[Posted] Tribal clashes in Sabha leave 147 killed

Nominator's comments: Big numbers of deaths and have strong impact on the stability of new Libya. The main article is 2011–2012 Libyan factional fighting. --Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tentative support, but the phrase "tribal clashes" is pretty vague and doesn't really explain what is happening. Maybe "Clashes between X and Y tribes in Sabha, Libya..."? Spencer^T♦C 19:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would keep "tribal". How about "Six days of tribal clashes between the Tabu and the Arab Abu Seif in Sabha, Libya kill 147 people"? However, I'm concerned about Tabu tribe article having no inline citations in most sections. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support Seems like a very important clash after few tribes announced their strive for secession from the country. It is fairly well covered through the media and the death toll is extraordinarily high.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose Looking at the events of today (the date it is nominated under) I see 16 deaths reported - that isn't hugely significant in the realm of armed conflict. To get the higher death toll means running a narrative thread through a number of separate incidents and treating them as a group, which becomes more of an ongoing problem as opposed to a specific event which is generally the focus of ITN. If we are to lump them together and treat them as a group we really need an independent RS that does the grouping of these particular events together, as opposed to them simply being an otherwise unconnected subset of difficulties in post-revolution Libya. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

My first notion was that the nomination is for the Sabha conflict, not particularly for the day-to-day tribal clashes and most recent itself. Current blurb needs minor change to document the developing conflict.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crispmuncher the provided source does that. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment if this is added then it should not be on the top as the clashes occurred couple of days ago. (some additional deaths are probs from injuries occurred then)Lihaas (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just placement i guess...the fightings been ongoing for a week with most losses occurring before yest. So the "in the news" part would relate to Wed/Thurs at most.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its NOT the most current. And it happened at least after Gambia. The clash that strted was last MOnday (almost a week ago)Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed now. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Ready] Skateboarding's first 1080

Nominator's comments: Although not a competitive achievement, this represents a major development in the sport of skateboarding, and featuring this also signals to younger people that Wikipedia is unbiased when deciding what kinds of news merit promotion. --meco (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is NOT a minority topic, nor is it a news article with a blurb liek that. I rewored and changed the relevant bitsLihaas (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose It ruddy is a minority topic! Of absolutely no interest to anyone, anywhere, ever. Wholly inappropriate for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 08:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Of absolutely no interest to anyone, anywhere, ever." Demonstrably false by the existence of this nom, thus your vote is not only invalid but is also the core of a paradox that, untamed, will rip our universe asunder. Repent. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Surely this is a minority topic. I've also added back the nationality and age of the achiever and rephrased the blurb somewhat. __meco (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hes nto from Argentina or Mexico or Canada

As for minority topic: since when does sport become a minority topic? Listed at the bluelink is "Business and economics, Culture, Infrastructure, Technology"Lihaas (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, why not. However, the article would have to be significantly longer. --Tone 08:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support if the article can be expanded sufficiently. A world first, and an especially significant milestone in the relevant sport (compare the recent 100 cricket centuries story). AlexTiefling (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• That's interesting news indeed. Support if expanded. --RJFF (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support with a bit more expansion; it's a nice quick and positive story after all the recent conflict and election stories. GRAPPLE X 12:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support because it's a world first, and many professional skateboarders deemed the trick impossible. Also agree with Alex, matches the 100 cricket centuries story. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite possibly the most outrageous claim of equivalence I have ever read. Tendulkar's record is the culmination of an international career in a major international sport that started 10 years before this kid could walk. It is evident to anyone who follows the sport that the achievement is unlikely to be matched in at least a generation. He has received some of the highest awards that his nation and his sport can give. A child's hobby is considered equivalent???? Extraordinary. Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support because of it being a minority topic. Skateboarding is popular in many countries, but - can someone clarify it a bit here? --Τασουλα (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The blurb should be altered to read 'American' rather than 'United States citizen.' --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The article seems to be well updated...are we still waiting for more expansion of the article? If not it looks ready to post to me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ready to be posted: Article is short, but decent and up-to-date. --RJFF (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was going to post, but it seems a bit stale having happened back on March 30 (or 31, I can't remember which)...I also recommend DYK, as suggested by FormerIP. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. This isn't a newsworthy event. The source provided above isn't even a news source, it's the website of the company that sponsors the 12 year-old. Since the article is new, it should be instead considered for DYK. FormerIP (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Agree it's not newsworthy — no significant coverage in news sites, nowhere near enough for even our lowest thresholds of newsworthiness. Go to DYK. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment has received coverage from LA Times, Long Island Press and UK daily mail. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 19:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and the onus is on you to provide the pudding, not me. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating", actually. But here are news mentions by The Guardian] ([3]), Daily Mail ([4]) and The Daily Telegraph ([5]). Not exactly Woodward and Bernstein levels of reporting, but it's still being treated as news. GRAPPLE X 21:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those don't look like they are likely to have been in the print editions, though. In each case, they've written a tiny blurb to go with the video. FormerIP (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oooohhhh he wanted the actual news stories. I thought I didn't need to link them as they are in the article itself. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 21:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Not being an aficionado I thought I'd learn more about this and went to 1080 (skateboarding). The third and final paragraph of the nine (wow!) line article really helped me understand, not. To help others, it reads....

"There were particular challenges at the MegaRamp at Woodward West in Tehachapi, California where the jump was filmed by several cameras. It provided some of the speed and velocity needed, however the 50-foot gap in the ramp was a hinder to keep the momentum going all the way through to the quarter pipe. This was overcome by the creation of a custom built roll-over feature which allowed the skater to drop in on the 70-foot-tall and roll right over the large gap, thus allowing the speed to be maintained."

That is simply so much crap as to be unbelievable. I still have no idea what happened. But it's good to know that the skater had both speed AND velocity. This nomination is NOT ready. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Gambian election

Nominator's comments: And les not start with the same old "oppose as a small country" its ITNR, with an update it will be posted. Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - fails to meet the purpose of itn; To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news; To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events; To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them; To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

If the nation was more important (G20) or had been in the news (Egypt) than it would pass the first and third point. 70.48.105.120 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you serious? 25 mins later you say "oppose its not important/notable" -- it is ITNR and it will be posted unless you can discuss to change the ITNR regardless of reasons at TINC.

