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).
Euro zone leaders secure a €109 billion bailout for Greece with the country going into default for a short period, but with increased powers for the main European rescue fund to assist countries that have not been bailed out, such as Spain and Italy. (New York Times)
Nominator's comments: The "pre-eminent British artist of his time" according to the article even before his death, and is genuinely a household name here in the UK at least. As such I think this compares well to many "artistic deaths" we have posted in the past of comparatively much more obscure artists. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. He was 88, though his death seems relatively sudden. The article is poor, and I don't know a lot about the man and the article is poor, but The New York Times saw fit to write an obituary and "OM" and "CH" are two of the rarest post-nominal letters in the British honours system. If the article were polished up, a good case could be made... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article's pretty much nonexistant, so there's really nothing to support at this point. Let's wait and see if it gets amply developed. SwarmX13:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd like to work on it, but all the news article I've seen are either extremely short or mostly filler (history of Malawi, economic data...). Let's hold on for a while. BatjikSyutfu15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I'm aware that we recently posted AirAsia's purchase of 200 Airbus A320neos (worth US$18.5 billion). American is ordering 130 current generation A320s, 130 A320neos, and 200 Boeing 737s. (NYC Aviation) The order is worth at least US$37 billion, eclipsing AirAsia's order. (BusinessWeek) American is said to be building the youngest fleet in the U.S., and its order has forced Boeing to upgrade its 737 line in order to remain competitive with Airbus among U.S. airlines. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-sigh- We just posted "the largest single order in commercial aviation history" a month ago, you're telling me it's already been surpassed? Good god. Anyway, looking back at the reasons the previous deal was posted, I don't really see anything convincing. It was posted with a few weak supporting statements as it was a minority topic and it "sounded like a big deal". With this coming up one month after we jumped on the last "biggest deal", I'm hesitant to support posting something like this again. SwarmX06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not two separate orders, one with Airbus and one with Boeing ? If so does either one of them exceed the old record of US$18.5 billion ? Mtking (edits) 09:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure since I'm not too familiar with the airline industry. I've not seen something that specifically breaks down the value orders from each company (though that maybe because the final breakdown of planes has yet to be determined). Sources are putting both orders together and saying that this break's AirAsia's record. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that this is a PR only record, this is really looks like two orders being "joined" to make the news for American Airlines, so unless it is clear that the order to either one of the companies beets the US$18.5 billion I have to Oppose this. Mtking (edits) 10:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From what the nominator said, there seems to be sufficient doubts here about whether this actually is a record. I say we exercise some caution here. BatjikSyutfu10:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support on the basis of consistency. just need to confirm if this is prospective or confirmed and itf the article is updated.Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I considered that, but ultimately I decided to go with the mission, as that article is far better than the retirement one. In any case, the link to the retirement article is now in the blurb. SwarmX02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious entry in my view - I don't see it not being posted. Not bothered about the actual target - why not wait till it's happened and we can see which articles are getting the updates? We need a good, solid update for this one - we did post the launch so we need significant new content to justify the posting, not fudging or completely ignoring the update requirements as some were advocating for the launch. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think the retirement article should be headlined because one, multiple better articles exist. Two, this is the third space shuttle to be retired. We've individually featured the other two (if I'm not mistaken), so I don't see why we wouldn't feature the final one. Three, STS-135 appears to be ready. The retirement article needs work yet. Regarding the last suggestion, I don't see why we should exclude the mention that the shuttle landed. SwarmX10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know little about the issue, so can someone explain why the end of a space programme would be particularly newsworthy? I thought it'd be more newsworthy if some new space progrmame is to be declared.BatjikSyutfu10:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of only two human spaceflight programs in the world. It leaves the United States, for the first time in decades, without such a program. It also had unique capabilities that no other space program can accommodate for. It also opens the door for commercial spaceflight to take over some of its roles, such as supplying the space station. So it's a very significant and historic event for NASA, the U.S., international space programs, and commercial spaceflight in the future. A manned space program is certainly no small thing. SwarmX10:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Alzheimer's Association International Conference in Paris, France announces that Samantha Burnham and others at the Australian national science agency, CSIRO, working with several universities, have produced what may one day become a routine, valid blood test for nine hormones and proteins that, when too high, can serve as predictors of the presence of the hallmark beta amyloid plaques of Alzheimer's disease.
Oppose 6.1 is at least lower than 10 of the earthquakes that have occurred this year. And the article is in poor shape. Might change to support if death toll rises significantly. BatjikSyutfu17:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The magnitude often doesn't matter, it's the Mercalli scale rating and the death and economic loss. In this case, I feel that those two contributing factors make the event worthy of appearing on Wikipedia's in the news section. Hurricanefan25tropicalcyclone18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know. But without any details yet, the size of the earthquake is often a good proxy of its destruction. And even if we take the current death toll, it's far lower than many comparable earthquakes and other natural disasters. BatjikSyutfu18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query are there any rough estimates of Damage and scale of it? 6.1 can be quite powerful depending on its depth and building code in the particular country. This is two of the "Stans" over there so my knowledge is limited of the area. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know we don't normally post sporting retirements but Yao Ming is unique. He is by several metrics China's most popular athlete ever. The article is FA class. The article does need an update. I'm open to suggestions on the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems far too run-of-the-mill for my taste. A sports star retires... so what? Assertions of popularity seem to be based purely on sponsorship income and I would venture that these are nothing out of the ordinary for a figure of Yao's standing in the American NBA. The fact he is Chinese while making that money does not translate by necessity into popularity in China. It seems to me we have had several very strong ITN contenders in the last 24 hours or so after a comparatively threadbare few days. This is a minor side show in comparison. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose ^He is, actually, one of the two most popular athletes in China according to various surveys I've seen. But I don't think this is sufficiently newsworthy, considering that the retirement was expected since his last injury. BatjikSyutfu16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FA and special instance. Yao Ming has been the face Chinese basketball for years, as in, he's been the only driving force behind it. This is a pretty unique situation and inflates the importance of this retirement to much more than it normally would be. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for one it's an FA, that's a tremendous plus. Two, this is an extraordinary situation, for reasons outlined by Ed. SwarmX17:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think for a sports retirement story the only way I could see one qualify is if it were a player who was considered the greatest (Jordan or Gretzky) or if it was a superstar who had to retire due to extremely notable circumstances. Ming's popularity in China aside, his retirement could be seen on the horizon for a very long time now. This is not so much news at this point as it is he is simply confirming what we all already knew. --PlasmaTwa217:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support People might be surprised how Iconic a figure he is in China. He is "8 time NBA All-Star (2003–2009, 2011)" and has a Featured article. Any one of those on its own (or even two of those) would not always get the support in my book but combined... yeah lets post. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support the post rate has been pretty poor over the last few days with only one story and one sticky posted since Monday. This seems notable enough, and better than most of the other stories nominated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I was prepared to post this, until I noticed the update consists of one sentence only. We need a paragraph or so... Courcelles21:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support as well, mostly because he is a very skilled player getting much attention for his retirement. He's got a very strong base in China and, although this "isn't unexpected", the article is in an excellent shape and provides lots of background information as to why it is unexpected. The update needs a bit more work though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the update is only one sentence is a good indicator of the lack of significance. It has been expected for months, and Yao Ming hasn't been a serious player for years (a total of 5 games in 3 seasons). Yes, he still has a huge support base in China (being Chinese, I know this quite well), but so do many other retired or semi-retired players. Sports-related news should be kept to sports; I feel that this is crossing the line into celebrity news. BatjikSyutfu22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He may have been the face of basketball in China, but I believe there has to be extraordinary success at the highest level (in this case the NBA) for an athlete's retirement to be posted. The fact is he never won an MVP, never received All-NBA first team honors, and never won a championship. Truthsort (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article and am marking 'ready'. I'll add that Yao Ming's move to the NBA resulted in 2-3 hundred million people in China watching his games.1.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although we don't have a strict law of precedent, it would be naive to believe that this will not be cited. There is nothing obviously unique, or even outstanding among his generation, in his achievements. The sport had a long and fairly successful history in China before him. By definition, every sport in every nation has a most popular practitioner of that sport in that country, and often many pretenders to that title. Kevin McE (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really think complaining about nominations after they have been posted is really inappropriate, and makes it far too difficult for admins to make good decisions about content - there is already far far too much vote counting by admins when they post, asking for items to be pulled after they have been posted isn't reasonable, and should require a clear WP:NOTVOTE consensus in opposition (including the !votes before) before it is done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to ask for this to be pulled, but there was absolutely no consensus for posting (5 supports 4 opposes, with 3 more opposes after the posting; no discussion between votes). If the administrators feel that this is an acceptable standard for posting, then fine. But many other items are not posted even though they have far greater support in either relative or absolute terms. This decision seems to me highly arbitrary. BatjikSyutfu08:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but what sign of consensus is there? Nearly half of the people disagree, and there has been no response to any of the disagreements. If all the oppose votes were one-liners with no rationale I'd agree with you, but that's not the case here. In fact, all the support votes noted that the article was FA-class, but none noted that the actual update was only three sentences long and had absolutely no context (at the time of posting). That would not even pass the basis criterion for a nomination.BatjikSyutfu10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the reasons for supporting this were comical. Basically, it consisted of a.) He is the face of basketball in China b.) it's a featured article and c.) We haven't posted anything since Monday so we should post this. Truthsort (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it was not it was agreed it was not a minority topic. As long as I have been around here We have always had the desire to post Featured and GA content when possible. It's not that every FA and GA related event get posted but it can tip the scales on borderline issue. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caution urged What we have here is insufficient for the IAU to formally recognise the discovery - there are no orbital elements for example. Until that time this is the claim of one scientific team based on one week's photos. I'm not against this going up - I'm marginally in favour, in fact - but we need to be careful as to presentation. I would be reluctant to describe this as a "discovery" for example since in the absence of further confirmation it may yet be dismissed or retracted - it has happened many times before. Yes, that article does need work but available data seems to be very limited at this time. If our article is sketchy but that is a genuine summary of what is known about the new body I don't think that should be an automatic bar on it going up. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when named. This dwarf planet discovery is important, but it would make a better story when the name goes public. ~AH1(discuss!)15:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a re-reporting of the same findings, not an independent verification. It's not enough for the IAU, who are the worldwide authority on this matter, have seen it all before, and have defined procedures in place to prevent the formal discovery of non-existent object - claims of discoveries of this nature that turn out to be erroneous are surprisingly common, even by teams of professionals. Without orbital elements it is difficult to show definitively that it is even in orbit around Pluto. It is an interesting development and again, I think this is worthy of posting something about. We just need to be careful as to what that is. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That's more along the lines I would be happy with, although a HST mention may be warranted. I'm aware that this whole thing may sound like a pedantic point but the IAU haven't adopted their current procedures on a whim. One other point about the original blurb - the HST is a joint project, not a NASA one. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Strong support, even if not recognised by the IAU. There's no reason we cannot use the blurb suggested above and then post the official recognition later in the future. As long as they are certain this is another moon. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An un-named, un-verified, assumption is not front page news. It will take years for the IAU to verify this, as it should be. Follow due process. doktorbwordsdeeds20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Three or Four years ago I would have given an unconditional support but Pluto is not even cataloged as planet any more so its really not all that important. If there are interesting feature about it I will listen but it's oh another asteroid in orbit situation. Given the Caveats in addition to that I cannot support right now. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Stickied] News International phone hacking sticky
