| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator = AstroHurricane001 <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| updater = <!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring events. -->
| note = Article still lacks sufficient depth. Suggest expansion, with more links from scientific research organizations like NOAA and USGS.
| nom cmt = [[Hundred year flood|Multi-hundred-year flooding event]].[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/biblical-1000-year-deluge-strikes-colorado-did-global-warming-play-a-role-16474] Hundreds reported missing in previous days[http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-missing-colorado-floods-002444079.html;_ylt=A2KLOzJZRzZS3AwAdiHQtDMD]
| sign = --~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001|AH1]]</font> <sup>(''[[User_talk:AstroHurricane001|discuss]]!'')</sup> 15:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane in a calendar year, leaves at least 12 people dead in the Caribbean and Venezuela.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Cardinal Donald Wuerl joins "people of all faiths across our community in praying for the people killed and wounded in the attack at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C." A shooting at the Navy Yard in southeast Washington left 13 dead and about a dozen more injured. (Catholic News Agency)
Naegleria fowleri is found in tap water near New Orleans, marking the first time the pathogenic amoeba has been detected in U.S. public water supply. (NBC)
Nominator's comments: This operation is costing something like $800,000,000 and is called "unprecedented". I am just mentioning it here in case somebody wants to update the article, which sorely needs it. Also, I imagine there will be people taking pictures and uploading them to WikiMedia. --Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when a result is known. This is the top story (or near the top) in many outlets; largest operation of its kind ever attempted. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blrubs are slightly odd. The story here is really that "World's most expensive salvage operation has begun" or something similar. The full procedure will likely take lots of time. i'll Support none the less as it does seem to interest a lot of people -- Ashish-g5514:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The salvage operation will be ongoing for months. First they right the vessel, then float it, then tow it to Sicily, and break it up for scrap. What's the major milestone? Currently the parbuckling of the vessel is "in the news". I think we should report this, as the subsequent developments will probably be less dramatic. This is probably the peak coverage. I've tweaked the blurb so that it pretty closely matches the BBC report. JehochmanTalk15:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait we usually post verdicts, not the beginnings of trials. This should be renominated when the trial ends. Also, a five sentence update on the trial would be needed to mark the article as updated--that should best be done when the trial is over and sentencing is passed, not now. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I have no problem with waiting for the end of the trial, but in this case we have a sitting Deputy President (essentially a Vice President) on trial at the ICC, which is a rare event indeed(and would be even if it was a national trial) and as such I would support posting now. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arrests, perhaps, and verdicts, but I can't think of a single "trial begins" that's ever been posted. Given both the verdict and the arrest are more notable than the opening of arguments posting this would imply all criminal prosecutions should be posted three times, at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but what is notable here is that (quoting The Telegraph) this is the "first sitting deputy head of state to go on trial at the International Criminal Court". This isn't just an average trial. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. Chronologically, this trial-start item would be below the Thomas Bach item on the template, meaning it would be too old to appear at all. Waiting till the trial's conclusion is our only option (Kenya withdrawing from the ICC, if that bill passes, might also be a story). --LukeSurltc21:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose - oldest living man, but quite far off the oldest living person. Far from the all-time longevity record for men. Not ITN-levels of noteworthy in terms of longevity. --LukeSurltc14:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's been a rather odd inconsistency to this, with other nominations shoed in. I am not sure why we would even nominate these in the first place unless they are an absolute record-breaker. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A man who was rather unremarkable died. The only reason he was notable was because he lived to be pretty old. If I recall correctly, James McCoubrey was not listed here either. (Quick summary: McCoubrey was thought to be the oldest man alive at his death, until Sanchez was verified.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I must agree with what other people have said here. If we were talking about the death of the oldest person ever, I'd be arguing for a full blurb. However, this person doesn't even hold the record for the longest-living man. If we posted him, we'd have to post every single time the next holder of oldest man dies, and the turnover is rather frequent as you can imagine. Redverton (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is being covered in the news, but precedent here seems to be that only the death of the documented longest-lived human of all time would warrant posting on ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Test fired before, no notable firsts. Lastly, only the first/last launch of rockets intended for spaceflight are ITNR, not ICBMs. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only because Horner broke the record for being the oldest winner of a Grand Tour, which is evidently supported by most of the news reporting his win by primarily focusing on his age.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only if the article is updated a little. This is arguably the second-most prominent cycle tour in the world after Tour de France. As such, it would be great if cycling fans could get behind this and update it to make it worthy of main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Surprised there is no WP article as there always in conflict around the world. Its been in the news last few days with the LMNLF taking over 2 town, ceasefire talks, breakings, etc. Its still ongoing There is no article yet, but perhaps someone can goa ehad with one. im a little busy at the moment --Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Without an article or even a news ref to point to, I oppose on the grounds that we at ITN ask that nominators make a bit more effort in a nomination than I am seeing made on this one. What towns, what island? Were there deaths? How many, if so? I see nothing in a cursory Google search. There has been conflict going on in the Phillipines for at least the last 100 years, so why are these recent events, whatever they are, newsworthy outside of that island nation? Even your spelling in the title is off, and the one wiki-link you post is to an article with multiple tags. Lihaas, you can do better than this. Jusdafax19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No article, no sources, no support. I would ask that this be SNOW closed so that maybe the nominator, who is a regular here, will learn how things are expected to be done(such posting news sources). 