Anyways, my stupid internet connection is not loading this. can someone collate the data and add it or show it to me add? ThksLihaas (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's your internet connection. The server of the IEC seems to have collapsed. --RJFF (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^ and stating that it is ITNR is not an argument, please state how it is notable and why readers will be interested. 70.48.105.120 (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's a national election plagued by accusations of corruption and rigging. I fail to see how that's less interesting than the BRICS summit or a baseball team changing hands. GRAPPLE X 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the comment above...ITNR mens it will get posted.Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. It's scheduled as a recurring item in WP:ITNR, it's of significance to anyone interested in world or African politics, and I see no pressing or valid reason to refuse it. GRAPPLE X 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No way at the current state. –HTD 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose ITNR does not mean "post regardless". That article is an unholy mess and should not be near the front page in its current state doktorb _words^deeds 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed its the quality of he article. Whats the "unholy mess" then? so we can clean it to ready for posting.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lemme point out where in the article is the "unholy mess": it's this one. –HTD 15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WOW! you are just so helpful in impriving WP with that comment. that will really help improve the article. J-H-C!please dont spread that love ;)Lihaas (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pushing it to be posted at ITN at this state won't help in improving it, either. –HTD 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx for clarifying what "state" that is ;) + ITN has often been cited as a reason for improving the articleLihaas (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that cited enough. Your blabbering on this issue is actually not helping to improve the state of the article nor its chances of getting in the Main Page. –HTD 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is small, but it's not a mess. There's a few bare-url citations that could be fixed, and while the prose isn't fantastic it's hardly the worst I've seen. For what it's worth, here's a Deutsche Welle article on the election that would further help to expand it. GRAPPLE X 15:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for being fruitful , lot more helpful than the rubbish above ;) Ive added contnent from there. We could add the list of 48 constituencies, though im relictant as the MP data is nothere.

Reflinks is a DYK not ITN preregotaive, but its still done ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support and ready to be posted. The article has been tidied up, expanded and updated during the last couple of hours. I think doktorb's requirements considering the quality of the article, leading to his temporary opposition, have been met now. It utilizes all sources currently available. The notability should not be called in question, given that it is ITN/R and has been covered by int'l media. --RJFF (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question Should we mention President Yahya Jammeh as the leader of the winning APRC, even though it is a parliamentary and not a presidential election? --RJFF (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We dont do it be precedence , hes also not the parliamentary leader for the parliamentary election. In places such as El Salvador we didnt put Fnes for the FMLNLihaas (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I'm not a fan of automatic ITNR for election in "less important" countries either, but the update is solid and well developed. I'm no expert in Gambian politics but it appears free of significant problems. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Obvious Support good update to ITN/R item. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 6:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] 2012 BRICS summit

Nominator's comments: This summit is prominent for bringing together five emerging economies into a single forum. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: It's an ITNR item so that takes care of notability and the article looks good. Have also added a title for the nomination so that it shows up on the index above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marking readyLihaas (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Summit of BRICS is a very important meeting for the world's politics and definitely item for ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Shall we instead wait until it concludes, in that case we can also post some results? --Tone 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added some results of the summit, along with another reference. Rest of the references are available in the article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted. Nice work. But the proposed blurb is too long, and I couldn't even find the word "declaration" in the article except in linked references, and I think New Delhi is a fairly well-known city so I trimmed "India". --BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we seperate BRICS and summit as the former has its own articleLihaas (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, please see WP:PIPE. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its not PIPE as its not deceptive. It actually leads to the BRICS page and the summir [age per the links.Lihaas (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Is it possible to add a photo for this ITN blurb? We can add the logo. The other photo in the article would be rather useless at the ITN size. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah! Good point, the updated 5 leaders...IF its free of concerns.Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lula da Silva recovers from cancer

Nominator's comments: A head of state (and not anyone, but a regional leader of South America) recovers from cancer. --Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Notable enough to warrant a mention, as he is a very popular leader and former head of state. He continues to play a major role in Brazilian politics, including this year's municipal elections (particularly in the city of São Paulo). Limongi ^(talk) 15:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, someone announcing a return to politics isn't exactly ITN stuff, especially since the article update consists of two sentences in an otherwise large piece. More effective for Wikinews. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The news item is the recovery from cancer, not just Lula's return to politics. That doesn't happen very often. Cambalachero (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It doesn't, no, but if that's the story then this is nothing doing. We don't, or shouldn't, post otherwise regular things that happen to famous people, unless they have an immediate impact on geopolitics, which this doesn't. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, Golbez has it spot on. Not significant for ITN. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose neither is particularly remarkable. Dick Cheney had a heart transplant that made headlines, why not nominate that too. Hot Stop^UTC 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per Golbez. Khazar2 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Pulled] Sale of the LA Dodgers