Sorry quick question, usually when someone uses the "per" argument, they are referring to a rational by another editor. I don't really see Batjik offering any rational. Can you clarify that for me? Thanks...RxS (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale ;) And you're right, it's used to repeat a rationale said by someone else, so Egyptian didn't use it right, but it's fine. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm....is it fine? At the time of posting there were no actual justification behind the supports. It was posted purely by bolded vote counting. I don't think that's fine, do you? RxS (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. I meant that the usage of "per" was not semantically correct (i.e., the word was used wrong because he was referring to Batjik's post, which had no substance... therefore he was referring to "nothing"), but we understood what he wrote, so "it's fine". Whether or not the support should have been accounted for was not what I was addressing. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)02:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the admin who posted it. I was quite busy with another article at the time and did not have the time to explain my rationale, so yes, there's less substance in my vote than I'd like it to have. I'm not sure what The Egyptian Liberal is referring to, but I suspect he might mean that he agrees with this being posted along with the Arab Spring sticky rather than replacing it. BatjikSyutfu20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a question for the admin who posted it. It's posted and there's no point in dwelling on it. I was responding to Ericleb01 who may or may not think that pure bolded vote counting is ok. Though, in your case, how much weight do you think your support should have given a lack of any rationale? RxS (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't been editing or even visiting WP much lately, and I was surprised not to see this story featured on the front page. Let's have it up there!. __meco (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe this is now stickied. I'm not necessarily blaming you, HJ, as there is a wave of support already, but putting this item as a sticky has seriously lowered the standards of what gets stickied. Put things in perspective guys: Olympics, World Cup, protests in the Arab world, Japanese earthquake -- all stories that have been very prominently in the news with international interest and contributions. But, this? C'mon; folks. This is an example of systematic bias, if ever I've seen it. The nominator made no mention of the developments that he (or she?) found so noteworthy, developments that would have otherwise been posted on ITN on their own. It sounds like we just put this up because our British and, to a lesser degree, American readers have been bombarded with play-by-plays of this not-so-important story during this slow news month. I am very disappointed. -- tariqabjotu16:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also somewhat confused as to the purpose of this comment. Isn't the role of an admin to determine consensus, not to complain about it? You posted an item below that had barely a majority of supports (which I have no complaints about), and yet you complain about another admin's decision to post something that had overwhelming support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you feel so opposed to this posting, couldn't you have offered your opinion during the discussion instead of complaining about it afterwards? BatjikSyutfu16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not complain about HJ's decision to post the sticky. Read what I said. And please don't tell me about "posting during discussion". This was up for a mere six hours; that's not a particularly long time. If one looks at my contributions, one sees the meager contributions I made during that time frame because, believe it or not, some people have other things they need to do.
I'm not one of those people who gets blue in the face when something they don't want posted gets posted. It's not important to me, despite the time I spend on ITN. The purpose of the comment was to... well, if you read it... do exactly what I said: lodge my disappointment that the standards for what gets stickied has been lowered. It's similar to lodging my disappointment over a paragraph break in TFA; I mean, if that's the way forward, if that's what people want, fine, but I don't have to like it and I will say so. -- tariqabjotu16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with much of this. If we want to lower the standards by which we add stickys that's fine, but we need to explicitly understand that's what we are doing. RxS (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find this event much more deserving of a sticky than Arab Spring, though I supported both. I really don't agree that this is a lowering of standard - it is IMO at least more important than two of the stickies that Tariq mentioned. We definitely have a different assessment of its significance here, which won't be changed by a few back-and-forths. Maybe we should end this debate? BatjikSyutfu17:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you underestimate the significance of the scandal, Tariq. It's one of the biggest political scandals in the UK (affecting a media conglomerate with interests in the US and Australia as well as the UK) for a decade at least. Arguably more so, even, than the "cash for honours" business. Parliament has held an emergency session to discuss the matter for the first time since the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, there are allegations of police corruption, political cover-ups etc. It's not just the media inventing stories for silly season. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've ever used the expression "flabbergasted" before, but I can only describe myself as flabbergasted as to how Tariq can post things like Harry Potter and netball while complaining about our low standards regarding things like high level political scandals. It's just way beyond me. SwarmX17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ, this is not 9/11. Swarm, neither Harry Potter nor Netball were sticked, and the posting of those were based on my judgments of consensus, not on my judgment of their significance (and I explicitly said the latter was not significant at all). I'm not going to waste my time further on futile discussions that involve nonsense comparisons like these. My disappointment has been lodged, and all I needed to say has been said. This is certainly not worth the further stress from replies, like the preceding three, that completely fail to address the matter at hand. -- tariqabjotu18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the sticky and agree this is a massive story with legs. Every day this week has seen a new headline several of which would have been ITN candidates in their own right. It's affecting the entire Murdoch media empire which is influential all over the world. It's dominating news talk shows in the US. Last week I listened to the New Yorkerpolitical scene weekly news roundup and the entire show was on the NotW fallout.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After the fact strong support for the sticky, in fact I was going to propose this. Major scandal for an immensely powerful and influential international media empire that's already affected high level officials in the UK. It's been going on for some time, and it's already starting to spread into the United States; it's not likely to 'go away' IRL or at ITN anytime soon. It could probably be argued that this is more significant than the World Cup or the Olympics. SwarmX16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm placing my support behind the sticky as well. It may seem like a small-scale saga, but it's highly covered in the media and there seems to be new notable developments every day now. It's a convenient solution. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-sticky Oppose I am lodging my opposition on the record to this. I fully accept that the story is significant. I do not accept that it is somehow important *enough* for the status it has been awarded. The momentum this story has is already slowing down. It has not spread to other countries outside English speaking ones, which should say a lot (whereas, if we use 9/11, the consequences most certainly did). I suggest, with all respect due, that Recentism and Bias have creeped in here. doktorbwordsdeeds20:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that all four of the original supports (not counting the nominator) were from people who live in non-English-speaking countries, isn't it quite ludicrous to say that this scandal is limited to English-speaking countries? I know what I read every day, and I'm the last person to have an British/American bias. BatjikSyutfu20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the story itself is narrowly defined. Rupert Murdoch said as much in his evidence - NoTW makes up 1% of his Corporations incomings. His dealings are essentially confided to the USA. This story only involves English language media in 2, predominately English speaking countries. doktorbwordsdeeds20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you check where Rupert came from, and his dealings there. Another perspective on this is that it's the media talking about the media, perhaps trying to tell us how bad Murdoch is, from a non-impartial position. This is a case where media emphasis is a very poor guide to significance. We need to judge really carefully for ourselves how important this really is. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your claim that this only involves English-speaking media in the US and UK is quite simply not true. You obviously are unfamiliar with Murdoch's media empire, but I assure you it goes beyond "2 English speaking countries", LOL. SwarmX20:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't treat me as though I have dragged myself from under a rock on this. My objection from the first post is about the status of the story, not the man himself. This scandal, such as it is, involves just the US and the UK (and the former only just, for now). Has any other event featuring an English speaking country been stickied? Recentism over reason. doktorbwordsdeeds21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment above saying that level of coverage in this case could be a very poor indicator? If you were part of the non-Murdoch media, you would be making a huge fuss over this, wouldn't you, just to show how evil Rupert is. So be very careful with that measure for this topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matters involving ITN postings — content, mind — should be discussed here, at ITN. It's downright crazy to suggest we need to "officially review this decision elsewhere" when what this amounts to is disagreement on content within a WikiProject, which happens so often that if everyone felt the need to get an "official review" with "project-wide consensus" every time, we'd never produce any content. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, there are commonly very harsh disagreements about things that do or don't get posted and the griping can continue for days after an admin has made a decision. However, calling for an "official review" with a community-wide discussion is a bit out of line. HJ made a reasonable decision and did not act out of line with accepted practices in any way. The support for the sticky has clearly outweighed the opposition, and there's no grounds for a review of the decision. SwarmX02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Things seem to have got overheated here of late. From my observation things seems to go on a downward spiral initially in the Harry Potter noms but could be the real origin was slightly earlier. I don't think having a couple of days with few if any decent nominations helped. Everyone needs to chill out. Ultimately nothing we decide here really matters - it'll be gone in a few days. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support Has sufficient context for me to understand the story, is well sourced and is of sufficient importance to put on the front page in ITN. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They agreed to a set of guidelines, but the discussion is far from over. This is too premature. We ought to post when they actually make a deal, in the unlikely scenario that it happens. The article also needs more work. BatjikSyutfu10:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from the reuters article "But a broader accord on which country owns what in waters believed to be rich in gas and oil remains as far off as ever." Until that time, it's not main page worthy. Hot Stoptalk-contribs17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with YuMaNuMa The key of this blurb is "preliminary guidelines" negotiations could break at any moment and be back where we began. If we get a treaty or some other substantial resolution at the end of it all then We can post.
