This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Charges are dropped against Larisa Litvinova in the case of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, whose controversial death in a Russian jail led to claims of torture and neglect. (BBC)
At least 40 people are reported killed across Syria ahead of the Tuesday deadline for Syrian armed forces to withdraw from cities, as part of a peace plan brokered by U.N.-Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan. (CNN)
U.S. police arrest two men suspected in carrying out a shooting attack in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that happened the day before, leaving three people dead and two injured. The shootings are being investigated as a hate crime. (CNN)
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are 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: Tournament article needs an update once the playoff finishes. Watson's article could also be bolded. --Hot Stop 23:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's the Masters, that should be enough reason to post it (Once the article is ready) - Anc516 (talk • cont) 00:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support It's all updated now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotHat (talk • contribs)
It still lacks a prose update Hot Stop 00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated both articles. If this isn't good enough, let me know. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 01:38, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Prose sections of the tournament article need a good copyedit - right now they read like a hundred piecemeal edits and wedged-in facts as opposed to a coherent whole. Do the first two sentences need to tell us three times that the tournament occurred in 2012, for example? Is "one of, and the first, of golf's four major championships" not redundant in a cringe-inducing way? Why does coverage jump around chronologically in a seemingly random way? I don't think too much work is needed - perhaps ten or fifteen minutes comprehensive redrafting by someone who knows and cares about the subject as opposed to further piecemeal editing. I'll be happy to strike my oppose once that is done. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the criticism of my edits; I'll keep working on it, but I don't appreciate being called someone who doesn't "know and care about the subject". If you truly cared, why didn't you invest the ten or fifteen minutes into improving the article, compared to the hour or so that I put into it? - Anc516 (talk • cont) 02:10, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand me: not knowing or caring about the article is my reason for not doing it myself, it is not intended as a slight of your work. If you look at the edit history you will see that I did make a few minor technical fixes. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Sorry, it just sounded at first like you were trying to go after me. I reworded the first sentence based on your criticism. If you or anyone else has any other feedback for me, let me know. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support: new president, who is both head of state and of government. Already updated, too. But why not link Malawi? --RJFF (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- reasonable update. —Bzweebl—talk 02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 158th Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge is stopped mid-race due to a swimmer in the water. After a clash of oars at the restart, Cambridge won easily. (BBC)(Yahoo)
The Boat Race
Article:The Boat Race (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Cambridge win the 158th Boat Race, which was interrupted mid-race after a swimmer was seen in the water. A clash of oars following the re-start left Oxford with a broken oar, handing Cambridge an easy victory. (Post) News source(s):Yahoo News Credits:
Nominator's comments: Stoppage and restarting race is very rare. --Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure there's an article to update, is there? There's no specific article for this year's event, and it seems a bit of a trivial event to include in The Boat Race. FormerIP (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the stoppage and the broken oar for Oxford, it's entirely possible that the 2012 Boat Race article could be sustainable! Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a non-Brit, I actually hear of the existence of such race for the first time. I found it fascinating that the race has been held since 1856. The article is in great shape. It is just the kind of material for the front page. There's a sufficient update under #Notable races in recent years. --hydrox (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my vote. Turns out the event was disrupted by someone to draw public attention to a personal agenda. Per Crispmuncher reasoning far below, it's best not to give any more publicity than he has already received. --hydrox (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree that a spin-off article could be sustained, it's been as notable today as most FA Cup finals. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as college basketball was opposed, as being far from the top level of the sport, even if it does receive publicity disproportionate to its sporting importance. Unusual events in a mid-level sporting event happen every weekend, because there are so many unimportant mid-level sporting events every week. Kevin McE (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is University level, not college level. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify the difference? Most of the institutions that participated in the NCAA tournament were Universities, or is the meaning in British English different from that in American English? --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Maybe that's the reason our British friends adamantly opposed college basketball. When they think of "college" they think of something (I'm guessing here) less than a "university". Lost in translation? –HTD 17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in British English, "college" tends to refer to a level of education equivalent to the latter years of high school and/or freshman year of university in the U.S. But, I really can't believe most British readers (Mjroots, obviously not included) would not have either (a) known that in the U.S., "college" refers to university-level education or at least (b) known that that nomination was about university-level sports. From my understanding, the notion that "college" means something else over there [i.e. in the U.S.] is not an uncommon piece of knowledge in the UK. