*'''Oppose'''. I think there are two differences between this car and an artwork. First, there have been artworks that [[List of most expensive paintings|sold for more]] than it. Examples include the [[Guennol Lioness]], an 8 cm tall ancient statue, for $57.2 million, and the ''[[The Card Players]]'' for a quarter of a billion dollars. Second, art has more depth of meaning to humanity than a vehicle designed to improve a company's image. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I think there are two differences between this car and an artwork. First, there have been artworks that [[List of most expensive paintings|sold for more]] than it. Examples include the [[Guennol Lioness]], an 8 cm tall ancient statue, for $57.2 million, and the ''[[The Card Players]]'' for a quarter of a billion dollars. Second, art has more depth of meaning to humanity than a vehicle designed to improve a company's image. <font face="Cambria">[[User:Abductive|<font color="teal">'''Abductive'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</font> 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
**Then you have no understanding of the word "art" [[User:Torqueing|Torqueing]] ([[User talk:Torqueing|talk]]) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
**Then you have no understanding of the word "art" [[User:Torqueing|Torqueing]] ([[User talk:Torqueing|talk]]) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Blurb at present says 29dollars. Order of magnitude is missing. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.173.145|64.201.173.145]] ([[User talk:64.201.173.145|talk]]) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Blurb at present says 20 pounds. Order of magnitude is missing. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.173.145|64.201.173.145]] ([[User talk:64.201.173.145|talk]]) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
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).
A third person, a critically injured unidentified girl, dies at San Francisco General Hospital of injuries she sustained as a result of the Saturday, July 6, 2013 crash-landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a Boeing 777 (180 were injured, 16 remain hospitalized, including two critical adults; autopsy results will take about 3 weeks). (NBC)
Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan visits the UN headquarters in New York City to celebrate her 16th birthday with the UN address. (AP via Yahoo! News)
Law and crime
Authorities in Indonesia search for 70 prison inmates who escaped from the Tanjung Gusta prison in North Sumatra province after a prison riot last night. Twelve of the escapees were convicted of terrorism related offences. (AAP via SBS)
Comment The veteran Bollywood actor had featured unanimously in ITN this year for receiving the highest Indian cinema award. He was a respected name in the Indian cinematic space.Regards, theTigerKing17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Clearly a significant person in Indian cinema, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests suitability for a blurb. Thryduulf (talk)
Obviously support on notability (for RD) - however, the orange tag needs addressed and the death section needs more than just one sentence (e.g. reactions) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article has a single sentence about his death, no reactions, and numerous style issues like dead links, is this what we want to feature on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support RD but after cleaning up and updating article..-Nizil (talk)
Support for RD: I sense that one of the socks of User:Shrik88music has been on the article. Hence the mess and unnecessary statistics. I have reverted the article to possibly best version of past. But dead links still remain. Have added one comment on death by PM. Will add more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as Ready All the dead links have been removed. The artcile has a small section on his death. Tributes would definitely pour in today as he had died last night IST. I guess we don't have to make the article a tributary of sort. Lets do justice with his body of work Period.Regards, theTigerKing02:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The career sections are largely unreferenced (and orange tagged). Fixing dead links is nice and all, but unreferenced material is a much more serious problem than a link no longer working. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you are supposed to include references in the nomination, the BBC are currently stating seven dead with numerous injuries. In any case, we'll need to see how this develops, but it's a mild support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to article expansion. I came here to nominate this. It's still very early days so there isn't much to the article yet, but it's clear this is a major incident (although the BBC are presently saying 7 rather than 10 dead) and more details will emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless this develops greatly in notability (crime suspect, death toll exceeds 20, notable victim, edifice harmed) it just amounts to a sad, but routine accident, not worthy of featuring, if even encyclopedic recognition. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My position is quite clear, there is no point in us detailing every 7-death transportation accident. Why do you not instead explain what is encyclopedic about this, since the burden lies entirely on the nominator to show actual notability? μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is clear, but your reasoning is not. We indeed do not write encyclopaedia articles about every 7-death transportation accident because there are thousands of such road accidents each year. This isn't a road accident though, it's a high-speed derailment of a passenger train at a busy station (which is very rare), also rare are fatal railway accidents in not just France (first since 2006, deadliest since 1998) but most of the rest of the world too - the Fairfield train crash in Connecticut resulted in 0 deaths for example. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Medeis has made her position clear, no point in chasing it. Six deaths in an accident in France with nothing more to report isn't that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disasters with this sort of death toll are pretty common, and we certainly don't post most of them. I'm not seeing anything sufficiently special about it to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most people are not going to know how to pronounce "Brétigny-sur-Orge" and this has caused no traffic jams in the San Francisco area. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plane crashes are rarer events than train crashes; we just posted the Lac-Megantic wreck. This was the first fatal plane crash of a large airliner in the US since 2001 and only the second accident involving a 777(which first flew in 1995). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the first fatal train wreck in France since 2006. Again, these events look very comparable in magnitude to me. It is not every day that a Boeing airliner crashes, and it is not every day that a train from SNCF wrecks. Both have excellent safety records. Cochonfou (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: World record. Noteworthy car. Noteworthy price. Noteworthy user(s). Nice change from all the death and despair that is in ITN (that is not ITN/R) currently. Broke records for: Most valuable motor car ever sold at auction, Most valuable Formula 1 racing car ever sold, Most valuable Mercedes-Benz --Torqueing (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact it's in the news? :) It's broken 3 world records, it's newsworthy for as long as people drive cars and auctions sell things Torqueing (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree selling an historic car for a large sum is newsworthy, but then again, so is the highest 10th wicket partnership in Test cricket which was a world record broken yesterday (along with another world record for highest score by a number 11 on his debut). It's all about how this would appeal to our global audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have posted other auction records (on art, for example). However, I have to agree with Ashish that the inability for an extensive update is a concern. If the article was substantial improved in some way (either general expansion or finding a way to write about the auction in a meaningful way [how did it come up for sale, for example?]) I would support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if it's broken some record for auction, then that should be included in the blurb, otherwise it's "car sells for loads of money". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – aside from being a complete waste of money (end bias opinion), what makes this ITN material? Sure it may be something rather notable within the realm of racing and auctions, but that's about it. There's nothing outside a line of X car sold for X cash and no real world repercussions, positive or negative. As stated before, it's something more worthy of DYK than ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – We had records for arts, sculptures and photographs appearing on ITN, so why can't record for cars appear or do I smell double standards, or the works of several people is insignificant to the so called expressive work of one man. Not fogetting car auction records have always been big news and these record breakers are never forgotten, thats by the public and motoring press; example Bugatti Royale (1987), James Coburn's Ferrari 250 GT Spider California SWB (2008) and Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa (2009 and 2011). Donnie Park (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"car auction records have always been big news these record breakers are never forgotten" – That's all fine and dandy, but what's so important about it? It's a car that's really expensive that has no major impact aside from that guy's bank account. I don't see any notability outside of the the car and auction world. I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news," but I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply offensive when you accuse people of a double standard. I know a lot of people I often disagree with here who go out of their way not to have one. You'd have been much better off making an objective case in favor first, rather than throwing accusations. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think there are two differences between this car and an artwork. First, there have been artworks that sold for more than it. Examples include the Guennol Lioness, an 8 cm tall ancient statue, for $57.2 million, and the The Card Players for a quarter of a billion dollars. Second, art has more depth of meaning to humanity than a vehicle designed to improve a company's image. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Seems like a major development. Even though not passed as a law, its one of those incredibly controversial topics where this kind of progression is a big news in itself IMO. Either article can be used... ---- Ashish-g5513:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. While significant for Ireland, legalized abortion in any form is not a unique thing in the world. Many US States have taken the opposite route (passing more restrictions on abortion). 331dot (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article makes it seem as though this is not yet a final decision, as the Seanad still needs to pass it and the President needs to sign it into law. SpencerT♦C15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is actually meant by this? An abortion where the mother is not in immediate danger? Even the Catholic church allows surgery that might kill the baby if the mother is in immediate life-threatening danger. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its not so much about health but suicide. So if mother is deemed suicidal Ireland will allow abortion. A bit weird but major development for ireland since they got much tougher rules against abortion -- Ashish-g5518:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs a much better blurb. What is obviously of interest here to everybody is whether abortions will be harder or easier to get. The blurb doesn't tell me. (And I, like most readers, am not going to go clicking on random links in the hope of finding out.) We must summarise the significant change(s) in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Neutral - article is pretty short right now. I would hope more could be said about someone notable enough to post on RD after a 60 year career. Death update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he did spend 29 of those years hosting the same show. Can you pinpoint the omissions please, and I'll do my best to fill them in. Otherwise I think we're well over the line for RD inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral is about as good as you can expect from an American who has thought he was Attenborough for five decades. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How? It's not our fault he wasn't big enough to break into the American market. :) I'll gladly watch his best-of, if the BBC hosts it on line and doesn't put a blackout on American viewing. Until then, let me know what you Brits think of John Facenda or Charles Kuralt. I didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Between "let me know" and "I didn't think so", you didn't give us much of a chance, did you? ;) (And they're both well beyond ITN inclusion)... (And I suspect a BBC blackout on "real" news broadcast to America is to prevent mass panic.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You proved my point, TRM. While I am willing to be neutral about this chap, you are happy to put down Facenda who was perhaps the most recognized voice in radio and TV at the time of his death, known as "the voice of god" and of the NFL. So, I didn't think so, and I was right. As for real news, do you mean Chinese birds flying into Scottish windmills? μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, the two fellows you noted died a decade or so beyond this nomination (I didn't "put them down", just noted that they weren't eligible for ITN/C). You know they died years ago, don't you?). How is that helpful to this nomination? And no, I didn't mean birds flying into windmills, I meant massive offshore windfarms providing vital renewable power to hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps you missed the London Array? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither having a long career nor winning awards establishes that he was "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of television. I will oppose unless further evidence is provided about his impact and reputation. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the Queen made him a CBE just for the heck of it? I don't think she gives those out to anyone that comes along. How many broadcasters have worked 70 years? (How many people in any industry have worked 70 years?) In order to make it 70 years he couldn't have been too ordinary. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are rather over-estimating the significance of a CBE. By my count 107 people were given CBEs in the Queen's Birthday Honours List last month. With two honours lists a year, we can estimate than about 2000 people have been awarded the CBE just in the last decade. We're certainly not going to post all their deaths; I would think that only a very small minority of them would qualify for RD. Even most knights or dames (who are above a CBE in the honours system) would not qualify. Incidentally, the Queen does not actually decide who gets CBEs. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no evidence presented that he was "widely recognized as a very important figure" inside his home country, and certainly not anywhere else. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, at least the first assertion. People aren't referred to as "legends" without being widely recognised as important. Please read the sources provided and the reaction to his death before making erroneous statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The landing has always been the hard part of operating a plane from a carrier. It has also successfully taken off from the carrier. Drones are the future of aerial warfare, and carriers are a central part of aerial warfare, so this is a significant first. Thue (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Thue (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't seem to have involved any significant technological barrier, just getting a machine that can land itself to land itself on something new. Formerip (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's new when the landing site is moving in all directions as a ship is. Computers could not account for that until recently. It's not as easy as it sounds. This is also likely the future of aerial warfare. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm always sceptical of publicly announced advances in military technology. What we really have here is the first publicly announced landing of a drone on a carrier. What makes any of you think that they haven't been doing it for quite some time? And that far more dramatic advances aren't happening on other fronts. This is managed, manufactured news. It's not real. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The world press would seem to disagree, given it's news in most places. All technology is practiced, designed and tested before formal attempts at accomplishing its function. The fact that it's military technology we're talking about here shouldn't disqualify it. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that line of argument, almost any first would no longer be news, since somebody might have potentially have done it in secret. I have seen no hints that the US have been operating drones from carriers before now. Giving that thousands of people work on each carrier, it would also have been very hard to keep secret for long. Thue (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
331dot - The world press gets excited about Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies. We don't record them here. So simply saying the media is excited is never enough to justify posting something. Thue - I'm talking about what is obviously a managed news release. The real audience of this sort of stuff is the US's enemies, and perhaps it's own citizens if they somehow feel some ownership of this. It's propaganda. Maybe we could describe it as "US military announces that it has successfully landed...". We will never know the real truth and details about military advances. This is an incremental advance, not a revolutionary step. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The public landing of a drone on a carrier, whether or not it has been done in private before, sets the world on notice that the U.S. may not be requiring airbases in neighboring countries to launch certain surveillance, attacks, and covert actions. It should also warn kids dreaming of growing up to be fighter pilots that they need a new dream. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All military press releases are propaganda, if only by the selective nature of what they choose to release. When did you last see a military press release about something costing billions that didn't work? HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far less important than providing electricity for half a million homes, and still just something that's not actually that impressive or newsworthy. Despite what vox populi think, drones can fly (and land) autonomously just as well as civilian aircraft. This is no big deal at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced this is a sufficiently important step to warrant posting. The previous inability to land on carriers doesn't seem to stopped drones being widely used. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that those who oppose this create a drone, its avionics, and program it to land on a carrier before they state this is "not revolutionary" or "not a big deal". If it was easy, it would have been done decades ago. Their use will greatly increase in the future once drones' range is no longer limited by requirement of land-based air bases. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But, if it's reasonable to ask editors to perform any feat they oppose for ITN, then I am surely not being unreasonable. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was using rhetoric to make a point; that this isn't as easy or unimportant a feat as people claim it is. I didn't expect anyone to go out and start designing their own drones. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was also using rhetoric. I don't believe anyone has said "I could do that". But the fact that something requires specialist skills and knowledge is not enough to make it suitable for posting. Formerip (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In actual fact, reusable UASs are designed to be able to land entirely autonomously should they go off-tether. This is simply getting it to land on a very slowly moving object. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The fact that the USA has been giving access to such massive amounts of secret information, and lying about it, is surely ITN-worthy. Thue (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Snowden is likely going to be doing this sort of thing (releasing information) for a little while and I don't think we need to post every bit of information he releases. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alternative is posting nothing, which is what we have been doing, even though it has been all over the front pages. I choose to suggest this item as standing out a bit from all the other revelations - I am not suggesting to post every little bit, but we should post just a few of the bigger stories. Thue (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion if most of his information was "little" the US Government wouldn't be pursuing him so vigorously. Everything he has is likely to be on this scale and we are not a Snowden ticker nor should we help him do what he wants to do (whether it is criminal or not). 331dot (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If everything he reveals is newsworthy, then I have no problem with being a Snowden news ticker. I don't see why we should stop posting noteworthy news just because it is coming from the same source, or because there is a lot of it. Thue (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden himself is newsworthy, not each piece of information he chooses to release. We know he is going to be leaking information, just not what it is. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose - As much as I personally wish to promote this, it's unreasonable to post every single leak that has emerged. In Australia, the same leaks have revealed that Australia's largest telco, Telstra along with its Hong Kong subsidiary have been hoarding information for the US government for the past 10 years. Either sticky or don't post anything at all. YuMaNuMaContrib09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Telstra thing sounds insanely notable. If it is notable then it should be posted; it would be unreasonable not to. Post all the notable things. Thue (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Telstra thing is not notable, as it is just the standard NSA tapping of all fibres coming into the US, which we have know of for some time. Thue (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's debatable how much he "reveals" is true (or at least provable). Microsoft deny his revelation ([1]) so until the facts are clear, I can't support this for ITN. CaptRik (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment his allegations are getting enough press that we at least could (and should IMO) post it as a "alleges" new items. Thue (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but rework. With something this political, "reveals" is not going to cut it. That's a loaded term straight out of WP:WTA. Say that Snowden released documents that indicate... and be sure you're going exactly with what they say. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant revelation. I agree with Thue that the fact we have posted previous stories about Snowden should not stop us from posting new ones that are sufficiently important. As I understand it, Microsoft does not deny that they cooperating with the US; it just claims that they were legally required to do so. The blurb does need to be made clearer though; I found it difficult to understand. Neljack (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The historical overtones of such a "first flight" record makes it well suited for an encyclopedia. Thue (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support First such flight, and won a prize established over 30 years ago, an interesting and historical story. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't "working", then it isn't a human-powered helicopter, any more than my chair is a non-working human-powered helicopter. The word "working" is implicit and therefore unneeded. Thue (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. Successful human-powered aircraft are rare, and winning a prize after 33 years is a significant achievement. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a more thorough update. Right now it is just a couple sentences basically saying it was achieved. Surely there is more information about it than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support My mother just told my nephew this weekend she'd fly up to Boston to see him if only she had wings. Now there's no excuse. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Target article looks like total trash. Maybe someone who voted "support" could have fixed it before we featured it on our main page. Perhaps we accept sub-stub articles these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has a [citation needed], I've tried to fix up the crap prose and piss-poor referencing, more to do, but I'm surprised this suddenly became "main page quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I missed that. The new "target article" is also totally piss poor. Why are we linking these from our main page? Some people spend months trying to create great quality articles (FAs, FLs, FPs etc) and yet we seem happy to link totally crap articles from ITN/C. Bizarre. (Mildly embarrassing that so many supports for such a sub-standard article came about from ITN regulars who I thought could spot a poor article from a 100 yards..) Don't get me wrong, [2] is charming but I thought WP:V, NP:N, WP:RS were part of our thinking before we posted to the main page? I'm sure all those editors above who supported this for main page inclusion are aware of these and took them into account before supporting the "article" for main page inclusion........ The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not require FA quality or anything close to it (neither does OTD or DYK incidentally). The article certainly meets verifiability, meets notability, and uses reliable sources, so I have no idea what you are objecting to exactly. To my eye, it is roughly of the same quality as most articles we post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. To your "eye" it's ok. To my eye it's far from good. Perhaps we have different quality thresholds. Right now it's worse than a poor GA. You're happy with it on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we appear to have different standards. I feel we should be roughly on the same level as DYK for minimum quality, which would mean this article passes. If the standard was GA or higher, we wouldn't be posting much of anything: <1% of Wikipedia meets that standard. (Are any of the currently posted ITN articles at GA level?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the currently posted articles, excluding this one, the Asiana crash is rated "C" the others are rated "Start". So, we would have no news articles at all if we used GA or even B class threshold. ITN is a different beast to TFA - the former showcases our timeliness without claim to be our best work, TFA showcases our best work without claim about timeliness (yesterday's article was about a car that ceased production in 1967, the day before was about a 2004 hurricane). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Six women climb western Europe's tallest skyscraper, The Shard, towering over Shell's headquarters in London, to protest against Arctic drilling. (BBC)
Wait We need a better source or more accurate scholarly reporting. The discovery only mentions the use of consonants, which is not an alphabetic script, which combines vowels and consonants. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two cited sources only appear to say that this is the earliest alphabetic text found in Jerusalem, not the earliest in an absolute sense. Are there other stories that say it differently? Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article alphabet there are earlier known Canaanite abjad samples from Egypt, and again, this is apparently an abjad without vowels, not a true alphabet. What is the original paper describing this find? μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What article is being nominated? I think Jerusalem is an FA and probably way too long already to encompass this story. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Resignation of longest-serving European head of government. Will probably result in a snap election. --LukeSurltc09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find out though whether he's stepping down right now, or whether he's resigning his government and he stays on as a caretaker PM until the next election, as happens so often with other European countries. I'd rather be clear on what's happening before I lend my support. Redverton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the whole government who fall with him, [3] this seems to mean that there will be new elections (which is the prerogative of the Grand Duke, something which is more than just nominal power in this country). The legislature is effectively suspended at the current time, no new laws can be passed. I've changed the blurb to "government falls" rather than "PM resigns" because I'm not sure whether the PM's office is technically vacant or not in this inter-election period. There's certainly someone watching Jean-Claude Juncker who won't let the infobox be changed as such. --LukeSurltc21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is his statement about the affair here. Unfortunately neither me nor Google can read Luxembourgish. Thryduulf (talk)
