is not the wider world's business. In that context the death of outside journalists is significant, albeit they may report the story in very different ways to the West. I would point out that RT are running with the story [9]. As for the "Euro-centric" claim, Colvin was American. —WFC— 17:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per ModestGenius. I know the Western media is putting this into their headlines. But I believe Wikipedia should try to be better. Thousands have been killed in Syria recently, likely including many Syrian journalists. In this light, it would be somewhat arrogant of us to post the deaths of two Western journalist. (Note that I'm not accusing the editors who supported this of anything. I hope I can disagree without offending anyone.) Nanobear (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you consider RT to be part of the "Western media". —WFC— 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "some Westerners" dying in Homs, it is about two notable journalists dying there. If, god forbid, Razan Zaitouneh would've died in Homs, it would be ITN too. --bender235 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per ModestGenius. Journalists reporting conflicts and killed in conflict zones is too common a story. De-marked [Ready] for now. GreyHood ^Talk 19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name the last time a journalist of this prominence was killed in conflict zone! Wait, let me help, were it Hetherington and Hondros? --bender235 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose due to lack of update. The bold article does not mention their deaths, and their personal articles only mention that they died in Homs. Secondly, they were killed in a war zone by indiscriminate shelling. Certainly tragic, but not ITN. I could support if they'd been deliberately arrested and executed by the regime for reporting on the activity in Homs. To Modest Genius, we're over due for a Syria article, find an incident, do a page, and nominate it. I'll support it, even without an EU bailout or some bitchy students. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a reworked blurb, which mentions both the civilian deaths and the journalists (in that order) would be acceptable to everyone? Modest Genius ^talk 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support I think it's ridiculous to oppose because we haven't been updating with civilian causalities. It's a weak point of ITN; simmering conflicts with no particular new news are usually not featured. This came up with the 2011 Japan earthquake, the Occupy protests, and maybe even the Libyan civil war. A week or so ago it was proposed that we update on the Homs bombardment but it was opposed due to nothing new coming out of it. This is a major story that's being reported by the media and is definitely ITN worthy due to the Libya photographers present precedent. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support w/new suggestion: Hopefully a different blurb will appease everyone and get this ongoing conflict on to the main page. "Two foreign journalists become the latest deaths in the ongoing bombardment of Homs that has resulted in over 500 deaths during February." --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article (February 2012 bombardment of Homs) is sufficiently updated unlike Siege of Homs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the point isn't that they're foreign journalists, it's that they were notable. The whole premise of arguing about their nationalities is what is derailing this nomination. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is incredibly awkward to say something like "In the bombardment of Homs that has killed over 500 people during February, journalist Marie Colvin and French photographer Rémi Ochlik become the latest victims". I don't see how to reasonably get the names in there "second" as MG desires. I think (hope) everyone supports posting a story about the conflict, but not everyone supports singling the reporters out. Thus my attempt at compromise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How about

ALT2: "Over 500 people are killed in the bombardment of Homs, Syria, including foreign journalists Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik"

• or something similar? Modest Genius ^talk 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against that per se, but the news story isn't really "500 people are killed" because that implies it happened all at once, which is not the case. How about:

ALT3: "The death toll to date exceeds 500 as continuing conflict in Syria kills foreign journalists Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik"

--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There's an unhealthy perspective on display here that a couple of white, Christian, English speaking westerner deaths are somehow more important than the hundreds of Syrians deaths routinely occurring in these troubles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And there's an unhealthy perspective from you which seems to be, in short, trolling doktorb _words^deeds 23:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this sickening stupidity of people discussing here, not realising that this is about the death of an award-winning, world-renowned journalist, regardless of her nationality, race or whatever. --bender235 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how much do you know (or even care) about the talents of all those dead Syrians? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about some young peoples' talent. This is about a clearly notable person dying under extraordinary circumstances (see ITN death criteria).