Posted. Although there are only two comments, we have posted the arrest of other ICTY-indicted war criminals, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a pre-existing consensus, especially when this is the last one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is he the last to be indicted or is he the last to be arrested? I thought it's the latter, but the blurb makes it seem like the former... BatjikSyutfu14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
blurb here suggests "fugitives." if the others are arrested then they cant be the last indicted fugitives.
Nominator's comments: An older version of the article was posted previously as the "2011 Horn of Africa drought". However, a declaration of famine by the United Nations is a major development, indicating that the situation has deteriorated significantly and that a large number of deaths may soon occur. Support as nom. BatjikSyutfu06:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Droughts and floods seem worse in recent years. This particular crisis is part of a drought that has already affected over 10 million people in one of the world's most impoverished regions. An indirect link exists between the famine and the ongoing food price spike and MENA protests. ~AH1(discuss!)15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A declaration of famine does not necessarily indicate a significant deterioration since the term has an official definition and something "becoming" a famine simply indicates that threshold has been crossed. However it is a significant indicator of the severity of the situation and does cause aid efforts to be ramped up. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Some other suggestions (one of these should suffice): First time a famine has been declared since 1984-1985; 3.7 million people in need of food aid in Somalia; over 11 million people in need of food aid in the entire region; worst drought in sixty years; severe lack of international aid according to Oxfam ($800 million urgently needed according to Oxfam; $300 million in Somalia according to other sources). BatjikSyutfu16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post Post Support This is a definitive statement authoritative body on the issues there. We have been waiting for such statement for awhile on this issue. Worst Since 1984 as some are reporting which is also substantial. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 20:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A man attacks Murdoch during the final part of questioning with a shaving cream pie. (Los Angeles Times)
Appearing later at the same hearing former News International Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks says NI acted "quickly and decisively" in dealing with "abhorrent" phone-hacking at the News of the World. (BBC)
The Cypriot Foreign Minister has just resigned, making him the second cabinet minister to resign in the aftermath of the massive explosion which killed 12 people, including the head of the Cyprus Navy. I know we've already posted it once, but the article is of good quality and it's not every day that two cabinet ministers resign over one incident. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A number of minor reasons here. First, the main incident was already posted, so this would only be about one minister. Second, the death toll is quite small and it seems mostly to be an accident, although it could have been avoided. Third, two cabinet ministers resigning from a country of less than one million is not really a big deal. For comparison, a few days ago 13 cabinet ministers were replaced in Egypt, a country of 80 million, and it was not posted on ITN.BatjikSyutfu20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't post Egypt because it's stickied to the front page! As to the story, I'll have to think about it. I agree with HJ, but I'm not entirely sure whether this is politically significant enough to feature it a second time. SwarmX01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Murdoch's testimony before parliament has gotten extraordinary coverage, even though their denials were not shocking. CNN covered their testimony live (I only caught a 15 minutes, but they may have covered all of it). It is currently the lead story for the NY Times (despite the debt ceiling crisis), Le Monde, El Pais, and of course the BBC. I think the news coverage is there, but I do not know whether a denial is significant enough to post. Thoughts?--Chaser2 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "testify" is the right word, since British select committees are not courts and don't have the kind of power that Senate committees do in the States. Oh, and Parliament consists of about 800 people. It seems that journalists are using it as shorthand for the Culture, Media and Sport select committee. I'm inclined to support just for the comedy value of the "shaving foam pie" attack! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've had a lot of posts on this recently and while the overall story is massive we need to restrict ourselves to big new developments rather than every minor twist and turn in the story. I watched the whole thing live on the BBC and didn't see any truly earth-shattering developments - the whole thing was pretty tame really. The most significant aspect was probably the shaving foam attack and that kind of counterproductive political stunt is not ITN worthy in my opinion. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
What is international news coverage? Do you want to say size or readership? If it is so then Indian media is much bigger than UK and USA put together. --. Shloktalk .19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of the "extraordinary" coverage is one part of the media saying "Look how bad Murdoch media is". It's media against media, rather than real news. It was also one more chapter in a saga. Wait till the movie comes out. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significance? It might have one of the largest Uranium reserves? That's really questionable, but even if it was confirmed- so what? Is Uranium particularly rare? I wouldn't suspect so, based on its seemingly common usage. SwarmX15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uranium is actually quite valuable. It is not extremely rare when you count all the deposits around the world, but the problem is that the deposits tend to be concentrated in a few specific countries. None of the countries in Western Europe, the Middle-East or North Africa have an extractable amount of uranium reserves, which makes it an extremely valuable strategic resource (since countries who do possess it can then export it to any country they like - such as Iran or Israel). However, India does already have uranium reserves and in fact it has long ago developed nuclear weapons and a nuclear energy industry, so this might not significantly change the geopolitical situation in South Asia. Also, there is no confirmation that it is the world's largest yet, so it might be premature to post this. All in all, a weak oppose. BatjikSyutfu19:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I never said international news coverage is a criterion for posting on ITN. I only posted those links in that other section (where I did not vote) because you and Chaser2 were engaged in a pointless back-and-forth. BatjikSyutfu21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, analysts are saying that the deposit isn't even sufficient to meet India's nuclear energy needs. This discovery certainly won't change the geopolitical situation, and it won't even really change India's energy situation. If it turns out to be the largest reserve, that seems like a significant discovery to I might consider supporting then. SwarmX01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe they are still doing the analysis, may be once it is complete, we can may be post the story. The notability would have to be on the volume of the uranium deposit and not on the impact on Indian energy sector, as India would still need to import uranium given that India proposes to build 30 more nuclear reactors (as I understand from BBC news). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Won't be the last of all, but it's a significant and unexpected moment in a developing story. Nightw11:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Check though. The Arab League was the pressure, so the leadup is a substantial part of it. It's a country article so five sentences just on Syrian recognition would be undue. An alternative article is Foreign relations of Palestine. Nightw13:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I also think it's important to emphasize that this is a concession from its decade-long policy of full liberation. For those who are unfamiliar with the issue, they might mistakenly think that they were against Palestinian statehood in the past. BatjikSyutfu19:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a bit more elaboration about what this means. People here are, for example, implying (if not saying) that Syria's original perspective was that what is currently Israel proper should be part of a Palestinian state, but that is not clearly mentioned in the article. On another note, why is the update under a section about the upcoming vote in the UN? -- tariqabjotu19:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article explains some of the background. "Syria has always been calling for the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation and ambitions. The latest stance, however, shows that [Syria] has given up on a national policy that has spanned several decades." It's under the section about the vote because this recognition was made in response to Palestinian efforts to become recognized. According to this article: "In a statement to SANA, Abdulhadi said this recognition constitutes a great support to the Palestinian cause and the efforts of the Palestinian people to attain UN recognition of the Palestinian state in September." BatjikSyutfu20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syria does not recognise the state of Israel. It considered it (until yesterday) all as "Palestine". Until this point, its policies regarding Palestine were simply liberation from Israeli control with the possibility of it subsequently becoming part of Syria. See Pipes and Rabinovich. The update is where it is because the development is part of the Arab League's recent push to get Palestine into the UN as a state in September. Nightw20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware Syria doesn't recognize Israel, and I'm quite certain that even after recognizing Palestine, they still don't recognize Israel (like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc., who recognize Palestine but not Israel). But the conclusion that Syria would like to see all of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza as part of a State of Palestine, or as part of a Greater Syrian state, is not for-gone, and not necessarily changed because of this recognition of Palestine on 1967 borders. If the belief is that this recognition changes that policy, I believe it should be mentioned in the article sourced by more neutral sources than Pipes. It's not essential to getting the item on the Main Page, but with an update of merely two sentences, something needs to be added, and I think this is a key piece of information that could complete the update. -- tariqabjotu08:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the shift in policy may simply be on paper to help the current agenda. All of this is merely speculative at this stage. I think the comments from Hoss are enough to represent those speculations. That aside, the blurb sticks to the simple facts (i.e., that it's made the decision and that it's the last Arab state to do so), so readers can read into it however they want. If it's decided that this is not notable enough then I understand. Nightw10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to remove [Ready] again, but, in my opinion, it's not ready. There are two sentences (including an extended quote) in the State of Palestine article (the nominated article) about this happening. That's not enough, and I provided an example of what could be added. If people don't think what I suggested is important / relevant, fine, but something else needs to be there to make the update more wholesome. And it should not be particularly difficult to do that. -- tariqabjotu10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. The article is long enough, I simply can't add anything more about this one development. Nightw12:20, 20 July 2011 (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.