Nominator's comments: This is the largest sale of a sports franchise in world history, over half-a-billion dollars more than the previous record. It also involves a historic team in MLB's second largest market. --PlasmaTwa2 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question — do we have any precedents for this? Did we post when FSG bought over Liverpool? If we did, then I'd be inclined to support. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if we posted Liverpool or not; was it the largest sale in history? The previous record, if I remember corectly, was something like 1.5 billion. I think two billion dollars for a baseball team (and not a very good one at that... go Jays!) makes this comparable to a major corporate takeover. --PlasmaTwa2 16:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: Just looked it up. The previous record was $1.47 billion for Manchester United in 2005. --PlasmaTwa2 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Historic purchase of a sports team. Truthsort (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment' I was set to say "uhh, no" until I saw that sale price. If we do run it though, I think the blurb needs to note this is a record for such a sale. Resolute 17:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per this being such a huge amount of money. By no means a Baseball fan... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support but it should be made clear in the blurb that this is for a record amount. Hot Stop^UTC 17:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI I marked as minority since it's a business deal. Hot Stop^UTC 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Wasn't sure if this counted as a minority topic or not given it is a sporting item as well as a business deal. --PlasmaTwa2 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support for the amount of money involved in the sale. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I don't know anything about the sport, I don't care about the team, I don't have any interest in finding anything about this whole affair, but I can see just how notable and important this news story is, and can see no reason why it shouldn't be on the front page doktorb _words^deeds 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I really don't like baseball, but to conclude a record-breaking deal worth $2.1 billion is a very important news. Note that this is even times more than the value of the richest football clubs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose This is a business transaction, not a sports one. I'm not used to seeing business transactions posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Lack of significant update in the article, and lack of any real life significance in the actual news business transaction. Mtking ^(edits) 20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Guggenheim Partners article meets the "standard" five sentence update. --PlasmaTwa2 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thrust of the Support's above are based on the significance in relation to the sports team, that article has not had a significant update. If the nomination was just about a deal done by Guggenheim Partners then it would be WP:SNOW opposed. Mtking ^(edits) 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have taken the liberty of fleshing out the update on the Dodgers page (though how long it stands is anyone's guess). I believe it is well above the required minimum now, though it could possibly use some fan and player reactions, which alas, I cannot add at the moment because university essays do not write themselves. --PlasmaTwa2 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose We could either consider this a business story, or a sports story. If the former, then I would question whether it is so big a deal that it would automatically merit mention; if the latter, we have a long standing principle that records are not generally ITNable, on the basis that the nature of a record is that it will be surpassed. So notability seems to centre on a business record within one specific business sector: I suspect that we would not extend that to other sectors. Kevin McE (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but did we not just have a sports record/milestone on itn? --PlasmaTwa2 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally that is in areas of personal achievement, not someones ability to write numbers on a cheque. Mtking ^(edits) 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Support: If its the largest such deal ever, then its worthy of being posted on ITN. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Retracting support for reason provided further below. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I was ready to support, until I read this, which includes lines such as "agreed Tuesday night to buy," "is one of several steps toward a sale," "is subject to approval in federal bankruptcy court." Thus, I oppose, but would support posting the story when it's confirmed. C628 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I cleaned up the blurb and marked as ready. Hot Stop^UTC 03:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hold your horses. C628 makes a very good observation. Perhaps editors have been voting without the full facts. I'd also support waiting for the deal to actually go through. FormerIP (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If people didn't check the articles, it's their fault. I have tweaked the blurb though Hot Stop^UTC 03:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made one slight edit to your blurb, changing "sports team" to "professional sports franchise" as the sale includes both the team and Dodgers Stadium. --PlasmaTwa2 03:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll admit that I gave it only a cursory glance so I really dont have any one else to blame but at the time I read it, the first line in the para read "has been sold" and not "an agreement had been reached on the sale". I'm not imputing any bad faith, but the blurb and the opening line was (probably unintentionally) misleading at that time, hence I'm retracting my support. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support obvious global significance, despite being a sports story. Update need to be more clearer. Secret ^account 03:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's absolute crap. I wasn't going to argue this strongly (and still won't), but posts like that deserve the bullshit call. I live in the most sports obsessed city in one of the world's most sports obsessed countries, and there's no mention in our local media. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Baseball is largely a North American obsession. After the fact oppose for that very reason. The "make up a story and then change it once it has support" element makes a mockery of the whole consensus-building process too. I don't agree with Hot Stop's analysis: people should be able to take stories on trust. If a bait-and-switch is done (even an unintentional one) we need to wait to make sure there is consensus on the actual story featured. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Wikilawyering at it's finest. Hot Stop^UTC 05:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)Really? I haven't cited a single policy there. Trust me, if I wanted to throw a spanner in the works I could bring up some more substantive arguments of factual accuracy in even the revised blurb. You'll also note I haven't gone in demanding that this be pulled. It is simply a nonsense to use consensus formed in support of one story as evidence of consensus for a less significant story. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Actually, baseball is fairly popular in Japan and South Korea too. I'm not a fan, but then I don't like any sports... --BorgQueen (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That actually makes my point for me. We've now gone from "global significance" through "largely North America" to "North America and a couple of other countries". Crispmuncher (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

"Global significance" isn't an ITN criterion. And in this instance, the particular sport isn't even directly relevant; the transaction is noteworthy because it sets a record across the entire industry (encompassing all sports). Perhaps this is what Secret meant. —David Levy 05:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Quite true. "Global significance" isn't an ITN criterion. But Chocolate Horlicks still made the unhelpful, incorrect, provocative claim here as part of his case for posting. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean Secret (not Chocolate Horlicks), yes? [I hope so too. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