Also, if I had to decide, Homs (and Syria in general) would have been ITN more often. As a matter of fact, I personally nominated and/or supported this multiple times in recent months (Nov 12, Nov 16, Dec 19, Jan 28, Feb 8). But just because we decided against posting this back then doesn't mean we have to ignore it this time. --bender235 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People have their reasons and you dont need to make pov subjective judgement vcalls on whats "sickeoning"Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you (HiLo) should not make assumptions about people's motives. As it turns out some/most of us want to get a story about the Syrian conflict on the mainpage and this presents the opportunity to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sticky would do and would get near unanimous support at the moment as its top of th enews nearly everyday.Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. What's happening in Homs is ITN-worthy when an appropriate story can be identified. But, because we generally avoid posting blow-by-blow, I think it would demonstrate poor judgement if we were to decide that the appropriate story is about the deaths of two of our "own", tragic though they are. --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for the millionth time, this is not about "one of our own" dying. Those weren't some unknown, irrelevant European tourists. Colvin was a world-renowned journalist, Olchik an award-winning photographer. That's what makes them notable. --bender235 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their notability is not in issue. But we don't post people's deaths just because they are notable. --FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we do post people's death if they were significant to their field (which, given the media response, even you should be able to recognize) and died unexpectedly or tragically (clearly the case). --bender235 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is far more fluid in its enforcement and is generally on a case-bycase basisLihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The Syrian uprising is notable and the ongoing bombardment is worthy of return to ITN even after only a few weeks since the last appearance. If the deaths of high-profile foreign correspondents is the hook we use for putting the story back up, then I'm okay with that, but the focus should still be on the larger violence and thousands of dead. Dragons flight (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reporters in conflict zone take this risk willingly. We dont post soldiers dying in war now do we? I'm sorry but this nom makes lives of Syrian civilians seem utterly useless. -- Ashish-g55 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they were like Victoria Cross recipients, or otherwise notable (like being a NFL player), yes, we certainly would post soldiers dying in war. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Surprised at the opposition to this. Notable individuals in a notable circumstance. The opposes are mainly based on an emotive perspective and incorrect comparison with the appalling ongoing civilian death toll. The 2 events are separate, hard though it might be for some editors to accept it. Leaky Caldron 23:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well emotion and the lack of a viable update for me... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is the people of Homs, telling you how significant Colvin's and Ochlik's death was to them. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them if they think it's the most significant thing to have happened to them this week. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - notable individuals in a notable circumstance sounds right. notable because of their role kind of thing as much as anything -it doesnt 'make lives of Syrians seem utterly useless' imo - just a stupid non sequitur that. Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as nominator, I changed the blurb, now focussing on the civilian casualties first. I wonder if this results in another POV rant, since there is no official source for the number of casualties. --bender235 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slight reword for whats more certain than the vague. SHould be much more likely to be supported now.Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the new blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Colvin was regarded as the finest foreign correspondent of her generation in the British media. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose dictatorship in mideast kills its own people - sorry, but it's disturbingly not news - the fact that two westerners get caught up in the slaughter changes nothing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree entirely. However, that's not the situation. Swarm ^X 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So if we'd write "World-renowned journalists Colvin, Olchik were killed at some place by someone's artillery", it would be ITN material. But since it happened in Syria, where people have been dying for a year now, it's no big deal. Absolutely weird. --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Colvin and Olchik are notable enough to satisfy the ITN death criteria on their own, and would oppose posting their deaths if hey had been killed in, say, Pakistan, Somalia or Georgia. Modest Genius ^talk 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Colvin and Olchik were really that notable, why did neither of them have articles until they were killed? Colvin Olchik Modest Genius ^talk 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't like that argument. We, for example, posted an ITN death story about the Mexican government official who was killed in a helicopter (the name escapes me right now, but I think he was around 45 years old). hbdragon88 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any interest in posting this blurb? The majority of the oppose !votes would appear to be addressed by emphasising the whole event, not just the journalists. Modest Genius ^talk 12:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you basically killed the discussion with that "Western POV" gibberish. Right now, it seems, the consensus is: the Syrian conflict is ITN worthy, but if we'd post it right now it would make us look Eurocentrist, so we better don't. --bender235 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sticky?