We haven't yet posted such launch as I remember, though it's a really important news in the space technology development. The article is in poor shape, but I hope this won't shadow the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm very supportive of this in principle. It is an ITNR event and it seems to me that if it was a NASA project it would be a shoe-in even if not. However, the article is not in shape and that is something we cannot overlook. Sure, it's been greatly expanded today but the five sentence update guide is best thought of as meaningful sentences that refer specifically to the updated element, in this case, the launch. In this case I see plenty of padding that adds no real value to the article (e.g. "The massive space traveling telescope promises to unveil numerous mysteries of deep space" and some awkward turns of phrase (e.g. "space-borne").
We are also lacking some basic details of the scope - we don't even have its aperture listed, for example, although it is given in at least one of the sources. The core rationale of the mission appears to be obtaining an unusually large separation for very-long baseline interferometry, much further than would be possible even on a pair of antipodes. If that is the case we could probably do with explaining that too since it is core to the very rationale of the mission. These comments should be regarded as exemplary rather than a comprehensive critique, since no doubt other stuff should be in there too that does not spring immediately to mind. Overall then, it is a tentative and reluctant oppose based on the quality of the article. I'd love to spend a couple of hours knocking this in to shape but I doubt I'm going to get the opportunity today. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Of course this needs times more work than usual, but I hope the news as such is sufficient to warrant inclusion, despite of the technical issues that could be easily met. The blurb also will be reworded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done what was screaming at me, but credit is due to BIT1982 for the bulk of the work. There still isn't actually that much said about the actual launch though the article as a whole is unrecognisable from what was a few sentences 48 hours ago - it's almost a new article. As such I'm now inclined to support, although I could understand if people argue a further update is needed. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I've also asserted ITNR in the template although I had already highlighted that in my initial comments. I would like to see this posted reasonably speedily since it is likely to only have a short run on the template anyway: it is more or less inconceivable that the last shuttle landing due tomorrow will not be posted and I don't anticipate the appetite for two space articles up at once, although more input is probably needed: two supports plus the nomination is pretty thin. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph begins with what has to be a machine translation from the Russian source (it's not really coherent), and the rest of the paragraph is evidently plagiarized from the sixth source (just needs to be converted into a paraphrasing). Other than that, I'd like to see this posted before the shuttle landing as well. SwarmX21:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I re-worked that paragraph and a few other bits and pieces too. I've also adjusted the blurb above to better reflect the notability of this mission - it is the largest space telescope, after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support in principle as well. The article needs development, but if I or someone else can get around to improving it, it's definitely ITN worthy. I agree that it would be a shoe-in if this were NASA. SwarmX15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The article is in fairly rough shape still, it's still pretty stub-ish, some awkward phrasing and overly technical language. There's also still some PR sounding text as well. Normally I'd support this type of subject but at this point I'm not comfortable with the quality, I think we need to take a fairly strong stand as to article quality at ITN. RxS (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trial has begun in December 2010, when he was suspected for criminal charges after he fled to Austria. An international warrant to arrest him was immediately issued, and he's finally extradited to Croatia where the trial will continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need to wait for more details to emerge to be able to assess this properly. My initial view is that the continued coverage of the NotW fallout is rapidly descending into running commentary. A confirmed suicide would be significant and may be grounds for an update, possibly even a bump, but right now this seems too speculative to be ITN worthy. We also need to have one eye on the Select Committee tomorrow - there's a good chance of something substantial coming out of that. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This does seem significant, but I think we should wait for more details, if its a coincidence it probably isn't worthy of posting. Crispmuncher puts it well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Self important "journalist" puts hundreds of colleagues out of work, kills oldest and most broadly circulating British tabloid, is the cause of many arrests, none of which are of the state apparatchiks who actually violated their oaths of office, and is found dead of...? What's not to like? Do we have to wait for the same bureaucracy which enabled this fiasco to happen to pronounce this a suicide before we post? μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Could just be a regular death. No confirmation on anything. A death of a mediocre journalist is no ITN matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, generally for the reasons outlined by Crispmuncher and BabbaQ. There are bigger developments happening right now; the suicide of an otherwise non-notable journalist isn't news. StrPby (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A few more details have been reported now. This is an individual with drink and drugs issues with reports of increasingly paranoid behaviour of late. It is tempting to read this as another David Kelly affair but at present it appears more like a "routine" tale of self-destruction, with ultimately only a tangential relationship to the ongoing controversy. As I noted in my comment above, more details are needed and this oppose is not set in stone but it appears to me that we could easily overplay the significance of this. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose for now, unless there is anything to indicate foul play (by indicate I mean a top police officer coming out and saying so, and not media speculation). Mtking (edits) 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly the otherwise non-notable journalist is an accurate evaluation. I personally think this entire thing stinks to high heaven and reeks of targeted killing and and a staged suicide but my own suspicions are frankly irrelevant. This is worth keeping an eye on but right now lacks substance for ITN posting. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks bad, but the Parliamentary Committee hearing later is likely to be more news worthy, as way of an indication it is being carried live on Australian TV. Mtking (edits) 02:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong support for the bump. more notable than the idio t who resigned. possible repercussions wjhen News Corp is under fire.Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is particularly more notable than the rest of what has been happening in the Middle-East (particularly Syria/Jordan), so I'll reaffirm my support for a sticky instead (see below). Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations delivers aid to parts of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab militants for the first time since they ended the ban on food supplies. (BBC)
Oppose Never heard of him. Four years of governing a province with a population of 300,000 (smaller than about a hundred cities in the U.S.) Doesn't seem remotely close to ITN-worthy given that his entire article without the assassination is only two paragraphs. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You basically used three of the worst arguments in usage in ITN. You never hearing of him is irrelevant; if the head of the African Union was assassinated, you wouldn't oppose this for the same reason... because I doubt you've ever heard of him. Comparing the size of the province to a US city is not much of an argument either... if at all. And then you look at a Wikipedia article's length to determine worthiness, which really doesn't give you any insight whatsoever.
Look, I did not state three arguments against posting this. What I wrote was an informal way of saying that the event is not significant; and yes, the fact that I've never heard of him, that he is not a significant government official, and that the article is was a stub are all indicators of the lack of significance. Yes, it's completely personal opinion - and so is yours. "I'm beginning to see a trend" - original research. "I doubt you've ever heard of him." - original research again. "I don't see the level of interest and coverage" - basically another way of phrasing "Never heard of him".