It's reasonable to disagree with that assessment (and Secret has acknowledged that the wording was "a bit strong"), but the above exchange is based upon a mistaken impression that the wording in question referred to the sport of baseball itself. The actual claim, while highly debatable, is far less extreme. —David Levy 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Levy is right. I might have worded it a bit strong, but this story isn't a joke or a mockery. Baseball is the top sport in several countries, including Japan so it's not an "North American obsession" like American football is. But a 2 billion dollar sale of a sports team that was expected to fetch around 700-800 million at the most? It has major implications in the global sports and business no matter what sport is played. It gives the estimated value that similar squads such an English Premier League team go for if it become available, and shows that big record breaking acquisitions like this are not impacted by the recent recession, and other record breaking deals in other areas can happen. It was a top story in BBC sport where the Dodgers were called one of the most prestigious franchises in sport, still the second biggest story on Al-Jazeera sport over 24 hours later, lots of coverage in Mexico [6] [7] Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and just about every other major global business news source there is. If it wasn't for the dollar amount the team is going for, or any other sports deal I, nor all these ITN regulars above wouldn't supported. ITN is not all about politics. Not even the World Series games gets this kind of global coverage Secret ^account 05:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have above "It has major implications in the global sports and business no matter what sport is played." I know most of the rest of the world doesn't pay much attention, but in Australian Football, the AFL, with league attendances way up high in world rankings, tried the franchised, club ownership model, and reverted to ownership by the members. So this sale won't have much impact on Aussie Rules. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC
• Premature The discussion, perhaps inevitably, got reduced to our all too frequent "this is just US interest/high US interest, esp with some peripheral awareness, is sufficient" mode of argument. Compared with any other story we run, agreement to do something is a much earlier step than we report in other areas of interest. We announce changes of law, not agreement to do so: we announce outcomes of prosecutions, not the decision to start proceedings, we announce the result of sports events, not the decision to plan to undertake them. If consensus for the story exists (a close call, but not one I'd challenge), that is one thing, but if nothing comes of these discussions, if some glitch occurs in the paperwork or the due diligence procedure opens eyes to something, or if the boss of Guggenheim partners gets hit by a bus before he signs, then we will effectively have been publishing news on the basis of crystal balling. Kevin McE (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sort of agree with Kevin here, if this deal goes south then we should also post Guggenheim Partners now disagree to purchase... I know that will most likely not happen but still a little premature. -- Ashish-g55 11:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also agree. I just withdrew my support after C628 made the point and I gave it a more careful read. I was mislead a bit by the blurb and the opening line as it stood then, so I thought I should correct my mistake. I dont want to speak for others, so I'll let the above editors comment for themselves whether they gave their support for the actual sale or an agreement regarding a potential sale. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kevin, do you think the "US interest only" discussion was helped by some ignorant, presumably American, editor claiming "obvious global significance"? (Please note again that I am not pushing my opposition to this nomination any further. Just highlighting stupid, provocative posts when I see them.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think that your use of the adjectives "ignorant" and "stupid" is helpful? This doesn't strike you as the least bit "provocative"? —David Levy 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no interest in trying to personalise the direction in which the discussion developed. Each editor should be capable of deciding for him/herself when they are being stupid or provocative. Kevin McE (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

was it sold or purchased or they just "agree to purchase"? time make the news, was and will is not the same.--Feroang (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Pulled. Consensus seemed clear at the time of posting, but this no longer is the case. —David Levy 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't usually question admin decisions, but I only see 2 or 3 after-the-fact opposes (one from a noted anti-American). This seems like a case of whomever yells loudest gets their way. Hot Stop^UTC 04:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think David made the right call here. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether or not this should be posted, but I don't think we should be posting business deals that haven't actually gone through. Once the deal is done there's nothing to stop this going back up. Jenks24 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except by that time the people complaining every 'i' hasn't been dotted will say its still. Sorry, I've been around ITN long enough to know that some people will wikilawyer tooth and nail against anything. Hot Stop^UTC 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the "premature" argument, it's unfair to dismiss it as wikilawyering. That the deal hasn't been completed is a material fact. —David Levy 05:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I supported the blurb on the current wording, but I also will agree on a reposting once it passes through an bankruptcy court and gets officially approved (unless something else happen like if New York Mets sale coming soon beat the price here). I don't mind the pull, as there was some valid concerns listed above of editors who would otherwise support the posting. Secret ^account 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't a matter of yelling. There's concern that this item was posted prematurely, with one editor withdrawing his/her support after a significant discrepancy came to light and a remaining "support" rationale explicitly citing the deal's (nonexistent) conclusion, while other comments are ambiguous in this respect. I don't believe that there's consensus against posting the item, but consensus in its favor no longer is clear. —David Levy 05:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While wondering whether I am the one being characterised as a noted anti-American, I am bemused that an editor cannot confidently tell the difference between counting to two and counting to three. I would observe that other editors opposed posting at this preparatory stage of the deal for precisely the same reason before the blurb was put on the main page, and that those supporting were all citing the purchase/amount of money, rather than the possibility of a purchase. I found the posting of 03:23 29 March, suggesting that editors have no right to amend/withdraw their support for a proposal, irresponsible. Kevin McE (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The posting admin was aware of the fact that the nom may have been worded incorrectly while the discussion took place, and she didn't feel didn't feel it was an issue. My suggestion wasn't that people can't change their minds, but that they are responsible for reading the relevant article before commenting. And FYI Kevin, you weren't who I was referring to. Hot Stop^UTC 12:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When BorgQueen posted the item, there was significantly less discussion in which the discrepancy was cited as an issue. At that point, I'd have made the same call. —David Levy 04:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has it ever been suggested that we should (almost) always wait for a full 24 hours worth of comments before posting an item? That way we would have a chance of getting comments from all time zones of the world, rather than perhaps only those who might have a particular bias on an issue. This was posted after less than 12 hours of conversation, and it was hardly an urgent, earth shattering event. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That has crossed my mind as well even before this post - too short a time span inevitably introduces systematic regional bias. You'd always have WP:SNOW for e.g. the death of Osame bin Laden and rightly so. OTOH timeliness is always a concern here and we are all too frequently slow to respond. I think my preferred option would be a 24 hour guillotine on discussion, after which it is assessed and that is final: posting items after a few hours is generally too son and after three or four days it seems pointless. However, that's probably the kind of thing to throw in to the mix in a major review rather than on an ad hoc basis here. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• This could've waited until the deal was consummated. We all know that LA bus drivers are one of the crappiest. –HTD 15:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Will be renominated upon the final sale, and barring a lack of an update I expect there won't be any opposition then. --PlasmaTwa2 16:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll still oppose any claim that this is of global significance. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adrienne Rich has died

update is poor...as to wehter consensus thinks shes notable for ITN is another issue. for the record, id disagree.Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support with thanks. I was afraid someone would nominate Earl Scruggs instead of Rich, who was eminently influential, accent on the eminent. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Striking per RJFF. But I don't know how or if this minority category will ever be an ITN. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose: ITN is not an obituary. Deaths of notable personalities should only be included if they are premature and surprising and/or are likely to have a major impact. I don't think this is the case here. There's barely an update, because there is little new to write if an old (great!) woman dies of natural causes. --RJFF (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: per RJFF. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2012 Sudan-South Sudan border conflict