331dot (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article talks about 9 September. No evidence provided that it is currently in the news. 80.43.146.47 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC) (a regular who doesn't want to sign in on this computer)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Seems notable in light of the increasing Islamophobia in Europe with the PRIME MINISTER coming out in bold support and saying Europe was culturally enriched by Islam. Mind you this is an EU state...with rising tide of EU parties talking Islamophobically.. --Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there was controversy into this...not sure what we did over the ground zero mosque but I know it was on ITNC at least..+ What about the new building to come on the site of NYWC's WTC?Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to, say, the first Shinto shrine? I am seeing no way to judge this on any objective basis. The first non-Muslim place of worship in Saudi Arabia might make sense as such are forbidden by law, but Slovenia is not a religious dictatorship. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post the links, like virtually every other user here. It is not up to me to seek out information to support your nomination; it is up to you to submit all necessary materials to advocate for your nominations. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JC, WTF is wrong with this local government here at ITNC? Oppose based on bpersonal views of the promoter instead of the ISSUE at hand. READ THE DAMN ISSUE AND SEE THE PAGE!Lihaas (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, what's so objectionable/difficult about just including a link when you nominate. Surely you can't find it surprising that people don't expect to have to trawl through the references in the article? Formerip (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions clearly say "Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source." If something is not verifiable it does not belong on Wikipedia. 80.43.146.47 (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article contradicts the blurb, since there was an earlier mosque from 1916 to the 1920s. It was part of Austria-Hungary at the time though. According to the article on that mosque, there is also an active mosque which was converted from a pre-existing building in 1989. So at the very least, the blurb needs "purpose built", and possibly "since the 1920s". MChesterMC (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Seems to be the month for rockets and spacecraft making their first flights. First and last launches are ITNR, updates still needed before posting. Compared to the US Minotaur launch posted last week this is a more significant "first launch" since it is a new vehicle rather than just an existing one with one new stage, and it seems to have a core role in Japan's space programme going forwards. --W.D.Graham07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Reports of the initial crime triggered widespread protests in India and drew attention to the social status of women in that country. Nominating now since the trial is over. --It Is Me Heret / c09:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but blurb is wrong It should read that the four adult defendants were sentenced to death. The fifth defendant, a juvenile, was sentenced to three years at a reform facility in a separate trial. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post Blurb Posting - Strong Support I had nominated the article way back in December 2011 for ITN. Considering the gravity of the crime committed, the widespread global media coverage the incident had received and the subsequent protests and public debate on rape laws made it an ITN blurb. Nirabhay (Delhi Braveheart) losing the fight with her life resulted in the rewordings to the blurb. I am posting my comment now as people may contest that the journey ain't over -> Supreme Court->President of India->Challenge to the President Order in the Supreme Court->Final Hanging....a long process. The article is not updated in many sense. Take for instance: the mother of braveheart receiving a presidential award for the extraordinary courage displayed by her daughter, Christiane Lagarde beginning her Davos speech by referring to the courage of the Malala of Pakistan and the Braveheart of India, President of India mentioning the incident twice in the television speeches- once during the Christmas eve address to the nation and later during the New Year eve, parents receiving an posthumous award from Hillary Clinton... and the list goes on. The article would receive global coverage as it marks an important event in the lifecycle of the journey. My comment is for those who may oppose its posting or ask for a pull request.Regards, theTigerKing17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can we remove the silly "2012" from the blurb. That's more for article title differentiation and looks silly there as its not a proper noun. Link to the page ocfcourse but don't show that.Lihaas (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally against including years. But when referring to a non-current event, it is not uncommon to include the year. This is particularly true when the event is as generic as "Delhi rape case". At least point them in the right temporal direction (ah... yes, I remember hearing about that case last year...). -- tariqabjotu18:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Attention needed] [Ready] Issus has interlocking gears on legs
Article:Issus (genus) (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Mechanical gears evolved by insects of the issus genus. (Post) Alternative blurb: Insects of the genus Issus are the first animals found to have evolved multi-cellular gears for use in locomotion. News source(s):the IndependentNational GeographicNBC News Credits:
This is huge news if you know anything about biology. No circular or gear structure has been discovered at a level above the flagellum or cilium prior to this. If it has, let's see the source, FIP. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per FormerIP. Although I really do wish to note that the alt blurb is very badly stated; gears were discovered, but they definitely were not shown to be the only animals to have them. We simply found the first species. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, structures are not the full 360° gears people are thinking that they are. As User:Medeis says, "no circular or gear structure has been discovered at a level above the flagellum or cilium" and none ever will be. Abductive (reasoning) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand (although strongly disagree with) opposing this on a judgment of notability, but my comment shouldn't be construed as disparaging the claim based on a lack of full 360 degree circularity. They are indubitably gears, and indubitably a unique discovery on a multicellular level. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery should not be parsed by distinguishing between single-celled and multicellular life forms. The gear are not "loose" within the organism. They are (if I had to guess) derived from and quite similar to the stridulatory organs seen in crickets. So people should not believe that these are like the rotating gears in a car or anything like that. I direct this comment at people such as User:Patar knight who are confused enough to make wildly incorrect statements like "Very big in evolutionary theory." Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this is not important or notable, that is your privilege, but most would seem to disagree; the NatGeo article refers to this as "astounding" and is described as "This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom.". Patar knight's statement is not unreasonable. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That quote, "This is to our knowledge the first time that proper, engaging, counter-rotating gears have been seen in the animal kingdom." is from one of the discoverers and is HORRENDOUSLY UNRELIABLE. How dare you attempt to sway the debate by putting it here. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the discoverers get their discovery published in Science I would say they are reliable. How should supporters convince people except by pointing out the exceptionality of the discovery by quoting or referencing relevant sources? 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a big thing when it was discovered that the spiral flagella of bacteria have a wheel mechanism, a first. This is the first discovery of gears at the multicellular level. I'll consult with an engineer later to see what the technical terms are. I am fairly certain a gear doesn't have to be a circular cog. In any case, the terminology doesn't matter. If Abductive wants to claim this is no big deal it's incumbent on him to provide sources that show that this is not a first. He can't expect us to prove a negative in light of his personally argued objections. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(to abductive) It is not "horrendously unreliable" to claim that "to their knowledge" something is the first to be discovered. If they are in error, I await your posting of evidence of that, as does most of the worldwide media. "How dare you attempt to sway" the debate with your uncited personal opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose For things like this the company is often far more familiar than the actual individual. Read the sources carefully: he invented Dolby NR: a system for reducing hiss on a pretty much obsolete audio format that was designed from the outset to be cheap and physically small as opposed to hi-fi. Surround sound, DTS etc may bear the Dolby name but that is credit by association rather than this man's accomplishments. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great story for soothing the popular psyche about the existence of "the American Dream" but it was never true. GE was formed by the merger of what were already megacorps. Where is the relevance in any case? Show me one thing that Edison the man did that Dolby the mandirectly built on and I might reconsider. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of our opinion of your bizarre conspiracy theory that there are no people behind corporations, just corporations all the way down, doesn't it strike you as sad you are reduced your very own self to trolling here under a single-purpose sockpuppet account? Something about the beam in your own eye. μηδείς (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Clearly notable in his field. Even if he didn't work on every aspect of the sound system or other technology, he still brought together and directed who did. Bill Gates did not program every line of code for every version of Windows but he still brought together people, directed them, and had ideas- no one would dispute he would be listed on RD(hopefully far in the future) Steve Jobs did not build circuit boards and program iPhones and iPods, either- but he was posted(and got a blurb) 331dot (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pretty self explanatory... will provide reasoning if i see opposes (which i doubt). Article needs updating though. Post with the picture please. ---- Ashish-g5518:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we already discuss this multiple times before in the past? I don't know if we posted it or not, but very few months or so the popular press picks up on some arbitrary milestone as "leaving the solar system"; Voyager 1 has already "left the solar system" multiple times in the past, depending on whatever fuzzy boundary you are defining as the edge of the solar system. It's has been, is now, and will be for the foreseeable future the farthest man-made object from earth. Unless that particular distinction changes, there's nothing particularly noteworthy about an object moving away from us getting farther away. That's what it does. All the time. Breaking its own record for distance will continue to happen every second of every day, and we don't need to report these arbitrary milestones merely because some it was a slow day at the science desk of some newspaper and so they felt the need to remind us of Voyager 1. --Jayron3219:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving solar system always meant entering interstellar space since there is nothing beyond that but next star. Yes there were milestones like entering/exiting heliopause, bow shock etc. but this particular milestone is FAR from arbitrary... -- Ashish-g5519:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb - I have replaced the alt blurb with one that is factually indisputable. NASA did today announce, for the first time, that Voyager 1 has reached interstellar space, the first man-made object to do so. JehochmanTalk19:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when this was posted last summer after the second time it was nominated the NYT source quoted NASA officials as saying this was the "moment" they had "been waiting for." Apparently we have the same moment a second time this year as well? How many times over the next decade will this happen? μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time it has reached interstellar space. See [5]. Also, it took NASA a year to collect and study data proving that Voyager 1 had reached interstellar space. Science isn't always instantaneous. The news is the announcement. JehochmanTalk20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the submitters from the previous times, I know the issue came up of whether that point (entering the heliopause) was significant or not, and the issue at the time is that NASA had no idea of the distance across the heliopause, it could have been a few months, it could have been a few years. It was a point of contention, but I believe that it was resolved with the understanding that entering and exiting would be notable ITN events with a good time distance between them. Given that the only known next event that VoyI expects to see is it running out of power, I doubt we'll have anything else to update from now on, so this is not really a problem to post again. (Mind you, if we posted every 22 times that the xkcd jokes at, that would be an issue. We're talking here about an event separated by more than a year, and arguably sports events get more frequent updates.) --MASEM (t) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for current blurbs. The terms "leaving the solar system" and "reaching interstellar space" are both too vague for me. If NASA is saying something along the lines of "exiting the heliopause", it might be ITN worthy, but the article (and blurb) should reflect that. SPattalk20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand your oppose... how is "exiting the heliopause" itn worthy but not "reaching interstellar space". NASA specifically announced it in those words because that is what happened. How is it vague? -- Ashish-g5520:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is this exact same item's third nomination. It has been posted once and rejected once due to the inherent obscurity in the definition of "solar system" and the moment an object crosses its border. This still holds, and one ITN mention for one and the same event is enough. Would obviously support this if it was April 1, though. --hydrox (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link? I think you are confusing two different things. This is the first time that scientific confirmation has been published. It's like a crime that happened a year ago, and the court just declared the verdict. It's