We can either be assholes picking apart one another's comments, or we can respect each other's opinions and make our own case. Can we be nice? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, OR =/= personal opinion; it's OR. It can be biased research but it's not an opinion, and definitely not in this case. And "I don't see the level of interest and coverage", as far as I know, means that I don't see the same level of interest and coverage. I don't know how you extracted "Never heard of him" from that. And what I said is true, because media that covered the Ahmed Karzai assassination aren't doing so as extensively as they are now, if at all. The Karzai story was on the front page of many newspapers and news sources worldwide, whereas this news hasn't even made the front of the BBC. Although I agree my argument isn't strong either, so I've changed to neutral, as I simply don't care if it goes up or not. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My point was that we would all have plenty to say if we were to list out everything that we disagreed with in our interpretation of another person's vote. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I think the oppose above was fairly well thought through and reasonable, if all opposes were of the standard of Batjik's here we'd be in a much better place. I think I saw this as the top story for a while on the BBC, but it isn't there now, so I'd be inclined to weakly support. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to remove my vote. Now that I've read the significantly expanded article as well as the new sources, it seems that my initial assessment of his significance was off by quite a bit. Clearly not just a former governor of a small province, but someone with deep connections to Karzai. On the fence for this one. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Support - as nom. Most media covered murder trial since OJ simpson. Her release has been covered in every single major media outlet. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment the blurb is manifestly false synthesis. She was released after completing the sentence for the charge of which she was convicted, not upon acquital. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beat a dead horse. As we saw with the nomination of the trial, barely last week, this isn't going to get anywhere. Let's not disrupt ITN further. (Oppose, for the record, for the exact same reason as last time.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we should actually be grown up enough to post items of clear widespread interest that aren't primarily of interest to the intellectual elite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this on ITN, you need to at least make a case as to why this is more important than her acquittal, which did not get consensus to post. Otherwise, this is just going to attract unneeded drama. -- tariqabjotu14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually her release and her acquittal has reached the same amount of high media attention and recognition so really there is no need for the supporters here to justify our stance to support this news story. Because it is infact major news so its not even a question in my mind that this newspiece should be included on ITN. Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While these events are clearly both less important than Potter (which has "significance" as well) the acquittal should have been posted on the grounds that it was covered worldwide for several days, was of worldwide interest leading to over 2 million views over two days and we had a very good article update for it.
@BabbaQ, given I have insisted that people justify their positions in opposition over Potter, I think it is perfectly reasonable that at least I am required to do the same here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, for the same reasons as before. We already rejected the verdict, and there's no way this is more important. This nomination smacks of forum shopping, given the earlier discussion. Modest Geniustalk15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps forum shopping is the wrong term in a technical sense, what I meant was repeated nominations until the desired outcome is obtained. Modest Geniustalk15:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a different event and the previous nomination isn't on the page to continue. Noone has had an objection with the continued nominations per say about the News International issues, and they could have been followed up in the same thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Modest Genius meant is that the previous nomination of this story was already opposed by a significant number of people, so it makes no sense now to nominate a similar (and less significant) event. The News Corp scandal is nominated for numerous times because 1. major developments keep coming; 2. they weren't opposed by a significant number of people every time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits their own purpose for example not posting "crime related ITNs". Sorry to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She was released? Well, given that we had a report here that she was found not guilty, that seems unsurprising. Is there anything changed to make this less a tabloid story than it was a few days ago when it was rejected? Kevin McE (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really never noticed other media following a tabloid agenda? It is a pure tabloid story, that other media will report because they don't want to be accused of elitism. For ITN, I would far rather that we be accused of elitism than that we feature such low-brow "human interest" satories. Amazing how unattractive, minority, or male murders and disappearances, or those occurring elsewhere in the world, are so much less "important" Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When its being covered internationally by reliable sources, and outside a section purely covering entertainment news no. The reason this case gets coverage is that its a particularly interesting case for a number of reasons. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, has right its not a legitimate claim when a single persons release itself is covered by a ton ton of reliable non-tabloid sources. seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits and then slams the notaiblity guidelines to users in their face when it fits.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline is this? No-one here is trying to set up an AfD. That sort of accusation of duplicity requires a high level of evidence, or retraction and apology. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines for ITN - things like our purpose which states that we should post items of wide interest to our readers - I cannot fathom how a million page views a day fails to meet that criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that one of the purposes is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". There also happen to be a completely opposite purpose: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". Unless you're saying that they are contradictory, the "purposes" are not meant to be necessary and sufficient conditions. There are only two main criteria at present, which is significance and quality. In any case, this discussion is completely pointless; we rejected the acquittal, which is by any standard much more notable than this one. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support possible GA on front page, plenty of interest among our readership. People seem to be trying to protect our readers from their own interests. But I'm guessing this will be sunk by a flood of WP:Idontlikeit votes. RxS (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't - especially not when it isn't in their own country. When reliable sources start covering an event widely that it stops being tabloid fodder. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an extraordinary claim. Charlie Sheen's "problems" were reported in other countries, Beckhams' baby is reported in other countries, countless affairs are mentioned in multiple countries... Kevin McE (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead is right again. These arguments can be twisted around to fit anyones agenda. Totally turning a blind eye to the notaiblity of this ITN piece. Anthony has recieved sufficient amount of press worldwide even today to justify inclusion on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, and suggest closing the discussion. We didn't post the acquittal; it makes no sense to post this one, which is in every way a direct result of the acquittal. I didn't oppose posting the previous one, but posting this after the previous consensus against posting the acquittal is just extremely inconsistent. A lot of the support votes here seem to be attempts to reignite the previous discussion, which is a waste of everyone's time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously there are users that disagrees with that notion of closing. And the previous discussion has nothing to do with this one. Giving that as a reason to oppose is taking the easy way out, isntead of giving a honest reason to why it shouldnt be posted. The ITN nomination should not be closed, this is not North Korea or Burma. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest a warning to BabbaQ for intentionally reigniting a heated discussion and disrupting ITN, and now personally attacking numerous users who disagree with him. I happen to have grown up in a communist country and I find your comment about "North Korea or Burma" extremely insulting. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are seriously not considering that suggesting a closing of a non-consensus ITN is wrong? Please dont make this more personal then it already is, suggesting warnings etc etc.. that is simply like stating "ok BabbaQ is telling his/hers personal opinion, then lets warn him/her for it so BabbaQ doesnt do it again ever" that feels infact very much so like North Korea. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus, from two weeks ago. Every single one of the opposes from that nomination would apply here. You admitted this yourself: "Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."" You were not satisfied with that, so you took the chance to bring this up again and try to get this non-story posted. That is intentional disruption and hence why this discussion needs to be closed.
Please also refrain from your repetitive personal remarks. Comparing me to Kim Jong-il will not in the slightest bit convince me or other users of your intention to contribute constructively to this discussion. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you "strongly oppose" posting this makes it entirely out of line for you to call for suppression of the discussion, and even more so to call for warnings against BabbaQ. That's not how we work anywhere on Wikipedia, and unless a discussion turns into an unbridled flame war, there's no reason to close any of them. SwarmX20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested closing the discussion because, at its current state, it is an exact duplicate of one we had two weeks ago. I didn't know that was inappropriate for an involved user, so apologies for that. As for how I responded to BabbaQ's remarks, they are completely appropriate given that he accused me of being the equivalent of a communist mass murderer.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd clarify that I'm familiar with mediation processes on Wikipedia and was not in any way suggesting that an admin take immediate action against BabbaQ for his personal attacks; it was merely an informal suggestion for concerned users to look into his pattern of personal attacks on numerous users and intentionally disruptive behavior.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this isn't just "tabloid fodder", and it can't be compared to 'entertainment news'. This is one of the largest recent news stories we could put on the front page; it's been followed by millions of people and reported around the world, and we'd be showcasing a GA, which is really the primary purpose of ITN! I mean, we're talking millions and millions of people who this is of interest to, which I would venture to say is more than netball's three fans can say, but, no, we actually have to avert consensus to plaster that on the main page. SwarmX18:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The acquittal was notable, but what I completely fail to understand is how her release from prison is. It was expected since the acquittal. If the acquittal didn't make the ITN section, why should this? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anything this is infact even more so notable. As this news is the end result of this story if anything should be published on ITN with crime-related material it is this story. Because when it all comes down to it, this is about anti-crime story articles amongst Wikipedians in general.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: GA status requires a certain amount of stability to the article. Given that this is a recent topic, the article is unlikely to meet that criteria considering updates are constantly being made. This is one example of Recentism, with the only foreseeable long lasting impact as HLN's rise to become a household name, which is not related to the criminal case whatsoever. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely, absolutely disagree with the implication that the story is a result of recentism. The level of media coverage was unusually significant and indicative of a major cultural event, similar to the O.J. trial. The story was not simply overblown as a result of recentism on the part of Wikipedia editors. If you can substantiate that HLN experienced a permanent "rise", it's a different issue, but I doubt that's the case. SwarmX20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. You deserve a trout for that one. Seriously, that's probably the least thought out comment I've ever read. This has been covered globally, and BabbaQ even provided numerous non-American sources. There were Japanese television reporters, reporting this story from Orlando. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to leave unhelpful and unlearned comments like that you're better off not contributing here. SwarmX20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you can wow it till the cows come home. justb/c some online source says doesntmean its intl? do you live/travel abroad?