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, difference between "US college basketball" and "The Boat Race" is that the Boat Race has a global audience in the 100s of millions. Apparently up to 400 million in 180 countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that university rowing is inherently insignificant like college basketball. But given the long history of this particular event, the good shape of the article and the fact that (to my knowledge) it has never been featured in ITN, I would give it a go if easter time proves a slow news period. --hydrox (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without any comment on the merits of the nomination itself, this seems like an utter slap in the face to those who supported the failed NCAA basketball nom earlier in the week.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above, relevant to a global audience of hundreds of millions in nearly 200 countries. Unlike college basketball. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a supposed global audience, this is not trending in Twitter worldwide; the upcoming iCarly episode with British boyband One Direction is the one trending in the UK and worldwide. In fact, the race per se (keywords such as "Cambridge," "Oxford," and "boat race") isn't even trending locally in the UK. The swimming troll is trending, though. Would support if the blurb focused on him. –HTD 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware of demographics Howard. Those who tweet would be more One Direction oriented, those who read encyclopaedias would be more Oxbridge oriented. Historic race today with the swimming moron. I would support either main article or, better still, a 2012 boat race article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So are you implying that Wikipedia, in spite of being an Internet medium, is intended only to cater to those who would read paper encyclopedias?--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, but I do realize the UK has to be one of the most wired places on Earth, so those who care about this race should also tweet about this. Or is this more about Oxbridge thing than it being an athletic competition? If it is then that truly is a very limited scope; if it is not, then we'd have to judge this as an athletic competition with all of the "mid-level sporting event" argument Kevin told us. If we're going into longevity, college basketball is almost as old as basketball per se. If we're going to global audience, that smells like the NFL saying that the Super Bowl had a global audience of one billion. I don't think this was even televised live in Japan (tried looking for TV listings there). –HTD 16:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wasn't, but probably was televised in most of the former Empire which accounts for 1/3 of the globe. But anyway, I think we'll have this NCAA (who?) vs "Boat Race" (what?) argument to eternity. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe some bloke in Hyderabad (either of them) or Penang knew the boat race existed? Chances are slim. –HTD 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop mentioning about the Basketball tournament being opposed judge each nomination on its own merits and not about getting hung-up on something else. This is absolutely ridiculous and getting way out of hand now, sometimes I just wish sports nominations were banned because they cause so much trouble and tit-for-tat arguments... --Τασουλα (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: This was a reply to Τασουλα's original post which was revised by him: NCAA audience in the Commonwealth (the British one) wasn't argued upon in the NCAA nomination. What was argued upon there was "global audience" which was never in the ITN criteria, so was invalid from the get-go. We're talking about here is the Boat Race's audience within the Commonwealth. Also, I thought you were talking about the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Hah.)
(Note: Now, this is a reply on Τασουλα's subsequently-amended post.) This is a similar event to the NCAA one hence you can't prevent people from comparing the two, unless you're into banning people. True story: Sometimes I join in these discussions just to see how "ridiculous" the arguments are. 180 countries watched the Boat Race? Who knew? Are the Home Nations one or 4 countries? –HTD 17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Are the Home Nations one or 4 countries?" - Don't even go there!!!. Sorry, about what I said it was in reply to the original post and anyone so much as talking about it, there's just no need and it cloggs up the system. Also, please refrain from referring to me as "he" xD Also, I thought you would of been thinking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Swish! Τασουλα (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terribly sorry for referring to you as a "he." Heee. –HTD 17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course I have no idea if your "bloke in Hyderabad" knew about it but it's hard to deny this was a global (that means outside America) event. Last year's was broadcast in over 200 countries. It's significant on a global scale. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim in that article that it was broadcast, in the normal sense of the word, in more than 200 countries. Essentially, it says that the internet relay was not geographically restricted. Which is pretty much tantamount to saying that it was of no economic value outside the UK. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this "significant on a global scale", why is this not on Google News Canada homepage? In its sports section are reports on hockey, curling, baseball and... (gasp!) basketball!(!!!) –HTD 17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course you'll find plenty of pages that don't feature it, but the point remains, an event broadcast in over 200 countries is notable and globally significant. How many countries does NCAA get broadcast in? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA tournament is broadcast in Canada, Australia, Brazil and Europe (individual countries not listed) according to its wiki page. --Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has argued that NCAA basketball is "significant on a global scale" (Wait, I think somebody did!), but I just find it cringe worthy that a significant event (not just sports event) on a global scale doesn't show up in the sports section of Google News Canada, heck even Google News Australia. That's like the 2 largest Commonwealth countries that should care about this. –HTD 17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