news. JehochmanTalk22:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A link to what? To the article's talk page where it says this was listed on ITN last summer, which I supported? Or a link to The Rmabling Man's post above in this very same thread where he links to the Nat Geo article explaining that today's announcement by NASA is confirmation of last August's story? Why should I provide links to links that have already been provided? μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Even though this is confirmation of an earlier report, this is how science works. Many people did not comment on the event last year because it was as yet not confirmed. Many outlets around the world are already covering this news today, and it will be news over the next few days. I think Wikipedia should cover it, too. Lastly, there are many people who do not check Wikipedia every day. For those who may have missed it -- and even for those who may have caught it -- I think this is important enough to repeat, with the clear update about the confirmation. Girona7 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is about the tenth time it has been announced - the problem is that nobody really knows where the edge of the Solar system is, and new regions have been discovered after it has been announced. This might actually be the "real" one, but it's already been announced far too many times. --W.D.Graham23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose without mention of the metric used to verify it has left the Solar System; per Phil Plait, "I'll note there is some argument over what constitutes the boundary of the solar system.". Sceptre(talk)00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We posted when this left the heliosphere, and it seems at this point each further announcement is another arbitrary measurement, similar to other nominations about the price of gold reaching $500, then $1000, then €1000 and so forth. The whole accomplishment is that it's been further than anything else, and we've posted that already. SpencerT♦C00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, Jehochman, the Nat Geo source has been provided to you above by TRM, please read it. It says today's formal paper confirms the announcement Voyager left the solar system last August 25th, which we posted at that time. The current blurbs are stale and falsely imply this is happening now, not a year ago. Have you read that source or not? μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is significant enough (and subtly different enough from the previous story) to justify posting, and it's undoubtedly in the news. Last year's news seemed to be that it had merely reached the border of the Solar System, while the latest news is that it has crossed the border into interstellar space, which is a bit more complex and noteworthy than crossing the border into Wyoming. The distinction might not be enough for some, but it's plenty for me. That being said, this should probably be the very last Voyager 1 update that we post until it loses power (or achieves sentience). Because the event actually happened last August (but not last June, when the previous update was posted) the preferred wording should be "NASA confirms" or "NASA announces" or something similar. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those interested in previous nominations regarding Voyager 1 reaching certain areas on the edge of the solar system:
Thank you very much for that list! Reaching the heliosphere (June 2012) is clearly different from what is being reported now, reaching interstellar space. The unposted items are irrelevant; they were correctly not posted. The May 2005 ITN about the Heliopause relates to an inner layer, not the same either. The solar system has layers. It is newsworthy, very much so, each time Voyager's instruments detect a new layer. This is experimental confirmation of what otherwise is just theory, very exciting stuff for scientists. We need to avoid hyped, imprecise language like "leaving the solar system". We can post the current news about reaching interstellar space (exiting the heliosphere), and then some time between now and 2025 +/- 5 years we will probably post that Voyager 1 has ceased communicating, whenever that happens. If Voyager 1 happens to stumble upon something really interesting and unanticipated in the meanwhile, I am sure we will figure out what to do. Okay? JehochmanTalk02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters this March, also about the data from 25 August 2012. The New York Times story in the nomination mentions a Sciencearticle from yesterday; the Science abstract says that on 9 April 2013 there was the first observation of a phenomenon indicating Voyager had crossed the heliopause. Support if the new Science article, which NASA waited for, is mentioned along with the NASA announcement. —rybec03:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. What's notable here is really that Voyager 1 has entered interstellar space, so that should be the focus of the blurb. Entering interstellar space is not "arbitrary" as if saying it reached a certain distance is; there are certain qualities about interstellar space that don't exist within the System. And lastly, whether it was posted a year ago or not, this is "in the news" and this item is in the news now. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support alt blurb my initial concerns have been alleviated by other supports that have explained the significance of this event. --Jayron3211:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question to opposers: do you guys realize that scientific discoveries are made well in advance before their report? For example the DNA of lemurs is studied months before news of new lemur species are published in the literature, and we usually wait for the peer review part to put stuff on ITN. Support. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously didnt think there will be any opposes to this, since last time this was nominated it was not NASA that announced it. And decision was to wait. Not sure why people are calling it stale news or that this happened long ago... it took a year for them to verify and release the information. Before NASA officially verifies anything, its all speculation hence previous noms were not posted. Every news media out there still has this or atleast had it on front page. IMO its a pretty big accomplishment to reach interstellar space and should be posted -- Ashish-g5513:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Why don't we make it "NASA confirms..." instead of "NASA announces..."? That is what is particularly newsworthy, and it answers any questions as to why Wikipedia would mention it again after initial reports that it had happened... Girona7 (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Supportiff we use "NASA confirms...". This is big news this time for this specific reason, and there's no higher authority than NASA in this regard. --LukeSurltc15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the changes in the blurb and subsequent discussion of the objections have produced a consensus to post this. Could an uninvolved administrator take a look? JehochmanTalk16:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support along similar lines to the second half of Bongwarrior's argument. I question why we posted last year, but beyond the technicality TRM raises I see no good reason not to post this one (and it is a technicality, because we're either damned for prematurely nominating what we think has happened, or we are damned because verification took too long). The only grounds for a future nomination in our lifetimes would be permanent loss of power/communication, or if our current understanding of what lies beyond the solar system is show to be way off.