Clashes have broken out between the armed forces of Sudan and South Sudan in several disputed border regions --Reader1987 (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would support (even obviosu support/strogn support) with a bigger expansion of the incident itself...most of it is reactions at th emoment and th emain issue is the incident. (although reactions adds to its worth). Also need UN's response from Moon.Lihaas (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the information present is all that is known currently--Reader1987 (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's a bit short but it's really a question how much more can be added. So, what shall we do, good to post? --Tone 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. I think it is good to post now. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - not ready the article talks a lot about the smouldering conflict between the two states, and covers a number of events in 2011. The only thing I could find which was recent was the sentence fragment "In early March 2012, with the Sudanese Air Force bombing parts of Pariang.". Given that there seems to be a history of minor conflict between the two, I'm not sure it's really front page worthy. The May 2011 seizure of Abyei sure, but that was a year ago. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - not ITN worthy, as this is a long-simmering conflict, since the separation of the two states. Crnorizec (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VBorders were crossed and acknowledged this time. which hasnt happened since independenceLihaas (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, but in the following form:South Sudan's troops pull out of Sudan's oil-producing Heglig area, easing tensions after two days of clashes between the neighbours threatened to escalate a simmering conflict. (Reuters)Oleg-ch (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abkhaz election

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR but this is firt such election since the war which gained partial international recognition and we did post kosovo. Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Most elected candidates are independents, so the blurb "X wins a plurality" won't work as in elections where parties play an important role.

Ofcourse it can/...the plurality will be the iggest party. Note- the independends are not ONE body of independents they are all independence of weach other. so thats as good as 1 seat for a "party"Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it doesn't make sense to claim that a party "wins" the election with four out of 35 seats. That's not what I'd call "winning" an election. I don't know anything about Abkhazian politics. But I assume that most of the "independents" are pro-government, while this National Unity Forum seems to be oppositional. If we say they "won", it creates the impression that they had beaten the pro-government camp (consisting mostly of formally independent politicians), what in fact is — presumably — not the case. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed...how about achieves/gets a plurality?Lihaas (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wait for the nomination and confirmation of a head of government. That would solve the issue raised above. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That won't happen, as Abkhazia is — as far as I know — not a parliamentary system and the PM is not determined in the parliamentary election. --RJFF (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Drop the word plurality. There was a discussion on it in Wikipedia a couple of months ago. It's only used in some parts of the world, and not in others. I can't tell you where it's used but I can certainly tell you it's never used in my country. The name of my country doesn't matter. I'd never heard of it until I saw it here. Is it used in Abkhazia? And what does it mean? (Since many readers will never have heard of it, you really need to define it.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's what the wikilink is for. More readers probably know what a plurality is than what Abkhazia is. --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If there are places where it's not used, there must be another word available. Why display the arrogance that your word, unknown to many, must be used? HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • If you know of a single word or simple phrase that can replace it, go for it. Why display the arrogance that the word you're unfamiliar with is not the best word to describe the phenomenon simply because you're ignorant of it? --Golbez (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Relative majority. --RJFF (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I must say I'm quite familiar with the term "plurality", and I'm from the same country as HiLo48. I can't think of a better word or phrase to describe this, and the wikilink (which should be piped to Plurality (voting), by the way) should suffice to explain the concept. I♦A 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• How arrogant of you to have a more developed vocabulary than HiLo. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where I come from bullying is illegal, but if it makes you feel better.... HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose I have sympathy with the idea that Wikipedia is a portal to democracy around the world; as it stands, I am unconvinced that we should open the door for nations whose existence is marked with...shall we say "certain doubt"? doktorb _words^deeds 20:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Abkhazia is a region of Georgia, recognized as a state only by Russia and Hugo Chávez. The comparison to Kosovo, which is recognized by most of the world, is inadequate and biased. Crnorizec (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually it's recognised by six UN member states, not one and one man. GRAPPLE X 20:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Furthermore, Kosovo isn't recognized by "most of the world", but by 89 UN members, which is 46%, so slightly less than the most basic qualifier of "most of the world." And if we're operating by population, it's nowhere near 'most'. --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • you are right, most of the first world is the correct statement. unlike Abkhazia. Crnorizec (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Well sure, if you keep moving the goalposts. Not sure how the rest of the world will feel about their diplomatic recognition counting less than the first world's. --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. ITN has posted the elections of both absurdly small states (Kiribati) and mostly unrecognized states (Taiwan). If Wikipedia is indeed "a portal to democracy around the world", then neither Abkhazia's size nor its diplomatic status should disqualify it. Shrigley (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose to present a party that might have won four out of 35 seats as the "winner" of this election. The "winner" of the election is a bunch of individual, independent candidates and not a party. If no one here knows how to find out who and how many of them are "pro-government independents" or "pro-opposition independents", the traditional blurb "X has won a plurality" or "X has won the election" is not applicable. But if we don't know who has "won", then what are we going to report? "An election in Abkhazia has taken place"? That's not very interesting for ITN. Unlike elections in other countries, this election seems not to have any impact on who is the head of government or which party or political force has the power in this de facto country. By the way, it surprises me to read that Wikipedia is "a portal to democracy around the world" That's new to me. I thought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view.--RJFF (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose- The comparison of Abkhazia to Taiwan is absurd. The states recognizing Taiwan dwarf those of Abkhazia 23-6. This election is not front-page worthy. —Bzweebl— ^talk 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Comments: (1) Being a disputed state is not a disqualification. I quote from the ITN/R page criteria for elections: Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.So instead of outright dismissing it, lets discuss this on its merits. (2) Irrespective of how many states recognize and dont recognize, Abkhazia is de-facto independent and no longer under Georgian administration (unlike for example, Tibet which claims independence but is still under Chinse administration). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If enough people say it's a disqualification, it's a disqualification. It's how consensus works. Hot Stop^UTC 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The criteria says that being a disputed state alone shouldnt be a reason for disqualification and I was hoping it would require enough people to say because of xyz other reason it is or isnt notable, and not merely say its a disputed state and hence its disqualified (when it clearly isnt according to the guidelines). But sadly what you say appears to be true. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Ideally we should report any election or head of state change of any entity that claims sovereignty. If they are capable of having elections, why not report it? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Abkhazia is effectively a sovereign state, as it has control over what it claims to be its territory. As this is the first election since its recognition by other states, it seems like a logical choice, considering the lack of other updates in recent days. Article is also in reasonable shape. Also, plurality should link to Plurality (voting). I♦A 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed the piping to plurality (voting) in the blurb. EdwardLane (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: Russia has control over A.'s territory. Crnorizec (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose a country recognized by only 3% of UN members isn't important enough to be featured here. Hot Stop^UTC 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a measure of importance though. Lets say the western US declared itself independent and had relative sovereignty over its claimed territory, but only a few UN members recognized it. Would we ignore elections from such a massive country? This might be a poor example, but there are factors other than UN member recognition when talking about importance. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 18:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the sort of hyperbole I missed while I was gone. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Hot Stop^UTC 01:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Abkhazia's recognition, while limited, is still valid, and is not grounds for automatic dismissal. The region is of interest, and the article seems grand for main page linking. GRAPPLE X 12:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it? And what news does the article tell you? That the election has taken place, a bunch of people of unknown political affiliation have been elected and Georgia and the U.S. think it's illegitimate. That's neither new nor interesting. --RJFF (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Removed] Remove Syria sticky?