>_< Maybe they don't have the story up yet? Omg wait. There's a conspiracy going on here, the former Empire is rebelling! Which is funny. Wait, wasn't the original nomination based on the Aforementioned troll interrupting it? Was he really a troll? And I dare anyone to oppose the Olympic nomination, when it comes, based on the NCAA basketball being opposed. As a joke of course... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I saw this on the French Google News (I can't read French that well, but I'd presume the story focuses on the swimming troll), so, as what I've said earlier, I'd gladly support this if the blurb focuses on the swimming troll and not much else. Not because it's a boat race between Oxford and Cambridge that's been held for a long time. –HTD 17:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posh toff twats having their afternoon jolly-up interupted isn't worthy of the front-page. Lugnuts (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, a lot of people go to those universities who aren't "posh toff twats" actually. If you have issues with such educational establishments, that's fine, but labelling a whole bunch of people you know nothing about as "posh toff twats" is entirely uncalled for. A British television audience of 6 million, are they all "posh toff twats"? Sounds like you have a chip me old mucker. Shoulderwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You introduced a source to this thread that describes the event as "an unavoidably class-bound two-horse race" Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that. If anything, these are the "Jocks" competing in the boat race and most people who watch it here do so for the rivalry thing. Maybe if this was ascot or another butchery-sport event I would agree... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well only 7 of the 18 crew members were British. It hasn't really been that elite for 30 years. Leaky Caldron 17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this year in isolation due to the exceptional circumstances of the race. As an annual event I'd say it's borderline (impressive viewing figures notwithstanding), but this year definitely tips the scales in favour of posting. I would however suggest getting rid of the second sentence of the blurb. —WFC— 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support probably the most notable boat race in the world, I agree with WFC get rid of the second sentence as that reads like a sports headline from a newspaper. Secretaccount 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is open to amendment by the posting admin should this get posted. There'll be no complaints from me if an amended blurb is posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support only iff the blurb mentions the race restart, and does not focus on the clash of oars (or any other insignificant race incident — we don't post touchdowns for the Super Bowl or goals for the World Cup Final, for example). Suggest blurb: The 2012 Boat Race, suspended and restarted due to an intruder in the River Thames, is won by Cambridge University. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin McE. Additionally, the section in the article needs more references before this can be posted. SpencerT♦C 17:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amateur sporting competition. No significant international impact. --Allen3talk 17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Canadian, U.S., Australian, N.Z., Dutch and German crew members. This isn't just a bunch of British upper class amateurs. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not seeing the significance beyond the British isles/Australia. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 18:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have any significance in Australia? I'm pretty sure that if I started talking about the "Boat Race" to my mates they wouldn't have a clue what I was on about (though the same could be said about US college basketball). Jenks24 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot see how significant is this to be on ITN in comparison to other (and more professional) sporting events out there such as those mentioned in this discussion, plus is not likely to benefit to anything else other than those involved within the two universities. Donnie Park (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It just wouldn't be Wikipedia without thinly veiled UK-US tribalism going on, accompanied by a smattering of pointscoring in revenge for past failures. I say this independently of my support rationale: there is some of this going on from both sides, and such rationales should be discounted. Discussion should be focussing on the merits (or lack thereof) of this event, not of another event or of the relative importance of one or more countries. —WFC— 18:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even most Brits find this event an embarrassing anachronism, of almost no interest. The interruption makes it marginally less trivial than usual, but still not ITN-worthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^^I'd hardly call this a British Event, maybe English, but most certainly it's An Oxford-Cambridge thing. Most people are just interested in the competitiveness...not really the sport itself or the history/tradition/those involved. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this year only, due to the exceptional circumstances. I do not believe this should be posted each year, but it's pretty clear this year's race was out of the ordinary. Generally, I see this as on par with March Madness, which I would probably lean against posting unless something exceptionally noteworthy happens. Jenks24 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlike college basketball, which is watched by a minor audience in one country, the Boat Race has a worldwide audience and is part of the very fabric of British life. There can be very little details "not notable" about a 100+ year sporting event between the two oldest, most established, most respected Universities in Europe, if not the world. Unlike basketball, this is an event with wide appeal. Unlike "the first 1080 in skateboarding" or whatever it was, this is a credible sport and not just a hobby. Ultimately the event falls on the right side of "important". Our Colonial Cousins in the States might not like it, but when it comes to actual world important sporting events, we have far more right to far more events with that title. This is one of them. doktorbwordsdeeds 19:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose In ordinary circumstances I'd have no problems with posting. Comparisons to random American college sporting events are at best misguided: there is a difference between asserting that a union of two or more factors lends notability to a broad class of possible nominations (i.e. "This is a popular sport, college sport is popular, ergo this is notable") and putting forward a single nomination as a stand-out event. No one here is suggesting we start posting British university or college football or boxing or whatever, the assertion is that this one event is notable.