There seems to be a lot of support for a sticky on Syria. I was tempted to just do it, but put it in the sandbox instead. Let me know what you think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think this would definitely be worthwhile. Swarm ^X 04:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more worthwhile than the above though im neutral. Though i would add libya, abahrain and posibly yemen. (Arab Spring?)Lihaas (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportI would had preferred if we post a story instead, because ITN is ignoring hundred of deaths daily in Syria for a much less significant events, and found this a chance to post a news about it, but this sounds good as well --aad_Dira (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Neutral I removed my support from the nomination above because of the amended heading and blurb. A sticky would be a solution of sorts, but Wikipedia is not a news ticker, we're supposed to be as neutral as we can be, and I'm worried that the reaction to the (perfectly fine) nomination above is skewing our neutrality doktorb _words^deeds 09:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've been advocating a sticky for over a month. Considering the relatively uneventful past few weeks, it doesn't seem like a sticky would undermine ITN status quo ATM. Probably smart to post an article for the 50+ killed in Iraq this morning. Don't believe libya/bahrain/yemen into the mix. Syria is basically the center of drama as far as the international community is concerned. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support " Two Westerners get killed and suddenly we post this, after weeks of dozens of Syrians per day being killed whilst we did nothing." The real double standard is when mass killings occur in Europe/America, ITN proposals are typically expedited straight to the front page without serious opposition. On the other hand, when hundreds of civilians are killed in an Arab country, the community is largely silent or indifferent. The fact that two mainstream journalists were killed is unfortunate. But remember editors rarely respond in great numbers unless some American/European is killed in the crossfire. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What would be the criteria for removing the sticky later? The end of violence in Syria? It's been going on for a year already, what if it goes on for another? Can we really leave "conflict in Syria" stuck to the bottom ITN for a year? Then what about other conflicts? Can we give every festering conflict a sticky? I don't mean to downplay the Syrian conflict, but I think as a practical matter, this needs to be addressed. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a nm thereof ot remove per consensusLihaas (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support a sticky, but I would like there to also be a regular blurb. I also share the IP's concern above as to when the sticky would justifiably be removed, but we can always discuss that on this page as we go along. Modest Genius ^talk 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the sticky link leads to February 2012 bombardment of Homs article rather than 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, and this bombardment is not expected to last a whole year --aad_Dira (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Posted: I made the sticky live, since there is clear consensus to do so. It should be removed when the Syria story is no longer front page news on a daily basis. The presence of the sticky does not rule the possibility of also posting noteworthy developments as they happen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would there be any objection to changing the sticky target to the omnibus 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article rather than the Homs bombardment article? I would think it would serve our readers better to give the broader overview; the Homs bombardment is linked from the parent article anyways. Just an idea. --Jayron32 13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing linked article to 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. The sticky should be as broad as possible, especially since the text over the link is "Conflict in Syria". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I linked the bombardment article since it is the one where the day-to-day updates go and this is ITN. However, I am not opposed to the broader article being linked instead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

theres gorowing conflict in Hama an d Damascus tooLihaas (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done As there were no objections, I have updated the sticky link to the broader article. --Jayron32 06:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khader Adnan hunger strike

Nominator's comments: he longest hunger strike in Palestinian history (and longer than Sands). --Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not convinced by the notability or world-wide interest of this story. doktorb _words^deeds 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — sources? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support large, sourced updated article. Reactions from HRW and UN. Abbas met with UK, EU, US and China. International coverage. Check the article, it's pretty good. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It's not the most earth-shattering news, but the article is rather good. Modest Genius ^talk 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 30,000+ year old plant regenerated

Nominator's comments: Greatly exceeds the previous record (2000 years) for oldest remains successful used to create a living plant specimen. It is being called a very significant accomplishment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as creator of article, but the blurb could be improved. The 31,800 figure is too precise, as radiocarbon dating shows a range. It is best to say "about 32,000 years old". "Piece of fruit" is misleading; these are hard seeds. Botanists call them fruit. Better to use "seed tissue". Speciate (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I made the suggested changes. The word approximately can probably be left out, as round numbers are generally assumed to be approximate anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. A rare type of story and major scientific record. GreyHood ^Talk 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the term "scientists" in the blurb is vague. Reports also indicates somethign not conclusive. If its conclusive we dint need the caveats. At most cite the journal the discovery was published in.