Might be time for another discussion on Syria. I do honestly think we're now at a point where any major offensives can be considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no daily news that would currently pass ITN/C to justify the sticky remaining. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, I think we can remove it and reconsider reposting it as the situation develops further. --Tone 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed with Tone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FULL agreement. As the last rejected nom, btw. Now there ar eminor issues of warnings/shootings, etc. Nothign mahjor (though at the time of my nom there was a big breakign story after i posted)Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reset timer?Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We reset the timer when we post an item, not when we remove it. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was reset for the update to mali (not a new post)Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouting not required. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

\::::Were the debidels too high? Iwas just typing with caps lock and dint want to redo.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Object There has been no justification for a Syria sticky for some time. There is no justification for one now. doktorb _words^deeds 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion was to remove the existing sticky, not to introduce a new one. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, oops, sorry, I was trying to read three things at once at the time. In that case, SUPPORT !  :) doktorb _words^deeds 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repost? that the "UN human rights chief accuses syrian authorities of targeting children", might be a (significant?) new development - reported in this article by the BBC. EdwardLane (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Nominate a new item or nominate a new sticky. Don't call for a repost here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK understood, thanks. EdwardLane (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] James Cameron's Deepsea Challenger

 Abhishikt (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - As an author. One of the last frontiers on earth has been reached. (Also the historic first tweet from the deepest point on earth) Mlpearc (powwow) 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is this really true? People have been down there before, right? Speciate (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - needs update The first tweet from the bottom of challenger deep isn't the news part. Maybe wait until they come back up and release some scientific details. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Begrudging support. If it keeps him out of film-making for a while, I guess it's worth it. FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striking support. I didn't realise that there was no first or record involved in this. Probably now neutral or weak oppose. FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First solo. We posted every shuttle launch, this is far less routine. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Update needed first, but shouldn't the emphasis be on the accomplishment of being the first solo person to reach the deepest point on Earth? Akin to Lindberg's solo flight? Rhodesisland (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose It's definitely an interesting story, but I don't think it's significant enough of an event to be ITN worthy. Had he been the first to make the decent, It would definitely be worthy, but he's the third person to reach the bottom(Jacques Piccard, Don Walsh in 1960). The fact that it's the deepest Tweet ever recorded is a neat fact, but not a historic event (After all, we've already had astronauts tweet from space!). If it was to be put up on ITN, I would agree with Rhodesisland: the blurb should be more along the lines of "James Cameron reaches the seafloor of the Challenger Deep in the vessel Deepsea Challenger, becoming the first person to do so in a solo voyage". - Anc516 (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose This is not news, it's a vanity project by a man richer than the east coast of Africa. It might be "notable" in the sense of being "unusual", but not in the sense of "being important". It's not for the front page news section at least. Might fit into DYK at a pinch. doktorb _words^deeds 06:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The voyage stage was not of such length that the solo element is notable: 5 hours in a small room on one's own is not remarkable. Lots of short-term publicity because of who he is, but in terms of achievement/outcome/discovery, this seems to be a rich man's toy rather than important scientific development. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - interesting story...the news has international coverage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Covers a niche market of science and exploration all in one go. Lugnuts (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its NOT ITNR

Also what sort fo ITN reasoning is "if it keeps him from making movies" ITN it not an op-ed nor does consensus vote count

We should also cite it as the first to do so making it more notable.Lihaas (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support While not first, this is still a significant technological achievement - after 50 years, there is again a sub that goes that deep down and it's better equipped. And that's only the first of several subs being currently developed, so this seems to be the beginning of a new era of deep sea exploration. --Tone 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really have to disagree w/ Kevin McE --and that's not something I do often. This is the first in a new way of exploring the deepest levels of the ocean. Earlier I compared this dive to Lindbergh's solo flight, and that comparison seems very apt to me. Yes, Cameron wasn't the first, neither was Lindbergh; they were both the first to do so SOLO. I don't think people in Lindbergh's time thought his feat was "rich man's toy rather than important scientific development" even though all he did was fly across the Atlantic. In comparison, Cameron took scientific samples, videos, and documentation of an area of our world that we know less about than we do the Moon or Mars. The scientific knowledge that we gain from his trip may not be realized for years, but it will be vast and important and this dive is just the first of several dives to come. Have we become so cynical in our modern age that we won't recognize that fact just because of who the explorer was? I certainly hope not. 182.173.212.21 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case re-reworded blurb for notable