On the other hand I am actually opposing this, and that is due to the swimmer incident. This is one man with an axe to grind to has already received far more publicity than he actually deserves because of the childish and disruptive manner he went about making his point. The coverage we give of his "argument" (which appears so far to be poorly developed and lacking any intrinsic substance) should be based on its intrinsic notability. IMHO fair coverage here amounts to zip, and since we can't cover the substantive story without including the protest we don't cover it at all to avoid undue prominence. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regional interest. I am specifically skeptical of the claims that it is viewed in 180 countries; on a very technical level, that's probably true, but that's also true of countless other even less significant sporting events. Referencing The Boat Race's homepage, it would appear that most countries received the broadcast via BBC, which is certainly a major news outlet, but is also very specifically a British news source. The claim that it's viewed in 180 countries would suggest that it receives major coverage by all those countries, on the scale of something like the World Cup (Association Football), which it does not. - OldManNeptune⚓ 03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that important in the grand scheme of things. Hot Stop 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far less significant that the basketball nomination which was not posted. That the use of the phrase 'global interest' in this thread is a classic example of how that factor is misused at ITN. 'Global interest' (if indeed that's the case here) doesn't' mean 'global significance'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is significant due to the nature of the race, see High drama for historic Oxford-Cambridge boat race and for the "security questions ahead of the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Those that are opposing it due to the link with basketball, shame on you, how is a basketball event which nothing unexpected happened relate to this, lets hope the reviewing admin discountes them, they have no place here.
It seems to me that the newsworthiness in this story is not the boat race itself, but the fact that there was someone in the water.--WaltCip (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont' see the interruption as significant on its own. One man stages a protest by stopping a sporting event. It's no more significant than a streaker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a little like that other than it caused a thirty-minute delay to an globally observed annual event which has been hosted since 1829. The significance is really the whole package. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Globally observed sporting events happen every day. I just watched a league football match, which unlike boat race was available via streaming internet (legally) where I am, that had a controversial penalty that's being discussed the world over. Is that ITN worthy? As has been pointed out above several times, the size of the 'global audience' for this is highly questionable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, I accept the "questionability" of a global audience here, but your "league football match" is not a once-a-year event that has taken place since 1829 where the athletes train all year for one single 17-minute event, is it? In any case, we'll see this again next year, and we'll see the boring NCAA vs the-rest-of-the-world arguments forever, so perhaps we're all better off just moving on and doing something less boring instead. I certainly am. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stopping of the race was a trivial event. Also, I note that the NCAA Basketball Tournament, which engages nearly 70 U.S. universities, is of great interest to both news media and oddsmakers, and included a game attended by the U.S. president and the UK prime minister, was deemed to be too minor a sports event to warrant attention at ITN. If that's too minor a topic for ITN, then the Boat Race surely is too minor to qualify. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that NCAA March Madness isn't even the proper comparison to this event. In March Madness, more than 60 teams are selected from hundreds of teams around the U.S.; this one is between two schools. It's more akin to the American college football rivalry games, such as the The Game, or the most equivalent comparison should be the Harvard–Yale Regatta. –HTD 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Army-Navy Game might be a good analogue as well, though it lacks the prestige university setting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has nothing to do with college basketball. It's a trivial amateur event that only gains attention because of it's history and that it is held in London, where 300 thousand people out of a metro population of 14 million come to watch. Utterly and staggeringly insignificant. --PHof7 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is all hype. This news should be on the England Portal page, or better, on the Oxford - Cambridge rowing Portal page. __meco (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who have come here to oppose this out of spite because the NCAA game wasn't posted would be smarter if they supported this, and other specialised local events, otherwise no such event will ever be posted. Take the more mature position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
U.S events are always going to have a tougher road to the nomination, regardless of whether this gets through or not. Take for example the Rio de Janerio school shooting to the most recent H.S one in the U.S (or heck even the Christian university one in Oakland which wasn't even nominated), Gary Speed vs. Al Davis, or the clusterfreak over the Penn State sex abuse scandal and later JoePa's death. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting incidents in the US are never going to surprise nor seem newsworthy to people from other places because of what they see as America's insane gun laws. Sex scandals happen all over the world, and are rarely posted here. And old football coaches die everywhere too. Heck, I couldn't get the ridiculously young death of one of the most amazing people to ever play Aussie Rules, Jim Stynes, posted here recently. I still think though that the NCAA thing could have been posted had it been promoted a little more objectively and wisely. (WTF does "filling a bracket" mean to a non-American? Anyone who used that as part of an argument was off their brain.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Energy saving tip. There's no way this is going to get posted, is there? FormerIP (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Debating tip Rhetorical questions don't work very well on the global Internet. They tend to be too culturally inclined and not well understood by those from different cultures than the poster's. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies to anyone from a culture that doesn't understand rhetorical questions. Formerip (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mali update x2