As an aside, it's nice to strike a perennial topic off of the list. Now we just need to sort out Gibraltar, Lionel Messi, transatlantic race rows, and deaths.—WFC— FL wishlist16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Major milestone, regardless of how 'obscure' you think it is, this is the first time mankind has left the Solar System. Even the previous naysayers now agree that Voyager 1 has passed all the boundaries, regardless of which definition is used. It's also passed the peer reviewed paper threshold - this isn't just a press release. Major coverage in all serious media outlets. Modest Geniustalk17:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have been mulling this over, seeing as we have had some opposition, but in the end I am convinced that this is a news item that is truly worthy of ITN... international in scope, astonishing in content, and an inspiring tribute to those responsible for this 40 year mission. By the way, the coverage has been strong in the media, and is on the front page of my LA Times today. The concerns expressed are noted but it is time to give this item an ITN blurb. Jusdafax22:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Support - This is merely a confirmation, and that's when news articles go on the front page. It definitely deserves a place - this is historic. Decentman12talk 18:43, 13 September 2013 (EST)
Article:2013 Ghouta attacks (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in an interview with Russian TV, agrees to a Russian-sponsored plan to place his country's chemical weapons under international control. (Post) Alternative blurb: In Geneva, the United States and Russia announce an agreement to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons. News source(s): BBC [6], Guardian [7], London Times [8], Die Welt (in German) [9] Credits:
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: If implemented in conjunction with the major international players — Russia, the U.S., UK and France — the plan would avert a threatened U.S. military strike against Syrian government forces, leading to de-escalation of the Syrian crisis spawned by chemical-weapons attacks on civilians at Ghouta on Aug. 21, 2013 Sca (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If this is implemented, it's an obvious support. But there are some things in the Russian proposal that the U.S. does not agree with, so at this point it's anyone's guess as to whether or not this will be implemented. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Russian-sponsored plan probably should have its own article.
As to waiting, I think the fact that Assad reportedly has publicly agreed to international control is itself significant; in his interview with Charlie Rose on Sept. 9 he refused to even confirm that Syria had chemical weapons. Sca (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a UNSC Resolution or the actual seizure of weapons. I might support posting Syria's joining the Chemical Weapons Convention but I haven't seen a great deal of coverage on that yet(if Syria has even formally done it yet). 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UpdateSept. 14 — In Geneva, the U.S. and Russia agree on a plan to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, ending with their complete destruction by mid-2014. Reuters: [12] BBC: [13] AP: [14] Guardian: [15] London Times: [16] NYT: [17]
After three and a half weeks of international wrangling, this would seem a crucial breakthrough and should be posted now.