Im also with FormerIP now as neutral to wealk opposeLihaas (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could have dived to the bottom of the ocean in the time this has taken to be discussed. Lugnuts (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - This is an engineering milestone equal to the moon landing. The fact that it is Cameron is beside the point; he piloted a vessel deeper than anyone else in history to 16,250 PSI of pressure, solo. Never mind that Cameron designed it himself. Never mind who paid for it. I suppose you would have said "big deal" to Armstrong on the moon too. "Yawn, bad audio." If you actually use your brain and think about it, it is truly remarkable, notable, and it absolutely deserves to be on the front page. --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• support - If a rich man build a solo ship and flew to the moon, it would be notable, even though we've been there. Hell, if the US, Russians or Chinese land a person on the moon, we'd probably post that. There have been more than twice as many trips to the surface of the moon by humans as there have been trips to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There is one main issue here — James Cameron. Some of the opposes/supports are based on the fact that it's him. Others are based on the fact that on its own, it's notable. We need to separate the two, or a consensus will be hard to find. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• For the record, I oppose (albeit weakly) if James Cameron is mentioned — but would support posting the achievement in general, without reference to Cameron. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what's the compromise blurb? --Tone 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment You will see from my talk page that I have been called ignorant for voting Oppose to this nomination. It is remarkable that someone has considered such a retort to my vote here. I am not impressed by a celebrity driven 'event' making the first page of Wikipedia and make that quite clear again. That an editor has chosen to name call as part of a cheerleading exercise for a film director's vanity project is staggering. I urge Administrators to consider this uncivil act as part of the process in getting this story past the nomination stage. Is this REALLY an achievement? Should the front page REALLY feature a sham act of nonsense ("First Tweet sent from the sea!") that brought about an unprovoked verbal attack on a long-standing editor? doktorb _words^deeds 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Even more astonishingly (and unfortunately), the comment's come from Brad Patrick. I know he's no longer a WMF employee, but still. Wow. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

alternate blurb might be something like this? EdwardLane (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Deepsea Challenger completes the first solo voyage to reach the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on earth.Reply[reply]

• Weak Oppose, would support if James Cameron was removed from the blurb. Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 18:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, given the fact that we didn't have new posts for more than two days (apart from Mali update) and that there is a rough consensus for this story without mentioning Cameron, posting. Feel free to modify. --Tone 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Tone - it shouldn't matter or be a consideration that no story has been posted for x number of days. I'm not going to drag this out, that said. I think my support for nominations runs at 7 out of every ten; this is not one of them. doktorb _words^deeds 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acknowledged. Well, the story is now featured as an engineering achievement and there was a considerable support for this part. --Tone 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment to the detractors who cares if it was James Cameron? It was the first solo dive, the first dive in more than 50 years, and spent more time on the bottom than Trieste. We post an endless parade of celebrity and sports trivia here. Is the first solo dive (and second ever manned dive) to the bottom of challenger deep somehow less newsworthy than 100 centuries in cricket? Really? I'm honestly shocked at the outward display of contempt to this story which I expected to be an easy pass. PS: My IP changed, I used to be 76.18.43.253. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: Really, it being James Cameron should have very little to do with this. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who posted this? O_O --Τασουλα (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Senegal election

 --Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support- Wade has conceded to Sall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17508098 --Simfan34 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support- National presidential elections always belong. —Bzweebl— ^talk 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not ready. The article currently has an orange tag and no second round results and only provisional first round results (i.e. there is no update). FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ready: Results are there and so are reactions. I'd suggest to illustrate with a picture of president-elect Macky Sall (File:Macky Sall .jpg) --RJFF (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peter Cruddas

Nominator's comments: This is likely to severely impact UK politics. --71.212.241.67 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unsure support. I don't like David Cameron either. Maybe wait and see how big a story it feels tomorrow. FormerIP (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose (for now) the resignation of Cruddas alone isn't notable enough. Let's wait and see if there's more fallout. Hot Stop^UTC 05:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The blurb should not use colloquialisms. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose "Might", "could", "may" - this story is one small part of a whole. I agree that party funding and donations are a prickly subject. But to put this on the front page is a bit blowing up an acorn to call it a pineapple. There is only one person involved here, which is not enough for front page inclusion. What I would suggest is a nomination for a real reform of party funding. It is borderline biased to support this current nomination doktorb _words^deeds 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose File under Slow News Day. Lugnuts (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - This isn't even the biggest UK politics story of the week. It's an internal party matter - albeit a pretty embarassing one. And if we do run such a story, can we not use the slang expression 'Tory'? Like 'GOP', it's not suitable encyclopedic language for a headline/teaser. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Updated] Mali update

• Following the coup days ago, the African Union has suspended Mali until things get back in order. I think it's a development big enough to update the blurb. --Tone 09:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikilink at African_Union#Suspended_membersLihaas (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marked ready for blurb change/ article/s are set.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I even moved it one spot up as the newest other item was from 22nd. --Tone 13:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious consensus but timer was red and noone else cared so ill leave it...btw- mine wasnt a support or not just an added suggesting IF ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israel bans skinny models

 FormerIP (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I found that mentioned at Size_zero#Movement_against so I've added that to the template above. EdwardLane (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment outdated — the law was passed on March 20. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not stale yet though. It can still go in as our 4th story (at the time of typing). FormerIP (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Neutral I just can't see this as being ITN worthy on its own merits. At the same time though, I recognize this as an exceptional case, so I can't make up my mind, hence neutral. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose An interesting item, but with more symbolic than actual repercussions. If there is a separate article, I'd definitely suggest DYK as a place more fitting for this. Spencer^T♦C 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - on the assumption that this is indeed a legal first. It would be nice to get a cultural item on ITN for a change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I agree with ThaddeusB, maybe hold to April Fools Day having a bigger impact than most other stories proposed for the day, plus the interesting hook. Secret ^account 05:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmm, good April Gools story...im tagging as holdLihaas (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rather see more communication before tagging as ready, but this discussion shouldn't be archived until we find consensus for an April Fools posting. Secret ^account 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Mahon Tribunal concludes