Marking ready dueto timer an dmore than sufficient updateLihaas (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks like potentially Nobel Prize winning research.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding? Being in the news for a week is going to be the most that ever happens. Speciate (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 10:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the title to concerns in lin ehere or at least ahve an explanation? Thx.Lihaas (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hun? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"scientists report" is vague. Should take that out entirely. Suggests csomethign rumoured not definate and thats not ITNLihaas (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the article (as I did when you raised this concern on my talk page), "the accomplishment has not yet been independently verified, and previous claims of ancient regeneration have often not held up under scrutiny." —David Levy 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Greece Bailout

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We posted it last time, whatever article that was for can be used aain. Although i would wait till the transfer confirmation (unless the acceptance is the done deal an dno going bacl)Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral We posted the bill + riot, we posted the fall of the last government, and now the bailout, maybe we need a Greece sticky? At the same time al-Assad levels Homs and the consensus is "yawn, old news, can't post every single xyz update in Syria". I'm not supporting or opposing this nom, just saying... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but different wording. The blurb should mention the total amount of the loan and the debt that was written off.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I#m surprised this got overlooked. Greece_financial_crisis#Second_rescue_package looks good as an update. Modest Genius ^talk 09:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting due quality update, lack of objection, and no updates to template in a while. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeni election

Nominator's comments: Election starts in a few hours, not sure exactly when result should be out. When it is the update should occur for posting. Lihaas (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - Hadi ran unopposed so the "news worthiness" of the result is trivial, but we generally post all national election results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article is a right old state, not sure the nomination is worthy in the first place but the article is in need of serious repair. doktorb _words^deeds 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its ITNR, the article will be posted solely pending the quality of the article.Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And unfortunately the article is a mess. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single Atom transistor

Nominator's comments: seems pretty significant, found it's been updated here Moore's_law#Major_enabling_factors_and_future_trends EdwardLane (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as suggested. If scientific opinion is that the single atom transistor is highly notable of itself (and it sounds to me as though it might be), that could easily become a support, but merely beating a prediction is not ITNworthy. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's why I changed the blurb to put the 'beating the prediction' in brackets - I think (though I know little to nothing about it) that the single atom transistor is significant in it's own right. EdwardLane (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really want to support this, but it belongs in Transistor or in it's own article. Need to know how it was made, some theoretical and practical applications, etc. Right now it's a 1 line bullet point in moore's law. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I considered nominating this, but decided against it on the basis of the NYT story which suggests it is in fact not the first such demonstration of single atom transistor, but rather rather just the first made with "normal" techniques. I would reconsider if a significant update of History of the transistor was undertaken explaining the significance of the advance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kevin. If it was a very notable scientific innovation, then it should be supported without mentioning the prediction that was beaten. The innovation itself is not so notable for now, and the information compiled in the blurb could be an interesting material for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mexican prison fight

Nominator's comments: "Mexico's deadliest prison riot" seems noteworthy to me, article needs some work --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Interesting story, article could use a bit of expansion, but it seems ITN worthy, and a good enough start. Main page attention could help an article like this get better. Has anyone checked es.wikipedia to see if there is more there? --Jayron32 04:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Article has been expanded from 2 paragraphs to 4 and a half. As such, it is ready for posted if deemed ITN worthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. nearly 50 deaths in a prison riot; surely that's very rare.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very notable story. Update is adequate. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Curiously, we have two prison incidents-related stories on ITN now. --Tone 08:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amend blurb on German president, Joachim Gauck nominated