The UN accuses both the Syrian government and, to a lesser extent, the rebels of war crimes. Out of 9 massacres they investigated, 8 were attributed to the Syrian Army. The remaining massacre was attributed to insurgents. (The New York Times)
Fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group kill 12 members of the minority Alawite sect in central Syria after seizing their village, opposition activists say. (Reuters)
UN investigators in Syria say Syrian army forces continue to bomb hospitals and massacre civilians. (NBC News)
France drafts a resolution forcing the Syrian government to hand over its stockpiles of chemical weapons in 15 days (The Independent)
Two suicide bombers ram a car with explosives. Egyptian military says one hit the local branch of military intelligence, while the other struck an army checkpoint in Rafah killing nine soldiers and wounding 17 others. (Houston Chronicle)
Oppose given this is an impairment of contract Contract Clause, it is forbidden by the US Constitution, and would likely be stayed, appealed, and overturned were it actually put into effect. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although a Wikipedia user's legal opinion is not relevant to its newsworthiness, I oppose this as there is no guarantee this will happen, as it states they don't have the votes to seize mortgages even though they did to approve the program. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not an illegitimate nomination. If the news item actually were to succeed it would be huge news in the US, again see Contract Clause. I oppose the nom since I don't think it would get beyond the local council vote. Local councils vote all the time for rather bizarre Biblical and anti-science or anti-state/federal constitution stuff. That being said, if this is to be closed it should be done using the {{archive top|reason}} {{archivebottom}} template or the {{hat|reason}} {{hab}} template if it's closed with prejudice. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: this story in the San Francisco Bay Guardian says there was another vote during the same meeting, in which five councillors were "against a resolution to rescind the city's offer to purchase 624 underwater mortgages and halt any effort by the city to seize those mortgages through eminent domain." In response to Abductive, I've added additional news sources. I had assumed that the AP story and the sources in the article would show wide coverage. The AP story calls it a "first-in-the-nation plan" and other stories make the same claim. Whether it's been done in other countries, I don't know. The blurb could say "first in the U.S." —rybec04:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed - really, per WP:SNOW. This doesn't have any chance of passing, 0% chance. The nomination clearly states why this does not meet the ITN criteria. Preliminary movements towards something that might or might not happen are not suitable for ITN. JehochmanTalk12:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I opposed the anniversary of the coining of Stockholm syndrome and see no reason to support this. It's not "in the news". I'd also oppose someone trying to nominate today as the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, btw. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only an american can link 9/11 attacks to the assassination of Anna Lindh.. btw. Other things happens in the world..even if America was the victim of that tragedy.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ this American bashing is ridiculous. Check your calendar. The connection is the anniversary, and I was opposing any "anniversaries". – Muboshgu (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You want another non-9/11 reason for an oppose? The update is one sentence, the article is barely sourced, and it's appropriately orange tagged. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only one having an "American agenda" here seems to be you.. geez relax.. I am not going to respond to your erratics anymore.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the editor who nominated the Stockholm Syndrome anniversary right? I guess you're Swedish and nominating from that perspective, which is fine. My opposition was straight against any post having to do with an anniversary, and given that I can see One World Trade Center out of my living room window, the fact that today is September 11 is not lost on me. After all of the cries of "American bias!!!111!" I've seen on this page, I don't like seeing my nationality brought up here, as it isn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BabbaQ, Lord knows I agree that ITN overall is too U.S-centric, but this behaviour of yours is silly. Of course an anniversary like this won't be put up, and it's not because it isn't an American story either. What is notable about the anniversary in of itself? Nothing. It's just 10 years. An arbitrary number. Anniversaries like could only be appropriate for OTD. Furthermore, whilst I absolutely won't tell you what you can and can't nominate, if you're going to put up anniversaries like this and that Stockholm Syndrome stuff - that you really should know by now aren't going to get put up - only to follow up with a round of America bashing, I think you need to rethink your priorities here. And no, once again, I'm not an American, so you can't accuse me of defending an agenda. Redverton (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redverton, your accusations are kind of silly and definitly unfounded. I only nominated news here and instantly got this "American agenda"-comment by Mubosghu, why would I otherwise mention America at all if Mubosghu had not brought it up again. Mubosghu has to move on from our previous Stockholm Syndrom/Norrmalmstorg robbery discussion which he still seems to think about for whatever reason and not bring it up everytime I nominate something, simple and clear. Also I have never said that Anna Lindh wont be on ITN just because it isnt an american story so do not put words in my mouth thank you. To respond to your actual vote I say you are ofcourse entitled to that and I think it is disrespectful of you to insinuate that I was going to attack you for it..--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTD/SA requires, among other things, highlighted articles to be properly sourced. The {{refimprove}} on top of the Anna Lindh will need to be dealt with properly before the assasination can appear on OTD. As part of the normal ITN update process, Howcheng is fairly good about checking previously suggested articles to see if they have had any deficiencies corrected (ineligible and unused suggestions are kept in the "staging area" of the days OTD page). Anyone truly interested in seeing Lindh mentioned on the Main page thus has just under a year to correct problems with her current article. --Allen3talk14:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment According to the sources provided by ESM and this article of The Washington Post, I've changed the blurb from "Hundreds of thousands of Catalans" to "More than one million Catalans". --Davidpar (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is being covered in dozens of newspapers and media outlets in many, many countries all over the world, indicating high interest. See [21] in Catalan, but with links to articles in original languages.