Dioncounda Traoré is appointed the interim president via a deal brokered by ECOWASLihaas (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are not a newsticker. We have to draw the line at constant updates, and this line has been duly drawn doktorbwordsdeeds 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why its not a fresh nom to add, but an update to the current line.Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He was appointed as interim head of state and elections are announced to be held within 40 days. Let's wait for the election result with an elected president with a (hopefully) full term. --RJFF (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...in principle, but the article needs an update describing the incident. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is an exceptionally large avalanche disaster. __meco (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as big as it gets I guess... --Τασουλα (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no question that this is front page news. doktorbwordsdeeds 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Siachen article has been marginally updated with the news. __meco (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also this stub about the actual avalanche. Lugnuts (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support what was a stub appears to have been expanded enough. EdwardLane (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks ready. Nice job. FormerIP (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. Article is decent, up to date and adequately expanded. Broad community support to post this notable disaster. --RJFF (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the upside, you're welcome to walk away with a share of my above compliment. FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is a bad thing. On DYK, it would have stayed there for eight hours. On ITN, it'll stay there for eight days. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because I did the heavy lifting on the article itself up to this point and had no knowledge of this whole thing. Ah well, should have checked, I guess. Maybe I can get a GA out of it if I stay on top of things. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A ban on the display of tobacco products by retailers comes into force in England. Lawmakers hope it will lead to a reduction in the number of young people taking up smoking. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Death while in office, we generally post these subject to update , of which there is one. --Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait this Guardian report suggests there is still some doubt over his death. Suggest wait until (official?) confirmation.EdwardLane (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters and Nyasa Times confirms, while Al Jazeera initiall said he was critical w(when i read and updated) but now says the hospital confirmed.Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, looks like all the papers are saying he is dead, but not officially announced while they try to sort out succession. EdwardLane (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the latest Al Jazeera news bulletin, his death is still unconfirmed but obvious support if his death is later confirmed by government officials. YuMaNuMaContrib 14:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I think this is ready; I can't see anyone trying to oppose it so no need to wait. —Bzweebl—talk 13:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Death of an incumbent head of state should be relevant enough. --RJFF (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a neutrality tag on the top of the article, since January. This needs to be addressed first. --Tone 14:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Death of a head of state clearly significant. Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some improvements to the article and removed the tag. Something to watch out for might be editors wanting to add the information that Mutharika's death is the fulfilment of a prophecy made by a Nigerian televangelist. FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready: article is updated and neutrality problem has been dealt with. --RJFF (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short article, but a fascinating subject and a minority topic. (This is my first nom, apologies for any fmting errors)Khazar2 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but this kind of item is not for ITN. please go through the criteria page to familiarize yourself with the kind of notability required for ITN. thanks -- Ashish-g55 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did read those criteria, so you're going to have to help me out. This is a significant new technology, getting thorough coverage from mainstream media around the world (4x the results of Viktor Bout, below, for example), and reported to be potentially on sale within the year. The criteria state that ITN is particularly looking for technology articles. Not enough to avoid automatic dismissal? Which criterion did I miss? Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Although this may be getting mainstream coverage, and it is a minority topic, it hasn't even been released yet nor do we know much about it. The only source that these glasses actually exist yet is a Google post on their own website and the public knows little about it thus far. Although it may be important, announcing testing of the technology does not seem like the right time to post it. Try again when these are actually released. —Bzweebl—talk 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Google does this sort of thing all the time, they have a whole unit dedicated to inventing things. I doubt many of the latest burst of releases will ever make it through, and in any case, "Willy Wonka Announces Diet Variety of Snozberry Juice" is just a PR stunt; it's not news. doktorbwordsdeeds 04:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously? Nokia actually did this too, but over two years ago already, and it was no big news back then, and neither is this now. Just another corporate vision / promo film. --hydrox (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Longest tunnel-to-tunnel suspension bridge" seems to be a PR agency's way of saying "twelfth longest suspension bridge". FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- This is a nice minority topic which is only remotely notable but could potentially hold interest for readers. It's a tough call, but just because it's not a real milestone as FormerIP pointed out, it's still a major event for China I'm sure. —Bzweebl—talk 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support-Per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, lean towards support It's not the news you say it is, so a change in blurb and full(er) explanation in the article is needed. I can see the attraction doktorbwordsdeeds 04:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support per precdence and red timer, pending update on the opening the details, etc.Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a beautiful bridge, but there is nothing significant about it. There are four suspension bridges longer than this one in China alone. Its height is entirely irrelevant because, unlike with the Millau Viaduct, the piers do not reach the ground. The fact that it is bookended by tunnels has nothing to do with the bridge itself. In the 21st century, a bridge of this type is nothing significant. -- tariqabjotu 16:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only the twelfth longest suspension bridge, the tunnel to tunnel part is irrelevant to me. Also, it opened last month, according to our article. It's kind of stubby too, and there isn't much on the opening. Hot Stop 17:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've deliberately given this one a few days to see if the article settles down in a better state. It hasn't. It reads like someone simply reeling off a set of statistics about the bridge: concepts are not developed and built upon as they are in a good piece of writing. On that basis alone I'd say it isn't worthy of highlighting as quality content on the main page. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Viktor Bout
Well, it is a slow day and the timer has been red for some time now. May I suggest:
Weak support, needs a proper update. You're right. This may have to do. FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose- In addition to there being no reference and the article having a mere one sentence update, I can't see this passing any other time then our current long red situation. One of the purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news," and seeing as this hasn't received much major coverage as far as I have seen, as well as the fact that this is an arrest of someone who hasn't received an overt amount of attention in the past and likely bears significance to a small number of our English-speaking readers which seems contrary to the goal of "point[ing] readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them," this is really a stretch to post this. Now that we have Azawad posted with more likely on the way, I see no need for this. —Bzweebl—talk 02:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just because we've not had food in a while doesn't mean we should make do with scraps. doktorbwordsdeeds 04:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak support we post notable sentencing (not sure if his arrest/extradition was posted) and red timer.Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red timer is irrelevant doktorbwordsdeeds 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To youre reasoning perhaps. Everyone has their own reasons, some include "per..."Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With all the coverage this story got when he was extradited to the US, I find it appropriate that we follow up with the sentencing. __meco (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the MNLA call off their offensive after saying they have captured whar they sought (no word on AD though). Its worthy of an update to the blurb and the aticle is updated. One can add "After the capture of the frontier town of DouentzaLihaas (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- A supposed end to a conflict that we've covered previously and has been one of the leading news stories as of late seems notable enough to me. However, if the battling continues in the end, it wouldn't be very impressive that we posted this. —Bzweebl—talk 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Even if it's not quite the end of the conflict (the rest of W Africa is doing serious saber-rattling about an invasion to counter the coup and rebels at once), it's a major milestone in it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a comment- The announcement is now more formal. What about: "[[[Tuareg rebellion (2012)|Mali's Tuareg rebellion]] ends its offensive and declares the independence of Azawad."? Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to post? Would like to see some more feedback. --Tone 06:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure the article does have the relevant info. I didn't look at it carefully. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The links should be per BQ above as AD havent indicated the same.
Also for the blurb to replace "claiming that they have captured enough territory to form their own state" with "and declaring their own state"
National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, btw. ALso if the blurb is too long cna just write MNLA with the link hidden.
Also IF the declaration of independence is not going up (for which it too could be bolded) then can i be informed so i can DRYK it.Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The new state has already been rejected by several countries, not sure if that is worth mentioning if this candidate was to be posted up. YuMaNuMaContrib 14:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not often a new state is declared by a party that actually controls the area CMD (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: New de facto state is born, has triggered major international attention and reactions (albeit negative). Articles are up to date. Ready to be posted? --RJFF (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with Bender's suggestion. Looks fine to me. Posting. --Tone 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support to add the flag as illustration. --RJFF (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support use of MNLA flag. Seems appropriate. —Bzweebl—talk 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MNLA's flag is NOT the flag of Azawad with questions already being asked abut who holds writ vis-avis Anasr Dine. Surprising RJFF would suggest this after calling the AD flag insertion synthesis. 9rightfully)Lihaas (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