Er, if "some online source" means "major international news agencies", then yes, that absolutely does make it internationally notable. And no, "Japanese reporter" does not mean "Japanese-American reporter", it means "reporter from Japan". SwarmX21:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well except that it is as its being reported worldwide, pretty strange that something that is "not even news" is being reported worldwide. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've been here before. For the same reasons, oppose again. This strikes me as a pointy attempt to re-open the earlier debate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does not matter. The previous discussion did not develop a consensus to post, and duplicating that discussion will not change the result. We really should stop wasting time with this.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, nobody ever mentioned anything remotely close to what is described in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't agree with all the opposes, but they deserve to be respected and not to be repeatedly hounded. Plus, disagreeing with the results of a previous nomination is not grounds for starting one all over again. Can we agree at least that this is not more notable than the acquittal itself? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree that its less notable than the acquittal. Here there have been a number of "tabloid fodder" and "not news" arguments which while not explicitly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is basically the ITN version. The same sort of poor quality opposing happened in the previous discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Über-duper-mega-oppose Of absolutely no significance beyond the State of Florida and the estate of her murdered daughter.μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, she wasn't even paroled or pardoned or her conviction overthrown--she had simply served her sentence. "Released" is an Orwellian equivocation. What other criminal have we featured in ITN because his sentence was completed? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International significance is not a requirement for posting - this has been covered worldwide so there is clear international interest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose for all of the reasons noted already- absolutely not of national or international significance. To add to the discussion above, no matter how widely this is covered, it's still tabloid fodder. It's still one woman (who was not notable before) and one (unfortunately) dead child. -- Mike(Kicking222)21:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a strange idea of what refute means. James Tate being banned from attending the Sheldon High School prom was covered internationally. What of it? You might have my support for this when some outraged Frenchman takes vengeance on that creature. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah James Tate is being covered internationally. By the Daily Mail (a non RS and non serious source) - and the top hit on Google News for James Tate is a four day old article (also the Daily Mail) about a horse racer. The coverage isn't remotely similar this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any evidence that the James Tate case was covered internationally by reliable sources? Or that it would be remotely possible to write enough content about it to warrant an encyclopaedia article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joining the sea of opposes - A criminal finished serving a sentence. Explain to me how this qualifies as anything of even remote significance. (Not that this matters, it won't be long until this is marked as [Ready] anyway.)--WaltCip (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because its being covered worldwide by reliable sources and we have a good article on the subject and there is widespread interest from our readers. You know our purpose, of which this item meets 3 out of the four points. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where exactly is all this high profile international attention you keep talking about? Absent from front page of Die Welt, Le Monde, El País, JapanTimes, The Australian, and the BBC. Searching for "Anthony" on half of those pages does however yield coverage of the breakup of Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony, so it is good to know that, by Eraserhead's principle, that is not a gossipy tabloid style of story. Kevin McE (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a ton of coverage internationally last time around and BabbaQ has found quite a bit above.
With regards to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony splitting up that its being covered by reliable sources means its not tabloid fodder, Jennifer Lopez is an extremely famous actress and singer - I suspect that the story would be sunk on the ITN criteria by the simple fact that it would notFtate be possible to write a suitable update for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Eraserhead. Its always amusing to see how the Opposing side always have an answer to why they are opposing without ever touching the subjects actual notability. Anthony is actually one of the most notable and newsworthy people covered on this Wikipedia right now. The opposing side as always turns a blind eye to all facts pointing to ITN inclusion as expected, when they know they are wrong. amusing to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time around??? Sorry, this is not In Last Week's News. And at least where I live, it had no profile in the news last week either. Once again, some strange appeal to notability, which is not remotely the issue here. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously live in a very strange place if it wasn't covered at her acquittal. I saw it on the front page of Xinhua days later, and I read about it at the time from the front page of the BBC.
Besides if notability isn't the issue here what possible reason is there not to post it. The article views have been higher than a decent proportion of ITN items each day since the acquittal, we have a good article and its in the news. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out many times, the BBC tailors its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page for you, does not mean it is on the front page anywhere else in the world. Now can you please let it go?Modest Geniustalk00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So ignore the front page thing. The story was still covered by a huge number of reliable sources and attracted massive readership. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are coming very close to accusing me of lying there, which is not appreciated. You have made your contribution to this discussion: allow others to make theirs without harrying them. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Kevin McE, but to be fair you are actually accusing Eraserhead of lying to. So I suggest you both take a step back. But I have to wonder were you live if you havent heard anything about this case? hmm.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that BabbaQ has been repeatedly asked to either justify or retract this accusation, but has failed to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Kevin McE refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part. Actually twisting the argument around. Just for the record. If we should do it in this childish level.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if BabbaQ refuses to explain where I am believed to have accused Eraserhead of lying, I cannot comment on it. If he uncovers evidence of such activity on my part, I will be only too happy to apologise for it. On the other hand, if he cannot provide the justification for his accusation against me, the ball lies in his court in terms of acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Kevin McE (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - woman found not guilty, jailed for a lesser crime, released. Ignore the original plea - people are released from jail all the time. Lying to the police is a serious crime, but it's not as if she was freed after a guilty verdict for murder. ƒox00:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is nothing but tabloid fodder, just as everyone else says. A woman who was found not guilty of a crime got released from prison. That's not exactly news, even if everyone is following it. People followed Paris Hilton when she got released. Should we have put that up because people in Nigeria were reading about it? --PlasmaTwa202:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it tabloid fodder? If Paris Hilton is so well known that reliable sources are talking about her prison sentence worldwide and someone can write a suitable update then it should be posted. Given that Paris Hilton went to jail back in 2007 makes it quite clear that the event has vast significance in your mind because you still remember it. I doubt in four years you'll remember the assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai, or in three years the winner of the women's world cup.
Tabloid fodder is truly stories like this. But no serious source would cover that, and no-one could possibly write an encyclopaedic update, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's really sad about the whole thing is that this item is so "tabloid fodder" and so "non news" and so on that a group of people have basically written a GA on the subject. Trying to claim an event is "not significant" when it has enough meat to write a GA (and therefore in due time an FA) seems like a very strange line of reasoning to have been taken by so many people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this madness. Some people won't accept any reason, no matter how wonderfully crafted. It would've been bedlam anyway if this was posted, so I don't see the reason in continuing the discussion, aside from generating more drama. –HTD14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because a blurb is already there, it's probably no harm to simply update it and keep it where it is, but ITN does not need to have a blow-by-blow of this scandal. And this story most certainly does not deserve a sticky because it is nothing compared to the other stickied stories (Olympics, World Cup, Middle East protests, Japanese tsunami) which had sustained (often above-the-fold) international interest, and especially importance, for days to weeks on end. At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story. Please let this drop off ITN, as, as of now, there hasn't been a non-hacking-scandal story posted in almost four days. Please devote your attention to other stories if, for nothing else, in the interest of diversity. -- tariqabjotu13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story." But it isn't. It's receiving daily coverage in the papers where I am (Singapore), and Murdoch's media empire reaches far enough that you cannot seriously argue the point that this is UK-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add on Strange Passerby's comment. This is absolutely not a local story - it's receiving headline coverage in newspapers which barely mentioned things like the Casey Anthony trial. It's also giving us a lot of pageviews, for example Rebekah Brooks had 117k views on Friday alone. Much more than the usual stuff we post on ITN, even for political items. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sticky or bump, I understand the international scope of this story but it's not such a huge story to justify this blow by blow we're falling into. Updating the blurb is a good alternative. RxS (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update the Current Blurb and reset the clock for its removal from the template. An extremely significant development in the case. Very few corporate leaders are ever arrested in the Western word. On a speculative note.... does this mean she had direct knowledge of the crimes? Or even have ordered them? This development puts more questions in my mind than it answers. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update. As Strange Passerby said, Murdoch's media empire is profoundly far-reaching and influential; the arrest of one of its corporate leaders as charged with widespread phone-hacking is extremely relevant. —Iamthedeus (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update I agree that we shouldn't have blow-by-blow updates if the scandal, but this is a major development. SwarmX18:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep Les Hinton on the blurb? It happened only yesterday and he's probably the most notable resignation in this scandal up to now. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't he just the commissioner of one city? Resignation of the CEO of Dow Jones & Company (publisher of largest newspaper in the U.S.) seems to me somewhat more notable. But anyway, I think all three should be on there. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the commissioner of a city force but a huge force with policing responsibility's outside just London. If you look at the number of staff in the force 52k then compare that to the 60k offers and staff employed by ALL the state forces in Australia or take NYPD and the LAPD combined at 47k you see the size of the force. Mtking (edits) 02:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That standard phrasing has been developed to avoid complaints on WP:ERRORS about the phrasing, which is plagued with defeat/defeats, win/wins etc. ENGVAR problems. We could certainly add 'in association football' to the blurb, but not 'soccer'. Modest Geniustalk19:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One dramatic improvement might be to mention which country's "Open" it is. The article doesn't tell us. (I have raised that matter on its Talk page.) The article doesn't even tell us which sport t is! At least we've done that in the blurb above. Why do editors make such unthinking assumptions about the importance of a subject to their readers? HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what "it is in line with". There is valuable information missing. Don't you want readers to know? In its current form, I must Oppose posting. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common name? I really don't think so. Every time I see it or hear it mentioned in Australia, it's as the British Open. Surely that could be used in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian (I think that's from Australia) calls it the British Open. US media universally do. The Canadian Globe and Mail calls it the British Open. Let's call it the British Open. I think we should expect a full paragraph with 3+ references on the final round and I don't see that now so I oppose posting until the update's improved a wee bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Official title is The Open Championship which is what should be used. I don't hear a clamour for the descriptor American when the Academy Awards comes up each year.yorkshiresky (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ready. There seems to be some dispute about the blurb and the article here.