Well the two 109 IP edits are mine. I forgot to log in. :P But other people have been reverting changes to the infobox as well. It certainly does seem like Juncker himself is stepping down right now, as opposed to the government in general, but I'm getting no indication at all on who'll succeed him. The PMship surely can't remain vacant until the elections, because it looks like they'll be in October. But whatever, the blurb change suggested is right, because at least then we know we're on solid ground. I've suggested an alternative blurb highlighting the huge length of service - it's perhaps one of the more interesting things about him that he's the longest serving head of gov in the world right now. Redverton (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Government falling in controversial circumstances is sufficiently significant. Juncker has also been a figure of importance on the European stage beyond what one would expect from the size of his country. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President of Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj is sworn into office for his second term as President of Mongolia in front of Genghis Khan's monument, the Parliament and public on main Sükhbaatar Square in Ulaanbaatar. This is the first time Mongolian President took oath in front of public in the country's history. (Montsame News Agency)
The President of PortugalCavaco Silva calls for a national salvation understanding between the three main parties: the Socialists, and the governing coalition PSD and CDS-PP. In a statement after the President's communication to the country, the Socialists said they will not support such Government and called for early elections. (Reuters)
With still two years until its closest approach, NASA's New Horizons team releases the spacecraft's first high resolution view of the Pluto/Charon dwarf planet system. (JHUAPL)
Posted. Normally I would prefer to wait for a bit more discussion, but we're overdue for an update, the article looks good, and I don't anticipate much opposition to posting this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This might not be worthy enough to be on ITN, but I decided to nominate it to get opinions from others. Andise1 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose silly social-science nanny-state busy-body-ism and borderline racist. We don't post which countries have the highest alcoholism or demographic extinction rates. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
would be really odd to post there are more fat people in mexico than US. will come out sounding like an achievement lol -- Ashish-g5519:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This story would not be up for consideration were it not for the fact that the U.S. was the former recordholder. Ergo, U.S. centric.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. There are plenty of similar records broken every year, and I don't see why this one is particularly important for inclusion. Even if we agree on its importance that sets it apart from the numerous other records omitted, the fact this is appropriate nomination for ITN is challenging since, at first glance, it suits better for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nottruelosa - Erm, the nominator stated "This might not be worthy enough to be on ITN, but I decided to nominate it to get opinions from others". That's right up in Wikipedia philosophy of being bold yet seeking consensus. I personally oppose it, but there's no reason whatsoever to respond with "WTF is this a joke" sarcasm that helps no-one and disparages a good faith nomination. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is a US-centric issue, nor a joke nomination, but ITN isn't really for that sort of trivia. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support-It seems B-15 was gargantuan, but this iceberg is nonetheless big. It makes an interesting news feature, however, general notability will be what precludes this from being posted (if that happens). QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are known to have been at least five larger naturally occurring icebergs, including one 15 times larger, but I think this is the largest to form for about a decade. Dragons flight (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a chunk of ice. It isn't any kind of record, and I'm not seeing much news coverage or evidence of any real-world impact. If it does anything besides float around and melt, I'll reconsider. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose big bits of ice are falling off the ice caps every day. Perhaps we need a sticky to say the end of the world is nigh. Or that global warming is definitively real. Or that we need to stop destroying the planet. Or that we need to focus on step-change environmental issues which won't get laughed out of ITN. I'm not laughing, but we need something with massive impact to get past tennis and minor air crashes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
British Labour Party leader Ed Miliband says he will end the automatic affiliation fee paid to the Party by three million union members after the Unite union was accused of secretly signing up its members in order to get its favoured candidate elected in the Falkirk constituency. (BBC)
At least twelve people are killed and a dozen injured when a dilapidated hotel collapses in the Indian city of Hyderabad. (The Hindu)
After six days with temperatures over 40°C (104°F), Portugal officially has a heat wave. Temperatures have reached as high as 45°C in some places in Alentejo and Ribatejo.
In the Greater Toronto Area, Canada, 126 mm of rain falls causing major flooding bursting most rivers and creeks. It is the single highest rain total in a day since Hurricane Hazel. (CBC News)
Bolivia summons the ambassadors of France, Spain and Portugal to explain why their countries blocked President Evo Morales' official jet en route to land on the Eurozone last week, amid orders to be searched if Edward Snowden was on board. (BBC)
Brazil calls on the United States, asking to explain why US intelligence agencies have been monitoring millions of emails and phone calls of Brazilian citizens in their country. (The Guardian)
The Syrian opposition figure Ghassan Hitto task with forming an interim government to administer rebel-held areas has resigned, citing an inability to do so during a meeting in Istanbul. (BBC)(Ya Libnan)
Governor of TexasRick Perry, the longest serving governor in his home state, announces he will not seek a fourth term. (BBC)
Pope Francis visits the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, holds a mass to pay tribute to the many immigrants who have drowned trying to reach Europe and condemns the "global indifference" to their plight. (BBC), (The Guardian)
[Posted] Egyptian Republican Guard clashes
Posted, no consensus on a sticky which should be raised as a separate discussion given a few days have passed. --Stephen01:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would certainy be appropriate to have a blurb about Egypt on ITN. The Coup's article was removed due to an orange tag. I don't know if it will get fixed any time soon. However, maybe it would be better to use a sticky or something. --Tone11:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I was gonna nominate this also :) The article needs a background section and some expansion I'll help as much as I can as this has significant ramification with the only islamic party that supported the coup stepping down from negotiations. There is some info that is in the 2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#Aftermath section and the responses section that should be merged in the article too.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sticky? I would rather support a sticky for a week. this thing is going to go on for a while and posting a new blurb every other day isnt going to work out that well. We can re-evaluate when it starts to die down? -- Ashish-g5513:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clashes of the army with Morsi forces are not a separate phenomenon, just a convenient number for journalists to hang their hat on while, say, Christians and women being killed are not included in the total. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per Luke and Thaddeus. I suggest we wait for a bit before deciding about a sticky - it's not really clear yet how often there will be major news stories from Egypt. Neljack (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per above. Neutral about sticky, I haven't been following the story closely enough to have a useful opinion at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change blurb the blur has misleading information. There is no evidence that the reported killed people are morsi supporters. Please change the blurb to be just people. I suggest "Over 50 people are killed in clashes at the Egyptian Republican guard headquarters"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many news outlets say that the people who got shot were demanding the return of Morsi. (It was not said very often that they were members of the Muslim Brotherhood.) That is the evidence that Wikipedia uses, and seems NPOV to me. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: (Terrorist) attacks/blasts on a place of Very High importance. UNESCO World Heritage site and one of the holiest shrines of the world's fourth largest religion. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wording seems strange. "Serial blasts", used in our blurb and in the article needs explanation, or different wording. And are we sure it was terrorism? (And not just some guy grumpy about something?) HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article's lead edited now. I suppose we can wait for main page release till more clarity is available in the matter. Many suspects and motives are speculated as of now and waiting would be good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb should start with "A series of bombings" etc. "Nine serial blasts" implies there were nine series of bombings that took place, which is not the case. –Randor1980 (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that bombings of or at World Heritage Sites are notable, especially one related to one of the world's major religions. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think the quantity of bombs sort of makes this notable regardless of the site. Being Bodh Gaya only adds to it. Article looks like its in decent shape as well. -- Ashish-g5513:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know what a "serial blast" is and I doubt many readers would instantly understand the sentence. Please use the standard "a series of blasts" or if necessary "Nine blasts". Also the use of lists in the main section of the article is strange. It should be in prose. See WP:PROSE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support but rewording of blurb needed. "Nine serial blasts" is not right "nine blasts" is ok. All blasts were not in temple premises. Unesco w h site should be mentioned. Please rewrite blurb.-Nizil (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I've used a blurb somewhere between all the ones proposed. I also felt it was important to provide some geographic context (i.e. that the complex is in India). -- tariqabjotu01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with little correction "Nine explosions in the holy town of Mahabodhi Temple". It should have word Town and Temple.----- Bhooshan NPY (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is both the longest semifinal and beats the longest final which are the top two, therefore it is not simply trivia. Nottruelosa (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?? Am i missing something here? Even if we ignore the fact that this is a stat about a semifinal, what's the point in putting anything about a semifinal after the final has happened. Close per SNOW -- Ashish-g5519:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW close. While this nomination was made in good faith, we already posted Wimbledon per ITNR. This story is just sports trivia and not a news story; I'm not seeing coverage by news outlets, just the tennis website listed here. This also is just about a semifinal; if it was the final, that could be included in the blurb; or if it was the longest tennis match of all time, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could have supported posting it when it happened with the understanding it would be replaced by the final results, but that ship has sailed obviously. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This might be a premature nomination, but it is expected to land around 2 a.m. edt. Until then, we can get the article in a good shape for the front page (if people think it is not ready for the front page yet). Feel free to add an altblurb if you have a different version for a blurb. For anyone who does not know, Solar Impulse is a solar powered aircraft that is going to be the first plane to circumnavigate the United States only using solar power. Andise1 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I've suggested an alt-blurb that highlights what I think is the significant aspect of the story in case people think it is worthy of ITN. Personally I'm reserving judgement until I've thought about it a bit more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurbs are incorrect. This isn't the around-the-world flight; that one is planned for 2015. This is a flight across the United States (not non-stop or anything, but still entirely under solar power). It's an interesting project, and I would probably support this regardless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry to burst your bubble guys, but they have not yet circumnavigated the word. The first version of the airplane just finished going across the US, presumably to raise funds. The second version of the aircraft is supposed to go across the ocean(s), and I remember them mentioning that it would happen in 2015ish. Nergaal (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not as huge as the upcoming around-the-world flight, but still an impressive achievement and a pretty big tech story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The first flight was ITN-worthy. The first trans-Atlantic/trans-Pacific flight will be also. A stop-start journey across the US is not. --RA (✍) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major rail accident with a fire that burned for at least 12 hours after the accident, destroying at least a sizeable portion of the town centre. 100+ people are still missing and they haven't been able to get to the heart of the crash site yet so casualty figures are likely to rise. --Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a couple of updates this afternoon because I had time, but I'm not reliable. I'd also put this nomination on hold until we know more. This could be a major disaster (100 missing right now) or just a spectacular explosion. pm (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait on posting – Major disaster regardless of fatalities. Several thousand people evacuated with over 100 missing. Once the article is expanded a bit and more information comes, I'd be comfortable with this going up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if 30 buildings have truly been destroyed this is a major disaster already, even with no more fatalities, however article should be expanded more before posting. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Details are really slow to come in, there's been nothing new for a while except the confirmed death. This is why I initially recommended waiting a bit. Concerning the buildings, this image tells the story. pm (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant destruction such as this is notable, regardless of the casualties. Large number evacuated, too. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted in 4 hrs and with 1 dead person? Hos is that notable enough for ITN? Weve many articles with updates for longer. Yet no postingLihaas (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a huge industrial accident that would have been notable with 0 dead. And where were you over a day ago that you are complaining now? μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, it would have been better if it had been posted later, after the estimate of 60 dead and missing had come out. Tip of the hat to whatever energy or railroad media management people managed to arrange the biggest round of headlines to make the accident sound almost harmless. Wnt (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I won't say close, but early reports suggest no fatalities. It's only early reports, so that could very well change. But if there really are no or few fatalities, there isn't really an ITN story. If we reported every plane crash, ITN would be filled up pretty regularly with them. Without trying to seem macabre, a plane crash isn't an ITN story unless there are mass casualties. Redverton (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb could use some work, but it's an international event, even if no fatalities are reported. Why would only deaths make it notable? Steven Walling • talk20:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because whilst plane crashes aren't necessarily a regular occurrence, they happen often enough that a plane crash is not in of itself a notable event. We don't post every plane crash, unless there's something particularly notable about it, and a plane crash with no fatalities is nothing particularly notable. Redverton (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm !voting to repost for sure, now that fatalities were confirmed. This is the first crash of a Boeing 777 involving fatalities, ever. Steven Walling • talk01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support I would normally oppose crashes without fatalities, but have you guys seen images of the airplane? The amount of damage to the plane makes the fact that there were no causalities incredibly notable IMO. At a first glance it reminds me of the Hudson river crash-landing a few years ago. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support That people are opposing based on the lack of casualties is unsurprising (given the way people think at ITN), but absurd. This story is obviously in the news, and the fact that there were no fatalities is irrelevant. Yes, we cannot and do not report every plane crash on the planet. However, this is a Boeing 777 operated by a major world airline with hundreds of people aboard (crashing at a major airport where traffic will be severely disrupted). This is only the second hull loss for the Boeing 777, one of the world's most populars planes, since it was introduced in 1995. The previous 777 hull loss was British Airways Flight 38 in January 2008 (with surprisingly similar circumstances: a crash upon landing at a major airport with everyone surviving), and that was posted. BA38 caused serious disruption at Heathrow and led to an investigation that uncovered a potentially fatal flaw in the engines on 777 planes (that almost took down another long-haul jet). Plane crashes and hull losses for wide-body jets are (thankfully) quite rare and all are, rightfully so, notable international news stories. -- tariqabjotu20:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose – I'd hold off until more details about the well-being of the passengers are known. With only two injuries stated thus far, there's nothing that really sets this apart from other plane crashes to make it ITN worthy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's an understanding in all "support" comments on ITN/C that they're actually "support, provided the article is sufficiently updated". The Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article does not meet the update standards yet, regardless of whether notability standards have been met here. -- tariqabjotu20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A hull-loss accident of a wide-body jet operated by an airline with premier league standards at a major international airport is news whatever way you look at it and however many people are or are not killed or injured. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, I said "second"... I didn't think it was too exciting to mention a plane catching on fire at the gate (we don't even have an article on that, and I doubt we would). -- tariqabjotu21:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. I don't usually support pulls, but this incident is relatively minor as others state, with few casualties so far. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin should fix what? It was posted but removed by the same person after eight minutes, primarily because I mentioned that the article wasn't (and perhaps still isn't) long enough. -- tariqabjotu22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't say "posted" here in bold without also saying "pulled" here in bold. I am not about to start messing with that--an admin should, that's why they're alled admins. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for not posting is that plane crashes are not particularly uncommon and nothing really distinguishes this. Plus, it's a terrible mistake to take the view that we should blithely follow whatever 24h news carriers think is the most wow thing currently happening. I don't see any strong counter-arguments, but I do see a bit of scratching around to defend a weak position. I don't know if this is the second or third hull loss for a 777, but I don't think it's a clincher either way. Formerip (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I was going to say disproportionate US-centrism, but I'll try to find another way. It's going to be massive news on the TV screens and websites of our American and other English speaking readers, because it's in a very accessible place and pictures are readily available. It's a sad but very minor incident on the scale of global aviation. Can those who are understandably terrifically excited about it tell us if they would be even nominating it if it happened in a third world nation and there were no pictures? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to say. Part of the reason this is notable is because it happened at a major international hub airport in a country with first world airport safety standards and first world landing systems etc designed to make incidents significantly less likely. There are not many airports in the developing world that have that kind of technology and many (but not all) airports in those parts of the word have lower safety standards. I suppose I would be less likely to support if this was at a small regional airport, regardless of country. Without the pictures I don't think I would be supporting it this early because it would likely be harder to appreciate the severity of the incident, but if this exact incident happened at a comparably major international airport with comparable safety standards in say Kenya (although I have no idea of such an airport exists there) then yes I think I would still be supporting. For the record though I'm British, not American, and so this is not a case of home nation bias. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when I was last at SF Airport I was told, by officials there, that its technical facilities were crap. That was about five years ago. Dunno if it's improved since then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My only visits were three weeks apart in 1995, so I can't help with any personal knowledge. A friend who is into planes rates SFO highly, but don't really know on what criteria. Regardless, the technical facilities will be being judged in comparison to similar US Airports (almost certainly inluding LAX) rather than airports in places like Nicaragua and the DRC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm trying to think of an airport so third-world that there wouldn't be pictures of the event within a few hours, but so popular that an airline would find it worth their time and money to fly an aircraft there that could fit over 300 passengers. This comparison cannot be made because examples of such don't exist. And on what basis do you say that this was a "minor incident" on the scale of global aviation? One of the world's largest, safest, and most popular airliners experiencing a hull loss with passengers aboard is very much notable and of interest in aviation.
Honestly, this is truly aggravating. ITN/C is happy to shoo in stories that most people probably don't see in the news because they check some superlative boxes, but when we have a story that is in the news, we need to find any excuse to take a wait-and-see approach. --tariqabjotu23:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I said close above when there were no reported deaths and say oppose now that this has made it into the ranks of very minor deadly air accidents. We'd never post this if it happened in San Jabip. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis for that, and we likely never will have any. Planes of this size don't fly to tiny towns in remote places; how can we make that comparison? It is likely true that CNN would not have wall-to-wall coverage if a 777 crashed like this in Jakarta, and it is likely true that CNN would have nonstop coverage if a 737 landed like this in Los Angeles, but the inequity of coverage should not shield the notability here. We post plane crashes that meet notability standards from all over the world (e.g. 2012 Kazakhstan Antonov An-72 crash), so I fail to see the problem here. More likely, if this crash had happened in "San Jabip", we would have gotten no objection. -- tariqabjotu23:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is in front page on newspapers does not actually mean that that story should also be on wikipedias front page, at least that is my understanding, we do not post new stories there everyday after all. This is interesting story certainly, but since it seems deaths have mostly been avoided this is not in my opinion notable enough unless something changes. Size of the accident plane should not be a factor here. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many Americans understand how disproportionate their news coverage is? (I acknowledge that my own country's is pretty bad as well.) As I said earlier, "It's going to be massive news on the TV screens and websites of our American and other English speaking readers, because it's in a very accessible place and pictures are readily available." One could argue that the imbalance is so bad that many people in western nations don't see it because they even don't see what happens elsewhere at all. I want everyone to have a look at the school shooting article below. 42 people, mostly kids, killed. Did it make your TV news? This is a global encyclopaedia. We must look beyond the balance chosen by TV executives in wealthy nations. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overstate the exclusivity of this problem to western nations; people are more interested in stories that are closer to them, both geographically and emotionally -- that's just the way things are. That being said, I already addressed this point above: the inequity of coverage should not shield the notability here. Yes, stations like CNN are devoting more airtime to this story because it happened in the U.S. However, the fact that they do so doesn't mean that every one of their top stories is trivial and not worth ITN's attention. This discussion should be about the notability of the story as it is, not a rehash of the same tired arguments about the quality of American news coverage or the alleged insularity of its viewers. -- tariqabjotu00:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent me. I did not say "that every one of their (CNN's) top stories is trivial and not worth ITN's attention". Nor did I suggest anything like that. Resorting to misrepresentation weakens your case. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The comment I responded to said nothing about this particular incident and was just pontification about the bias of U.S. media. In conjunction with your oppose vote, it is obvious what the thrust of your opposition was. I don't really care what you believe "weakens my case"; everyone involved with ITN knows well that you have a reputation for yelling U.S.-centrism at every news story, so there is no need to really refute your remarks to that effect. Therefore, you can ignore my preceding comment if that makes you feel better. -- tariqabjotu01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're at the stage of personal attacks and labelling editors, eh? I have tried very hard to choose my words very carefully here. All you are doing is discussing and insulting me, rather than rationally discussing my words. As I've already said, such posts significantly weaken the case for posting this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't in the article until that was confirmed (about ninety minutes ago now) and some people opposed explicitly because there were no fatalities, so, no, it is not correct to assume everyone knew that already. -- tariqabjotu01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I was quite aware two people were dead when I reposted my opposition above. This is historically and encyclopedically minor and, if I dare say so, hugely, what do they call it? Youessocentric? Who in the world s going to care about this a month from now except the victims and plaintiffs to the lawsuits? μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first fatal crash of one of the most popular airliners, following 18 years of service, "is historically and encyclopedically minor"? And it's US-centric, despite the fact that this was an international flight from South Korea on which 78% of the passengers were of Chinese, South Korean or Japanese nationality? —David Levy05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support post. People are focusing far too much on the death toll here--the