--lizcastro (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and pull You just had to fall for this Catalan nationalist gibberish. Look at these votes; User:ESM is Catalan, User:Kippelboy is Catalan, User:Arnaugir is Catalan, and User:Lizcastro is Catalan. "Hey lets form a big human chain so people start caring about our meaningless problems." And they fucking succeeded. Th4n3r (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to point out that all the comments were from Catalans, and, given the nature of the subject, it might be better to get more geographically diverse participants in this discussion. However, the rest of your comment is unnecessarily offensive and shouldn't be taken into account. -- tariqabjotu02:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pulling I thought posting this was highly premature. I also would probably still vote support. But I am a pro-Catalan partisan. The issue I see is verifying the number of participants. I won't call for pulling, and if we do pull I would want the option of a very swift reposting. Past procedure has been not to post a nomination so swiftly unless it has at least four supports on top of the nominator and no opposes. This had three when it went up. We still have majority support, so a pull seems premature. But I can't objectively add myself to the supports yet. BTW, I have strongly supported and participated in updating prior pro-independence Catalonian nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose pulling unless someone can prove human chains this long are common. politics aside the blurb is about an unusually long human chain. this doesnt happen often as far as i know -- Ashish-g5505:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: the logistical magnitude of the event, the sheer number of people involved and the ample coverage in media all over the world make it a shoe-in for ITN.--Leptictidium (mt) 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and oppose pulling The demonstration seems to address a very important sign towards the independence of Catalonia. It's also very unusual to see such a mass demonstration involving almost one quarter of the country's total population.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kiril. Also, we should probably have some standard wording for pull/don't pull. Skimming this discussion, it's easy to misead "Oppose and Pull" as "Oppose pull" and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MChesterMC (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Think this was posted too hastily - a short series of users who don't normally post here promptly turning up to support a story about a nationalist publicity stunt ought to have led to alarm bells, not posting within a few hours of the nomination. Support purely on the basis of numbers, but the story should be pulled if it turns out the numbers are exaggerated. Formerip (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers were relesed by the Catalan interior ministry and the present journalists gave it validity. Here is aerial video of some parts of the 400km human chain. --Davidpar (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pull/support Okay let's think about this for a second: even if the numbers are inflated and say, only half the size, it is still a notable event. And c'mon - ignore the nationality of the nominator and just look at the sources. COI is not handled on ITN/C (My comments are aimed at no one in particular). --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post facto support and keep Massive event, international coverage, why wouldn't we cover this? BTW, love the arguments about the initial supporters, when do we ever hear that when some minor and unworthy US item gets posted straight away with solely US support....? 131.251.133.27 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support continued posting It is indeed a notable event. We all are aware of how evil demonstration numbers can be, but I'd like to stress the historical value of this event. Inspired in the Baltic Way, it is one of the most (if not the most) participative demonstration for a democratic right in Catalan history. That, imho, makes it remarkable enough. Now please excuse me while I make some edits in English wikipedia so as to be taken seriously. --ESM (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if there were 1 million participants covering 250 miles that means one person per every 16 inches of the distance. That's an entirely incredible (i.e., unbelievable) number. One person every four feet would mean about 300,000 participants. Given there's no visual poof the line was actually complete the number is much likely much smaller. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once the general, 400km picture is sewn, we'll share the link and you'll be able to check whether the line was complete and otoh notice that, in some parts of its route, there was more than one line of people. In the meantime, some pictures here. Cheers. --ESM (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for Catalan independence, I shepherded last year's protest through the nomination process here. But I am also old enough to remember the farce the was Hands Across America. This will also be the third year in a row we will have had a Biggest Catalan Independence Protest Ever on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clashes erupt across the country after the funeral of a 22-year-old student activist and security forces respond by teargas and water cannons. (Russia Today)
Arts and culture
Miley Cyrus breaks the record for the greatest number of views in 24 hours with her latest video Wrecking Ball. The video, uploaded on Monday, has 19.3 million views after a single day, and many people complain about this video. This has been her second record, and the third Vevo record video to become a frequent target for negative comments, the others being Stupid Hoe by Nicki Minaj and We Can't Stop by Miley Cyrus, the latter record set earlier this year.(E online)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Death from cancer at age 88 of one of the most prolific of all Australian writers and the author of more than 25 books. --HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD per HiLo and Jehochman but Muboshgu is quite right, the article is not in great shape to say the least, and has been tagged for sourcing for a long time. It will take a bit of work. Wish I could help but I am crunched for time. Jusdafax04:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. RD postings should not depend on Jusdafax and me having free time on our hands. If it really is our rules preventing posting this, and not just the fact that this guy is not a American singer/actor with very short fame, there's really something wrong here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know this isn't exactly life shattering but Steve Dodd is a featured article and the award is a significant one in Indigenous Australian culture.