It is ITNR listed as "The Open Championship", not "British Open", nor any other Bowdlerised attempt at internationalisation, just as the PGA is listed as the PGA and not the U.S. PGA. The article seems fine to me so that's a support from me. I personally don't think disputing the name is grounds for delay here - there is no doubt as to the official name of the tournament and the ITNR listing is evidence of precisely what the existing consensus is for. As such I'm re-marking ready. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The article is not ready, the updated content is largely unreferenced and it's more of a list than an article. Needs some work yet. RxS (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It's possible to use Darren Clarke, which is already updated, as the headlined article. This is a solution we've implemented in the past if the tournament page does not meet reviewers' standards. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin go ahead and post it then? There's one, really bad, confusing section in the 'Open Championship' article that will very likely prevent this from being posted at all. Featuring Darren Clarke as the headlined article instead is clearly the common sense alternative. At least until the Open article is cleaned up, but if that doesn't happen, this would be better than nothing. SwarmX17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go, the most important points are well referenced. I'm not sure which paragraph 'Swarm' is referring to but as that is a pipe from the lead article I don't see why the lead shouldn't be posted.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You stubborn fools. It's just stupid for the blurb about a major sports event in a country to not name the country. (I am not discussing the name of the event.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that's commonly mentioned. Sometimes it is but, for example, Wimbledon blurbs never mention what country the tournament is in. I thought mentioning the golf course was enough to establish locale; even if one has never heard of the golf course, its name alone suggests it's probably in the UK (and, of course [no pun intended], one could click on the article). And I really didn't want to put "Sandwich, Kent, England" up there. -- tariqabjotu20:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
200k+ readers for the various articles, tens of thousands of Google news hits, biggest selling book series, biggest grossing film series. No possible reason to justify that this isn't news, no possible justification that this isn't of encyclopaedic interest and no good reason to continue to wait. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pop culture phenomenon, but a big pop culture phenomenon, and easily "newsworthy" enough to be featured on ITN. Also a few of my friends would rip me to shreds if I opposed this. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there is good proof of international headlines, which shouldn't be hard to find (and I'm too tired to look for right now.) Grandmasterka08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the reference in that article say "Retrieved July 18, 2010"? Why when I check "Harry Potter" in that reference does "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Part 2" (the one in yellow) say "$92,100,000"? And why do the other films listed above it each have several times that number? There is also "opening weekends" but this film does not appear there. In other words where is the record? Just asking. --candle•wicke08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Is that record going to be nominated and posted every time it is broken? It seems to have happened quite often recently. November 2009 is only slightly more than a year ago. --candle•wicke09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused Lots of figures being thrown around here. The film opened on different days around the world, as do most films. Is there an obvious source that clearly tells me that this claim is true, with no analysis (=OR) required? HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE This film will also break the worldwide opening weekend record and the US/Canadian opening weekend record. If the opening day record gets posted, will the opening weekend record be added to blurb after it is confirmed? Theleftorium(talk)09:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well I went through the list. Number two is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and this happened in 2009. This would have beaten the record that had stood since 2008 (number four: "The Dark Knight") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2007 (number seven: "Spider-Man 3") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2006 (number nine: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2005 (number eleven: "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2004 (number seventeen: "Spider-Man 2") and so on. --candle•wicke09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment "opening day record of..." important to mention it (former recorD) or its weekend gross total.
This nomination is being done not because the record is necessarily the most amazing thing ever, but because the film in question quite blatantly is highly, highly notable. Apa Sherpa's record doesn't attract tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it. There are plenty more reasons to get this posted now listed in my opening statement that have nothing to do with the record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia isn't Google. Why Google? What does Google have to do with the ITN section of Wikipedia? Apa Sherpa not attracting tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it doesn't make his achievements any less notable. --candle•wicke10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can go with our own article hit counts, or that the film series is the highest grossing ever, the vast cultural impact of the book/film series etc. etc. If you wish just taking the common sense approach that clearly people are interested in this topic, for which we have good articles. That should be reason enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sources are just not clear enough, and frankly know one can no for sure what the number is, it has the feeling of trying to jump the gun. There is no rush here, lets wait till the full worldwide opening weekend results are in then post that if we must. Mtking (edits) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN covers news. People quite quickly move on to the next story so there is always a rush to get stuff posted. And its quite clear that there is clear sourced information about this particular record if you actually read through the information presented here rather than knee-jerking in opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I should have to defend myself, I did look, and came up with the same issues that HiLo48 did since opening days are different. As I said in my original post, there seems to be a rush here to get something out, not just here but on the "movie" websites. I think it is prudent to wait, till Monday or Tuesday when proper audited numbers are made available and we can write a proper blurb that is correct and does not need to be amended or added to as the week goes on. Mtking (edits) 10:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At that point far less people will care. Its quite clear this movie is significant and attempting to force us to wait is deliberately damaging the section further by preventing us from posting obvious stories.
Your opposition is like saying with the Japanese earthquake that we have to wait for the magnitude numbers to be verified before we post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, and I cannot stress this enough - In the news is not a news ticker. Secondly, I think we did. ƒox11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly we need to post events that people are interested in. Posting events late after interest has moved on is counterproductive to the sections future. There are lots of comments in the Main page RFC complaining about ITN being slow. The only good reasons to wait are article quality and where the event might not be notable without confirmation - neither apply here. Secondly we posted the Japanese earthquake promptly and didn't wait for confirmation of all the details as you can see from the extended discussion below the items posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is this further evidence that ITN is entirely dysfunctional and should be pulled from the main page, or are you also failing to read the section through properly - there is far more in favour of this item than the record itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what Lihaas is trying to say, but I'm guessing that what he means by consensus is the rule that the nominator does not add the "Ready" tag. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support BUT I still think waiting until the weekend's over is the better idea. I don't give a shite if Wikipedia looks to be "trailing behind" professional news sites, but I don't really give a shite that we post this every year, either. I'm not too bothered if this is posted sooner than that, though (but please make it "worldwide" rather than "in the US"). ƒox11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data. It is not an American film, it is not based on an American book by an American author, and it does not have an American cast. Global figures, or the whole thing is just systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the above discussion you will see that this shows the record has been broken in a number of other countries aside from the United States. This from the Daily Telegraph clearly shows it broke records in the UK, and lets not forget that its a British book, by a British author and with a British cast.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uh, Eraserhead, can you stop doing that? If you're the only one who thinks the article is ready, there's an issue. -- tariqabjotu13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that "importance", whatever that is, is the reason for the opposition. Is breaking the opening day record significant enough? The only other instance ITN reported anything about the film box office is when Avatar broke the worldwide gross record. Is that the same? Would it make sense if we wait? –HTD13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought "Importance" is well and truly covered by it being part of the biggest book and film series ever, the tens of thousands of Google News hits, the million odd views of the article etc etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's more like "interest" rather than "importance." "Importance" is more into like "they acquitted a baby murderer!!1111" (sniff sniff lol). –HTD15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You are completely failing to address all the other significance reasons that go with it. I have to nominate it for something, but there is a huge amount of significance around the event such as its cultural significance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do we have? Guesses? I mean, the day is barely starting, and we're already assuming the movie will take 33 million today domestically. Besides, with inflation and ticket prices being what they have been, all these so-called records don't mean a hill of beans. The only objective record there is, total tickets sold, not even Avatar sniffed. Putting this on our main page is nothing more than a free quarter-million dollars of publicity for the film studio. 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Support, significant theatrical record. Agree with Batjik though, the US and Canada part should be removed to simplify and shorten the blurb. SwarmX18:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose. Looking at the list, I realized that that the previous "record holder" was another Harry Potter film, two years ago. Yeah, it sounds like a "significant theatrical record", but 9 out of the top 10 "records" have occurred in the past 5 years! So I'm definitely inclined to believe that this is really not a big deal in the grand scheme of film history. SwarmX20:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the sentiment here, but would like to note that this film broke three records, and in each case the previous record-holder was different. Its margin for the worldwide weekend opening is also nearly seven times larger than the previous margin. So it is kind of a rare event, even though I generally don't like "record"-related stats. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm, you realise that Harry Potter is one of the most significant cultural events of the past 20 years? Obviously its pretty likely to beat another earlier film with a later record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address my point though. Your argument in favor of posting this relies very heavily on the fact that "it's Harry Potter" and it's culturally significant. Yes, Harry Potter's culturally significant. However, we've already determined that it's not significant enough to post simply for being Harry Potter. We're talking about the film's records now. And I believe, as I said above, that this record isn't significant enough for an ITN blurb. "Biggest opening ever" isn't really that significant if it happens every few years. SwarmX16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is Hollywood self-congratulatory nonsense at its worst. We get new all-time records every few years. That is inevitable so long as they continue to ignore the effect of inflation. The fact that they choose to ignore crucial factors for the purposes of PR and marketing hyperbole, which is all this is, does not mean we should consider ourselves bound by the same ultimately meaningless metrics. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
So let's just never post any records related to film. Hey, while we're at it, let's not post sport records either, because it's quite obvious that it's a PR stunt for the organisation in question. You know what? Records in general serve no purpose whatsoever and change way too often for ITN standards, so let's just not post them at all. Because, you know, our standards are so high. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every sport record is "self congratulatory nonsense", arguably even things like the Beijing Shanghai railway and all the spin the Chinese setup beforehand for journalists was self congratulatory nonsense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person to have to have asserted this. Therefore I await your reliable source with interest. Without that your argument lacks any credibility whatsoever. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Rather meaningless "record" compared to either Avatar's or Gone with the Wind's. Posting this would be little more than giving the studio free advertising. Courcelles19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your near constant stream of badgering and sarcasm does not help. Note we post MANY film stories, the Oscars, the BAFTAs, at least three film festivals... The records, however, are inflation and high-ticket price invented news. Courcelles22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If people should have the right to post whatever comments they like here other people should have the right to counter their arguments. That's only fair.