crash of a plane the size of a 777 is a rare event indeed (and was in fact a Korean airplane in case no one noticed) and suitably notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interrupting a wikibreak to support this item. I find the opposition mind-boggling. A Boeing 777 crashed — resulting in a hull loss — and people are suggesting that this constitutes a minor aviation incident? Even before the fatalities became known, such a claim was simply incredible. HiLo's assertions, while typical of his participation here, come as a bit of a surprise. This was an international flight (originating in South Korea), for which the reported passengers included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans, 61 Americans and 1 Japanese citizen. And as Tariq noted, the crash of British Airways Flight 38 (which occurred in the UK) was posted too, despite a lack of fatalities. —David Levy05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David, like Tariqabjotu before you, you chose to attack and misrepresent me rather than carefully consider and comment on the actual words I carefully chose. As one of those who challenge the majority view at times, I get used to this treatment, and I know it takes a while for new ideas to take root, with rude behaviour like yours being a normal part of the process, but it's still a bad look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking you. I'm expressing disagreement with your position, which I don't intend to misrepresent. (Please explain how I've done so.) —David Levy05:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "while typical of his participation here" is a bit gratuitous, but I do not see how HiLo48's position on this candidacy is being misrepresented. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether one agrees or disagrees with HiLo's comments at ITN/C (and I've done both), it's undeniable that many involve claims of bias, particularly related to events occurring in the United States. In noting this, my intent wasn't to insult or degrade him. My point was that despite the frequency with which he presents such arguments, I was surprised to encounter one in this particular instance. —David Levy06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have still failed to understand my point. I wonder what I should put that down to? Given the most likely explanation, I see no point in again trying to explain it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you regard as "the most likely explanation". I do know that your refusal to explain how I've misrepresented your position leaves me unable to address your concern (or even determine whether you've understood my point). —David Levy07:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Pull for lack of encyclopedic content. ITN items are supposed to be BOTH relevant AND encyclopedic. Since almost nothing about the technical details of the crash are known, casualties are very low, and impact is also low at this time, I can't see why this this in ITN. If people want to read about the crash, they can visit whatever other news site they want. To address Tariq's points above; if this crash lead to an investigation that uncovered a technical flaw in the aircraft (as was the case for the first 777 loss), then the article becomes ITN worthy; or if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes, then it becomes ITN worthy; or if this were the first crash of a type, then it becomes ITN worthy. None of those are true, however. Lastly, internet new sites cover nearly everything that happens, since it doesn't cost anything to shuffle around their frontpage. I know ALL of the news sites here gave the crash top coverage on their websites, for a few minutes before moving on to whatever sports or gossip thing. Simply having an event covered in the international news is not sufficient for ITN inclusion. 91.153.150.45 (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes" according to [8] of the next 10 flights scheduled to land at San Francisco 3 are delayed, 1 has been diverted and 6 have been cancelled. I'd say that is more than a few minutes disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the first-of-a-type angle is to be taken, it needs to be included in the blurb. "The first crash of a B777 to cause a death occurs in such and such" for example (there is already an altblurb, so I won't replace it with another one but if someone else wants to please do so). And have you ever been to SFO? Those delays/cancellations are completely normal for that airport (and completely normal for most major airports). That's not an out of ordinary disprution at all.91.153.150.45 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That fact that it is the first fatal crash of a 777, or indeed that the plane is/was a 777 is too detailed for the blurb. The blurb is a headline that shouldn't contain technical information. As for the disruption, the entire airport was closed for 5 hours and the incident runway and the one parallel to it remain closed nearly 15½ hours later, that is not normal disruption at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
or if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes, then it becomes ITN worthy Um, hello? The airport was closed for at least four hours. Because SFO is one of the U.S.'s major airports and international gateways, planes had to be diverted to as far as Los Angeles (550 km away). Two of the four runways at the airport remain closed, resulting in continued major delays (as of right now, FlightStats still rates the delays at the airport at 5/5 Excessive). -- tariqabjotu15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure about this really, two fatalities? Some traffic disruption? Didn't that match 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash? Unless anything comes from the accident investigation, I would expect the aviation project to soon nominate this for deletion as it's really not that notable. (In fact, the most notable aspects, the first fatal 777 crash and disruption to SFO are completely missing from the blurb). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect the aviation project to soon nominate this for deletion Yeah, ok. Anyway, if you have a better suggestion for the blurb, you can make one (or just change it). I don't believe the disruption to the airport needs to be mentioned, because, despite the cluelessness from the IP above, I feel it should go without saying that a plane crash at an airport would cause disruption at that airport. If the "first" point seems necessary, perhaps something along the lines of...
The problem is (a) that's quite long and (b) reading that, provided one knows what a B777 is, one would likely assume that far more than two people died. Maybe you could replace resulting with killing two people, but that still seems long to me. -- tariqabjotu16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the technical detail (meaningless to most people) about the plane type far too prominent. I don't get why the aircraft model needs to be in the blurb at all, but if it does it should absolutely not be the first thing mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The real notability of this crash isn't the loss of two people (that happens very frequently), but the fact it was the first fatal crash of a 777. That's why it's significant. If this was a Cessna or a helicopter crash which killed two, it would be laughed out of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you seek to avoid repeating the word "crash" (which is highly desirable), but the first fatal incident involving a Boeing 777 occurred in 2001, when a ground worker died as a result of burns suffered in a refueling fire. While notable, the fact that this was the first fatal crash of a Boeing 777 needn't be mentioned in the blurb. Readers clicking through to the article will see this information in its lead. —David Levy20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if that's not the big deal, and the scarce loss of life is hardly notable, is it just the disruption to SFO that's the reason this had so much support for ITN? I'm just trying to understand what makes this more notable than, say the first helicopter crash in the City of London which killed two people and disrupted traffic in the centre of one of the world's most populous cities for days on end. (Tariq - as for aviation project's proclivity to delete articles which have no lasting effect in their opinion, see this). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is notable is the combination of all of in no particular order (a) wide-body aircraft (b) operated by airline with premier league standards (c) happened at a major international airport (d) happened at an airport with first world safety standards (e) airline with long and uneventful service record (f) caused significant disruption to the airport and (g) caused fatalities and serious injuries. I'd venture that c, d and g are the important points for the blurb. Imho the Vauxhall helicopter crash was equally but differently notable (air crash in the centre of a major world city, first helicopter crash on record in the that city, fatalities including on ground, major transport disruption), and as was pointed out in the AfD for that article just because an event is an aviation accident, that doesn't mean that only aviation project notability is relevant (although the SFO crash is pretty exclusively an aviation incident). Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That there were only 2 people killed should add to the notability of this accident. This was actually a very big accident that happened to end well due to the plane not tipping over when it cartwheeled. Yesterday when some eyewitnesses told that the plane had cartwheeled, the experts didn't believe that because the plane was relatively intact. However, it turns out that the plane did in fact cartwheel but in a rather neat way with the body of the plane and both wings well off the ground and parallel to it. So, the wings didn't touch the ground during the cartwheeling, had that happened the plane would have tipped over, and it would have been a completely different story as far as the casualties are concerned, but the dynamics of the accident would have been the same. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support. Prepare two blurbs for both possibilities now so that the right one can be posted immediately after the game is over. Count Iblis (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article (or articles if we go the route of updating the singles articles, which I recommend), will need to be updated with prose before they can be posted. It certainly won't go up the minute Murray finishes this off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does age have to do with notability? That article has not much to add nor with repercussions. It could go on a list of terrorist incidents page( where I have added it). Itll just end up being an orphan stub that will be neglected, like nost article created just for ITN. opposeLihaas (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks on groups of children (especially when they are targeted, as is the case here) are rare and particularly heinous, making them more notable. The casualty numbers are also increasing. This story is now on the front page of NBC News and other organizations, indicating they find it notable enough to do so- and this is the "in the news" page. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being about children makes it more notable because the children were put there by adults. Adults generally have a choice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 42 dead now and 100+ missing is quite significant even in an unstable region. (Note, most, but not all of the dead are students - altblurb proposed). Article has been updated to minimum standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its ready. The articles main relevant section is just 2 paras long, which again can fit into the list of terrorit incidents page. Background can be found from a Boko Haram link. Don't see how this warrants a separate article. That said it is [barely] updated as required. So why not link this to the terrorist incidents page where the update requirement would still be met and we avoid a stub article once off ITN.? (that's isf we decide to post)Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nigeria is considered relatively stable compared to its neighbours but regardless of that, the event is significant enough to be posted on its own merits. After quickly skimming through the article, it appears sufficiently long enough to be posted. YuMaNuMaContrib18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably should accept Chapman's proposal to marry, I'm not sure whether he can leave the Sheremetyevo airport since his passport has been revoked by the US (which is the reason why he's still in Sheremetyevo). Brandmeistertalk08:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's inevitable that ITN will revisit this story, but not now. If he actually pops up in Nicaragua or Venezuela or somewhere else, then probably. If he's extradited or captured (or has an "accident"), then certainly. But I don't think that the mere offer of asylum is a big enough development. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He can't enter Russia without documents (his passport was revoked) and they won't give him asylum unless he shuts up(which he won't). 331dot (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Ortega can give him the necessary documents. Assange has all the documents that Snowden has, so Snowden doesn't have to say anything himself anymore. Also, Russa has said that should it be necessary for Snowden to be in the terrotory of a country first before he can apply for asylum there, that he can be brought to the embassy of that country by a diplomatic car of that country. The interior of the diplomatic car will then be considered as foreign territory. So, in principle, there is no problem for him to get asylum in e.g. Ecuador. The reason why this hasn't hapened is thus not due to the lack of documents, but due to US pressure. Therefore the fact that Nicaragua and Venezuela have come out supporting his bid for asylum is significant. But we have to see what happens next. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These latin leaders can offer anything they want- it is meaningless until he actually makes it there (which is by no means certain yet). 331dot (talk) 17:02, 6 July 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.
Nominator's comments: He was a long time NBA referee who refereed nineteen NBA Finals games and five NBA All-Star Games. He worked every NBA finals in the 1990's. He is also known for his famous foul call on Scottie Pippen which cost the Chicago Bulls the fifth game of the 1994 NBA Eastern Conference Finals. Andise1 (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm not seeing much ITN-worthiness here. What I see is a man who did his job for 27 years - of course he botched the occasional call and reffed some Finals games. That's what his job was, after all, and it's not really a profession that easily lends itself to being considered influential or important. People don't pay money to watch the referees. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ITND. What was the significant contribution this person made to the field of sport? Was the deceased "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? It doesn't look like it to me. --RA (✍) 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reading the article I don't see which criteria he meets. I don't see evidence he was notable as a referee(one controversy isn't enough) such as awards, entry in to the Hall of Fame, etc. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's fair dinkum, fight to the bitter end rivalry between the inventors and owners of the game and some ill-bred, ill-mannered, upstart colonials. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a big rugby fan, I can assure Medeis that this isn't a promotional event. However, I'm not sure it warrants posting. It is ultimately a tour by one team of another country. I'm not sure that there is any basis for differentiating between this and a Northern Hemisphere tour by the All Blacks, the Springboks or the Wallabies. I know Lions tours are huge in Britain, but I don't think the Southern Hemisphere teams regard playing the Lions as any bigger than playing each other. Neljack (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can also assure Medeis that the tour is not promotional. However, like Neljack says, it's no different to a Southern Hemisphere tour of the north. A significant event in rugby but not significant enough in rugby to merit an ITN. --RA (✍) 10:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it's no different to a Southern Hemisphere tour of the north" - Except the SH sides tour every year and visit multiple contries on each tour whereas the Lions only tour once every four years and visit three countries in turn, so they vists a given country once every 12 years. A player from a host country will only play the Lions once in his career. FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I know many rugby fans but outside of England I honestly don't know how notable this really is. My understanding is that in the UK outside of England this is sort of regarded as of secondary interest vs Welsh/Irish/Scottish rugby.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to comment that here, in Cardiff, at least the lions tour has been followed assiduously by the rugby folk I know. Pretty much on the same level as the Wales team's games. The team is made up of all the home nations so I 'll just ask for a cite on Johnsemlak's understanding. I generally don't endorse sport events getting posted but if the 2009 results went up that seems to set a precedent so weak support for ITN posting.
Support Although we lost, it is a major event, a Loins tour here happens only every 12 years and clearly meets the ITN criteria. LGAtalkedits23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby is one of the worlds most popular sports, if we do not place this it will make us extreme America-philes. More people watch rugby then American Football by far. If something like this happened in american football it would be all over the ---ing place Nottruelosa (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Something like this couldn't happen in American Football because it's really not an international sport. I note also that in the wake of the loss of the series the Australian coach has quit. Obviously he took it seriously. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a US American football team toured a country, that shall be all over the place as that hasn't ever happened before. –HTD08:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no lasting impact, exhibition games. Users above who argue in favor use language such as "Although we lost..." and "...second only to...", revealing the weakness of their positions. Abductive (reasoning) 15:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make your case. What does winning mean? Who do they play? As far as I can see, winning means, "Yay!" and who they play are "all the big local teams". How is that not for the benefit of the fans? Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i am a fan of sports and this is a friendly exibition game between 2 good team, not a championship, not a world championship, be in the List of sports rivalries is not enough without a proper competition, USAvsRussia, UKvsGermany, ArgentinavsBeazil are worldwide news only when it happen inside a wold championship, not in a funny tour.--Feroang (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh FFS I am neither supporting nor opposing this, but I cannot stand seeing bullshit posted here. It was NOT an exhibition game. Firstly, it was a series, not a game, and you obviously haven't seen any of the media coverage in Australia nor spoken to the fans. The Australian coach resigned after the loss!!!!!!!! Can we please get this over with and post the darn thing to stop the idiots in the their tracks? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2013 (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, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