Dodd seems to be an old, (perhaps beloved?) character actor. His article alone doesn't show him to be highly influential or the top of his field. An award limited to an ethnicity is problematic. I certainly would oppose any such ethnic award I could think of in the united states meriting an ITN blurb. Perhaps there is some proof of significance I am missing? μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an award limited to a (disadvantaged) ethnicity problematic? That just seems to be your political POV, which is not relevant to our decisions here. Neljack (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis asks a valid question; unless someone can point them out I don't see the giving of specific awards like this posted often, if at all- especially those of particular ethnic groups. I don't believe we post any awards from the BET Awards, , NAACP Image Awards, Latin Grammys, etc. Why should we post this one? 331dot (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure an affirmative action program for awards given by ethnicity/racial based groups would set a good precedent, regardless of the racial/ethnic group. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ticks all the boxes. Good, well established article, properly updated. A leader in his field which, to reply to Medies, has been a somewhat narrow one all his life, black Australians, but that's hardly Dodd's fault. Given what he is, he is right up the top. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, frankly I find your racial patronizing highly offensive, and your implication that not sharing your identity politics is bias personally insulting. If Dodd has accomplished anything it was by his individual effort as an actor, for which he deserves all due praise, and not by the effortless accident of his birth. His chosen field is "actor", not "black Australian". What an insult to other Aboriginals to pretend he is somehow their superior in the field of Aboriginalizing. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured article, significant though not famous awards. Sort of content we want to showcase on the Main Page and that people are unlikely to have heard of, but likely to find interesting. Neljack (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. Because there is no article for the award and the article for the ceremony is a stub. That doesn't indicate that someone being given the award is a major event, in the scheme of things. To put it another way, if the bolded article has to be the bio, that's a red flag. Formerip (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An award recognizing accomplishments by members of a small minority of Australia's population smells too much like a big fish in a small pond. --Allen3talk13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, I'm not seeing where this is in the news (the source given is from the group giving the award) Further, this is an award for a small subset of a nation's population. Lastly, I don't see this sort of award posted often, if at all (even from groups with more general criteria). 331dot (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
definately notably, came here to nominae it too. I too support Foxy Orange. Needs an update though. Perhaps some more on his election and who he ran against, etcLihaas (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there is one thing which I don't understand. Tokyo and Thomas Bach have been both elected using the same eliminatory voting process (with each round the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated). So why use the verb selected for Tokyo and the verb elected for Thomas Bach ? 83.163.5.82 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as a combined blurb. Feel free to suggest improvements or edit. I put the new blurb at the top, and put the election to the front of the blurb. JehochmanTalk15:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The top story in Indian news, and currently a top story on BBC (2nd highest), Al Jazeera, and in the New York Times. This case led to national and international protests and vigils in response earlier in the year, and now appears to have come to resolution. --Khazar2 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the article says sentencing (perhaps to death) begins tomorrow, so this could either go up with the understanding that it will be updated or we can just wait. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentencing hearings begin tomorrow, but that doesn't necessarily mean the sentence will come tomorrow. The juvenile's sentencing phase took months. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am of no huge opinion one way or the other, but it would be odd to have it come off ITN next Tuesday and then have sentences of death passed on Weds. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I certainly do read the article; that is not the issue. This being "in the news" we need some evidence that a story is indeed "in the news". We have a 'sources' line in the nom template for a reason- to make it easy to determine that. Do you think it's there just to take up space and not be used? 331dot (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to defend Lihaas on this one, at least to some extent. Sure, Lihaas sometimes nominates ITNR events before we have a clue of the outcome or whether the article is going to be developed – in fairness the outcome is irrelevant for an ITNR event's eligibility, and from the looks of the article so far it seems highly likely that the work will be done. But Lihaas's habit would actually be a big net positive (drawing editors' attention towards upcoming items) if it wasn't for the fact that other regulars vote (yes, "vote", not "!vote") for stories without even reading the article. —WFC— FL wishlist17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If people giving their opinions here aren't looking at the articles, then they should be called out on it and their opinion weighed appropriately; the sources line in the nom template helps to establish that an item is in the news- one can update an article that isn't in the news or only covered in a small area. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that Labour, not the Conservative Party, has won a plurality [26]. However, the centre-right parties look set to win the majority of seats and Stoltenberg (the PM and Labour leader) has already conceded defeat. Given that, I think it would be a bit misleading to say "Labour win a plurality" in the blurb. I'm not sure what we should say instead. Maybe either "Centre-right parties win a majority of seats in the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013" or "Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg concedes defeat after his government loses the Norwegian parliamentary election, 2013. Neljack (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm,. there is no precedent for this. We could [ppost the result and the governmen formation? We did that for usa, uk, aus and (i believe) canada.Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I've used IP88's as the altblurb, ommitting the word "loose" as unnecessary. This is updated and the blurb can be changed if there's further discussion. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i think saying the centre-right coalition is deceptive as no government has been formed and there is no coalition yet, in the interests of actual facts (and constitutionally the Labour party should get the first chance to form a government (never mind it will fail) so it should read the Labour wins a pluralitylyLihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — "The first full-size canvas by Van Gogh discovered since 1928" (BBC) seems a major arts find — but should it be in ITN or TFP? Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article would also qualify for DYK as well at the moment, but I think the system basically gives ITN "first dibs" :) Featured picture status takes a while to obtain, and I don't think there's any reason a ITN picture couldn't later be a TFP. --LukeSurltc15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing against an image being POTD after being ITN; only DYK disallows former ITN articles (speaking as someone who has experience in both areas). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Saw this pass twitter feed, beaten to the punch in the ITN/C, glad to see the article already for it. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready article is updated and support is universal. I think there is a reason why, 10,000 years from now in the Dune universe, one of, if not the only artifact still existing from Earth, is a Van Gogh painting. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