 --RA (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support (This place is moving slow today...) big political corruption story in Ireland, and encase anyone cannot be bothered to click the link the Taoisigh "is the head of government or prime minister of Ireland." So yeah pretty big. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The culmination of a significant process, and the findings themselves add to that significance. —WFC— 16:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I don't know enough about this to vote, but there are quite a few unsourced and, given the context, possibly sensitive statements about living people in the article. FormerIP (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Like FormerIP above I wonder if some of the statements made about living people could not do with being triple-checked and then some (perhaps by a neutral editor or BLP expert in these things). It's a highly significant report and very important news event. doktorb _words^deeds 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oppose unless something coms out of it...a tribunal with conclusions is not newsworthy...hordes of intl tribunals regularly release findings (did we post BICI?)Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pakistan won 2012 Asia Cup

 --Saki ^talk 16:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - event not notable enough. Only 4 teams were competing.Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 16:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose very minor event in world cricket. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Yes. Minor event, and I'm a cricket tragic. When I was at university we used to play a game looking at the sports pages of the papers to find articles that never mentioned what the sport was. Note that it took until the second Oppose for it to happen here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: Unfortunately, the tournament is not that notable within cricket itself. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Malian coup

Nominator's comments: First casualty of the aftermath of the libyan civil war, makes it notable on its own...lot of pissed of states over nato/western actions now... Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Is there any free image we can use? Ms. Vonn needs to take a break. :D --BorgQueen (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A map or MNLA logo?Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, actually we have a picture of the president. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duh! i say this as i edit that page ;(

Anyhoo, article is ready...someone can markLihaas (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support A change of government would be sufficient in itself; a coup, doubly so. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Marked ready. I think there is a free image of Toure here File:Amadou_Toure.jpg. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Barely three hours after this was first nominated? That's hardly enough time to form a suitable consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the article, pendng consenseus goes withotu saying.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I was coming here to nominate it - having a big impact on stocks for a gold mining company there too according to the BBC and France suspending cooperation according to reutersEdwardLane (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Obvious support. A coup is one of the most significant and notable events that can happen in a county. Nanobear (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Caution we need to be very careful with coups: they are the kind of thing where facts can change quickly, the situation can reverse or facts that were well known at one point turn out to be completely wide of the mark the following day. We are reporting this as if it has happened in a definitive and irreversible sense. However, I note that the whereabouts of Amadou Toumani Toure are unknown and the army elite force are believed to be still loyal to him. That doesn't sound conclusive or decisive to me: in fact the only reason it appears people are calling it one way or another is based on the claims of the National Committee. There is obvious notability here but we need to be completely sure that a) what we report is factually accurate and b) we are not simply rebroadcasting the propaganda of one side. If in doubt I suggest it is better to say nothing on the issue. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

A failed coup is notable too. Intl reaction are from ECOWAS/UN, France, etc. (global, supranational, and regional players. means somethingLihaas (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. This does look ready and it's ITNR+. If there are further developments that mean we should change the blurb, then we can change the blurb. FormerIP (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted. The consensus seems to be clear. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LEDA 074886

Nominator's comments: The galaxy type doesn't fit into Hubble's classification, so looks like an extremely rare event. Brandmeister^talk 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Interesting, but the article is too short at the moment. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Falciano del Massico (April Fools Nomination)

 --Found5dollar (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - It may be worth nominating this at DYK's April Fool's Day section. See T:TDYK (bottom of page). Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Funny, but ITN isn't actually going to reflect April Fool's Day anyway. The other parts of the main page are only up for a day so they can be specifically designed for April Fool's, but ITN changes whenever a story happens to come along (it can go for a day or more without any additions whatsoever). Swarm ^X 22:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN has always taken part in April Fools in the past. There is no reason why it shouldn't this year. If it is only for a day, new stories can wait. --PlasmaTwa2 00:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose all April Fools nominations as disruptive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently ITN is the only section on the main page without one "true but unbelievable" post for april fools (see: Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page). In my view not putting up one funny item, which is what we did last year, would lead readers to believe that the the normal news stories are jokes. This nomination is to get this discussion started now so that there isn't the big commotion on April 1 like there was last year. --Found5dollar (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - the story can be pulled from ITN at the end of the day. I don't know where some people got this idea that ITN agreed to to participate in April Fool's Day, but such has not happened. Typically, ITN has featured about 1 "funny story" - some years it has been all funny. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose ...for exactly the same reason as Strange Passerby. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I'm not keen on this particular blurb (I agree it would make a better April 1 DYK), but it would be good to have an April Fools story. FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support under a different wording—perhaps simply "Italian comune Falciano del Massico passes a law banning death" (perhaps adding "due to financial concerns", which is true, to make it a little more bizarre-sounding). GRAPPLE X 19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Abel Prize

 --SPat ^talk 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I'm not completely opposed to this being posted, but think its position as ITNR is highly questionable. So, I think it makes sense to ask for more than a one-sentence update. FormerIP (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Abel Prize is a very prestigious and important prize in mathematics, and we generally lack more representation of it in the ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment The minimum update requirement is five sentences with three citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: What's needed in the article is a description in Endre_Szemeredi#Work about his work that was deserving of the award, with a reference or two. Spencer^T♦C 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unfortunately, I got swamped with real-life work yesterday, and couldn't spend time on this. I've expanded it a bit and added a couple of references, I hope that should be ok. Abel prize is possibly the most prestigious prize in mathematics (covered by all major news sources), and I think it definitely has a place in ITNR. I hope I wasn't too late, SPat ^talk 17:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Einstein papers to be published online

Nominator's comments: This seems ITN worthy. Heard it over the past 24 hours on several news sources. --Jayron32 22:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support but it is best if the update has a couple of more citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've added two more unique sources to both the article and above. Does that help? If there is something else you need me to do, let me know. --Jayron32 23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]