• I suggest amending the current blurb on Christian Wulff's resignation, to reflect that the government and opposition have agreed on the candidate to replace him. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support amended blub and reseting date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this change be considered ready? Josh Gorand (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose posting at this moment, although the development appears very straightforward, let's just wait until he's officially elected. --Tone 08:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - when appointed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wait obviously per above WHEN appointed (if?). nominations are never ITN.Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this also will apply to Mitt Romney, that's fine with me. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential nominations in the US are the result of a long and drawn out process, garner international attention, and the winner attains real power if elected to public office. The President of Germany is a figure head. That said, I oppose amending the blurb for the same reason as Tone. If he had been appointed interim president, it would be an obvious support. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German President is not appointed, but elected by the Bundesversammlung (on 18 March). Since the parties nominating him have a vast majority (>80%) in it, he's virtually certain to be elected, so I'd consider him designated President. I'd therefore support updating the Wulff blurb, but without resetting the date (the choosing of a successor is a "natural" consequence of the resignation). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Golden Bear

• Support Very important film festival award. Nice updating by the IP editor too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Award is listing on ITN/R and update is sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ITN/R and an update? Count me in. Jusdafax 21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reason as BAFTA. It's just a big results table. Since this will likely post anyway, the bold link should be the 62nd BIFF and not Caesar Must Die. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - with respect, I'd disagree with the oppose. The film's article makes it clear that this was an upset win by a very unusual film, and I think it's OK to bold the film article instead of the festival. But either way, this is an internationally important award, and the fact that it is ITN/R gives it more than enough 'juice', as they say. Besides... no ITN item added for TWO days? Let's post this asap, please. Jusdafax 22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The content from Caesar must die should be ported to the BIFF article, which would put in context. The article itself would have almost zero content if it wasn't for the award. Probably best to port the content, bold BIFF, post per ITN/R and AFD Caesar Must Die. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for CMD?! Please come back when you are relevant. Lugnuts (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my post, it was nothing more than a blurb about winning the golden bear at BIFF. No cast, no reviews, no infobox, no nothing. I stand by my initial statement, and if it hadn't expanded (it has), I would have come back in about 6 months and nominated it for AFD, after porting the relevant bits to BIFF. Please don't use hateful words like "come back when you are relevant". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A film that has won the Golden Bear is obviously not going to have its article deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although I agree that the bold link should not be to Caesar Must Die. --FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull due to lack of update. The BIFF article has one paragraph of text; that is well short of our criteria. Link to the film article if that has a better update. Sorry, perhaps I missed some text waaay down in the article; it's still a disappointing article for the main page, and I don't think it meets the '3 well formed paragraphs' criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT instead of complaining! Lugnuts (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if Caesar Must Die was the central article chosen just as A Separation, Honey, etc. were in previous years. BTW, the 62nd Berlin International Film Festival doesn't look much different from the 61st Berlin International Film Festival which got the go-ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.184 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian marines arrested over shooting Indian fishermen

Nominator's comments: (1)Notability: Major diplomatic flare-up as two serving Italian marines are arrested. Indians claim that innocent fishermen were shot while the marines say it was an attempted piracy incident. Blurb may need to be fixed to show that there are two versions to the incident.

(2) Update: Nice, fat, freshly created article (in my entirely subjective view) compared to the example of the minimum required update for a new article (Fuzhou derailment). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article has a slight anti-Italy slant and some grammatical curiosities, but overall it's pretty good. Decent size, map, sources. Googling uncovered that the two Italian marines are now in custody in India, so this will probably linger for a few days. Finally, given that India has a substantial English speaking population, I think this will have some interest on en.wikipedia.org. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wrote the first draft of the article - while I tried to keep it neutral, its possible that some inherent bias may have crept in. Please let me know if you want me to look at any particular language. [Edit: Have included more neutral sources and the position of the Italian foreign ministry.] Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment on the articles talk page, but by the time I got back there to leave it everything else seemed ok to me. Doesn't seem to be generating much interest here though. Too bad, nice job with the article anyway. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support To me, the importance is borderline, but the article is exceptional. As such, I am inclined to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavyweight title

Nominator's comments: Heavyweight title bouts happen only about once a year (per organization). I am not knowledgeable enough about boxing to know which organization(s) ae considered the most important and boxing is not covered in WP:ITNR, so so I'm listing it for discussion. If people desire, I would be willing to create a new article on the fight (most such fights have their own articles). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly agree that boxing deserves some sort of representation on ITN. I'm not fully conversant with the international framework for the sport either but from what I can make out, we have both amateur boxing (Olympics/Asian Games/CWG etc) and professional boxing (for prize money). In professional boxing, we have 4 bodies - WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. It doesnt seem to have a unified international structure (like FIFA for football or the ICC for cricket). I suppose we can feature the top one or two organisations from amongst the four. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can help identify it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A sport that cannot organise a proper world championship reeks of non-merit among their respective "championships". I doubt if you could ever gain agreement on ranking the bodies. These "championships" are an insult to those who have won real world championships in the past. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending update The WBC is one of the four boxing Majors, and this is the Heavyweight Championship, which has historically always been the glamour weight class. However, the article needs a better update; it has only a single sentence. If the article is updated with a paragraph describing the fight, I'd fully support. --Jayron32 05:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Apart from the viewpoint that we should not be giving any promotion to an ill mannered thug like Chisora, or credibility to a sport that gives him a platform, there have been, by my calculation, 70 heavyweight "world championship" fights in the last 10 years. Given that a story remains typically on the main page for 5-6 days, that would mean that boxing occupies ITN space for 10% of the time. Major unification bouts (in any weight category), those that genuinely gain widespread attention of those beyond the fan base of the sport, might merit inclusion, but not routine defences, many of which (including this one) are widely perceived to be of little sporting merit (Haye-Harrison anyone?) Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I do agree some of the tricks Chisora's pulled and has pulled in this match and those before were very unsportsmanlike, and did not do anything good for the reputation of the sport or the title. But then again, someone being a "thug" is not really a real argument. --hydrox (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons given above. Boxing has become very hard to support for ITN because of its desire to split into little grouplets. I don't agree with Kevin's view about promoting "ill mannered thugs", but everything else is pretty much what I think. Boxing titles would be front page news....if boxing wasn't so..."boxing" doktorb _words^deeds 09:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A passing read of the comments above seem to suggest that ITN shouldn't post anything about boxing anytime, while we have such events as hurling and Gaelic football ("Top level of championship in multi-national sport") in ITN/R. Not only is that stupid, but reeks of bias. The problem is to select which boxing fights would make it to ITN. I had previously suggested on ITNR that any fights that include both boxers in the top 5 of any of the pound-for-pound lists by The Ring, BBC, ESPN, Yahoo Sports and probably Sports Illustrated (if they maintain such lists) could be considered (not necessarily ITN/R) for discussion. I'd reckon the Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. fight will pwn the page view stats of events such as the massively-supported-in-ITN Heineken Cup. The boxers in the pound for pound lists usually don't meet each other very often: this is not tennis where the best players face each other in the final; some don't meet in their entire careers, due to size difference. Another good milestone is if a boxer wins his fifth world division title. There had only been five quintuple champions in history, so the sixth person to be included in the list should be at least considered for discussion in ITN, and not dismissed outright. –HTD 09:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could rewrite that in plain English, without any insider jargon? I'm sorry, but to me it was largely incomprehensible. If the best "players" don't meet each other, there can be no real champion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "real champion" in "all of boxing" since boxers have weigh around the same a day before the fight, hence there are chances where the best players would never meet. For example, a fight between Klitschko and Pongsaklek Wonjongkam is a mismatch since Klitschko is a lot bigger than Wonjongkam, and the former will beat the latter to a bloody pulp before the first round is over (in short, it's not fair). This is unlike Nadal vs Djokovic where they'd meet every time they make it to the final even though Nadal (hypothetically) is a lot bigger than Djokovic. Hence, there are "pound for pound" rankings to sort out which boxers are the best assuming they had the same weights. Hence "pound for pound." (This is the same in sports such as mixed martial arts and weightlifting.)

The issue with these "pound for pound" rankings is that these are completely subjective, hence in my examples I used as much as 4 lists; most of the time these lists include the same boxers in the top 5-6 anyway.

In a boxer's career he usually starts in the lower weights, as he progresses he steps up to a heavier weight limit. If a boxer is really good, he can win at least one title in any of the four orgs (WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO) or the lineal championship in every weight division. If he wins at least once in five weight divisions, it's a rare achievement. –HTD 10:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see its hard to identify a ITN-worthy championship/combination of championships, I agree with HTD that we shouldnt be dismissing this outright, we should at least make an attempt to see if we can arrive at some possible criteria to identify major boxing achievements rather than give it up just because it looks difficult (which admittedly it does). I am not sure if this is the right forum and we will also need few people with a more than decent knowledge of the sport to step up and take this forward. (Comment edited once) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when substantially updated tl;dr: If we post boxing, there should be certain standards of what is a "big match". And this was probably one. –– Vitali Klitschko is–almost without a doubt–one of the greatest legends of contemporary heavy-weight boxing. There are some opposing opinions above on the grounds that professional boxing has no one well-organized international body. These comments are true but entirely trivial, and if followed systematically would lead to us not never posting any pro boxing. Obviously we should post some pro boxing, it is anyway one of the most popular sports in modern history, but it's not ITNR because matches have to be decided on a case-by-case basis due to the fragmentation issue. This match–I think–passes the threshold as a very highly-anticipated and reported bout ("klitschko vs chisora" on Google News gives >2000 articles) and for reasons including the fact it was for the most esteemed weight class (heavyweight) title, Klitschko's legendary standing and what happened in the weight-in and the anticipation it built. Also, Chisora is a Briton, so this is of special interest to one of the main target audiences of the English Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't the news caption reflect the fact that Chisora was arrested after the match for brawling with David Haye ([13] [14] [15])? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What would be real news is if the sport(?) of professional boxing could sort out its internal conflicts and harmonise into one global organisation with standardised rules and truly recognisable champions. Only then could non-boxing fans accept claims such as this one on their merits. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL at the question mark after boxing. That means persuading you is next to impossible. (LOL). If boxing isn't a sport, and darts and chess are, then what is a sport?

The harmonization of boxing into one organization, if it ever happens (it won't), is immaterial. The power is brokered by the matchmakers; these orgs just sanction matches; their title belts are next to worthless as the main prize are the guaranteed purses and the pay-per-view payoffs. In fact, this was the deal breaker in the Pacquiao vs. Mayweather; earlier this decade Pacquiao was ranked among the best, and he didn't even have a world championship.

Also, the heavyweight title isn't well followed anymore. Probably because the Americans suck at this weight level. –HTD 02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People often cite the split of title belts as a reason nobody cares about boxing but I also think the fragmentation of boxing might be overrated; people may be overlooking other reasons for boxing's decline (a growing perception that it's 'barbaric'; lack of title holders from the US, UK instead of Ukraine; the rise of other sports). Boxing has never had a global authority with the power of FIFA, FIBA, or the IOC. That said the US also sucks at soccer but that sport is plenty popular. --Johnsemlak (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think boxing as a sport and boxers as personalities' popularity is way too underrated. It's just not widely popular in the "right places" (UK and most of Europe) -- it should be popular in Asia and Latin America (by extension the Latino community in the U.S.), especially more so on the latter, since aside from football/soccer, what other sport would the people follow? Certainly not handball, cricket or rugby. –HTD 06:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per comments by Hydrox and HTD. If we can post European Handball we can post this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]