Regardless of inflation I would have thought posting the final film from the most profitable film series of all time, and one based on a book series which has sold more copies than any other in history would be notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and what was the reason for not posting the film in the first place? The reason given then was "gotta wait for the record, gotta wait for the record", and then when the record comes along everyone goes and says that the only notable film ever made was Gone with the Wind - so basically saying that we should only post one film record every 100 years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your blatancy here is blatant. There is simply no way yet to show this compares with actual blockbusters like Star Wars, ET, Titanic, Avatar. The need for patience and calm here is blatant. It's blatant, I tell you. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we already know that this is the final film of the biggest grossing film series ever, on that alone its clearly notable. If we wait until we know whether its verified to be biggest than other films on an individual basis we'll never post anything. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Medeis's comment is plainly wrong; the opening weekend record is NOT due to inflation, as the list can show you. The reason that inflation is so prominent for total gross but not weekend gross is that, until relatively recently, a film was mostly spread through word-of-mouth and not huge advertising before its opening, which flattens out the earnings curve over a long period of time. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wheres the source for this assertion when adjusted for inflation? ITN does not deal with what people assert to be true. None of the links given here or in the articles make this assertion so where has is come from? Without a source any assertion of this nature is meaningless and should be discounted immediately. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict)Oppose This is the THIRD attempt to get this listed, the first closed with "re-nominated when final opening weekend revenues are released"; the second (still open) has a significant number of Oppose's this one started with the words "Let's start this over". I am just not convinced with all the numbers being thrown about that any of them can be believed at such an early point, take this it was written at a little before 1pm on Sunday, with at least 11 hours still to go of the weekend. It is like publishing the election results with the polls still open, it can be nothing more than a educated guess, also what is the source of the numbers ?. The fact that the box office numbers are not adjusted for price and inflation also is of an issue and devalues the record, it would be like moving the starting line for the 100m sprint 10cm closer to the finishing line every year; what would be more impressive is the "bums on seats" count. I am willing to change my mind on this, once some audited numbers are made available and it clearly shows record numbers of viewers worldwide and the blurb focuses on the world as a whole and not singling out one area for special mention. Mtking (edits) 23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the time you wrote this comment you could've read this part of the blurb "highest-grossing opening weekend worldwide" ("singling out one area of special mention"?); calculated the gross for inflation and realized that it is indeed record-breaking even when adjusted for inflation; and also found about the source used in the article, namely this. Seriously, treat your vote with some respect and don't lash out when you haven't read the article or even the blurb. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to read the last part of the blurb when it says "opening weekend in the United States and Canada." is that not singling out one area of special mention ? I have read the article, and I still ask the question, this time of this report, what is the source for the numbers they are reporting ? As I type now there is still just a little under 7 hours of the weekend to go in LA so I ask again how can the US numbers for the weekend be anything more than a guess ? Mtking (edits) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note: I did a rough count and there appear to be 9 votes support and 5 votes oppose after merging the two discussions and neglecting repeated votes. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - there seems to be a decent amount of support for this over the numerous discussions (as in, the posting of this record, not the film's release) so I have no issue with posting. ƒox00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film series neither beats out LotR for revnue per film or budget and does not beat out other individual films for gross revenue. All we have is a statistically regular next highest grossing weekend for a sequel, a predictable, common, yearly event.
Strong Protest a) There does not appear to be consensus to post, and b) issues relating to the accuracy and sources of the numbers have Not been addressed. This should be Pulled until these have been addressed. Mtking (edits) 01:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) Over the three discussions, those opposing have (generally) given the impression they would be willing for this blurb to go up as opposed to the advert-y other one; b) the numbers are not what matter with this intentionally vague blurb. ƒox01:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not under any of the three discussions nor in total was there ever a majority, let alone a consensus in favor of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to pull this for now. I'm a sucker for BOLD ALL CAPS SHOUTING, how did you know?! ƒox01:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, I mean what I said, I want to understand how weekend numbers can be arrived at with (assuming we included Friday) one sixth still to happen, who is the ultimate source for the numbers ? is it the studio ? It is like posting the US Election results at 3 PM on polling day; something just does not feel right about it. Mtking (edits) 01:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted mine to initial caps, but one does shout not when voting but when trying to get immediate attention.
I am staunchly opposed to this even if it were a record pull. (A fair blurb might be "HP7B biggest hit ever on audience pocket") Looking into the statistics, Average U.S. ticket prices for 2008 when Batman Whateverth premiered were $7.18 while they were $7.86 in the first quarter of 2011. At that rate Harry Potter would have to have topped $173M to be a record adjusted for inflation. That does not include the fact that sources are crediting the numerical record to 3D ticket prices, not the number of warm arses in sticky seats: "3D ticket prices help Harry Potter beat Batman record". A random check of prices shows $7.50 children under 12, $10.50 Adult, at AMC Newport, Kentucky, (not an upscale market), giving a fair average of $9 a ticket. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to post something, but given the issues with sourcing of numbers, ticket price inflation, the effect of 3D on the revenue, it really needs to be of the form "A record xx million worldwide got to watch HP7B in it's opening weekend" with the number clearly sourced to an independent source (not just some website repeating what they have been told without disclosing who told them). Mtking (edits) 02:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, what a mess. Article posted, pulled. All this fuss over ticket prices in Kentucky seems hardly important to me. Anyway, we posted Avatar breaking records and its sales were also boosted by 3d sales. I don't know; one of the major complaints about ITN is that we don't post enough stories. We've got a decent article here with proven reader interest (interest which has nothing to do with box office records), certainly 'in the news', and people staunchly objecting because they don't think that 'type' of news is suitable here. There've been three separate discussions on this now. I can't remember if I !voted here but support anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Johnsemlak votes THREE (bold caps intentional) times in support of this topic with the excuse that he "can't remember" whether he's voted here before? μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the three times. In fact I see one vote in the above section and one vote here, which is what many users have done. You might also want to read up on WP:NPA. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get 3157 Google News hits in the last 24 hours on opening record "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". Not all of them are about the same record but both the record and the opening itself is big news, and the article has around 200000 hits per day. That's more than all the currently bolded ITN articles together. We shouldn't reject the story because of record criteria news sources usually don't care about. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number of Google news hits is a pretty good way of showing the event is getting significant coverage and hammering home the point that this event is significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tired of this drama here, but I'd just like to note that Medeis and Mtking are very much wrong when they said that there is no majority in support for the post. Medeis claimed that there were ten opposes. This is false. Here are all the users who have opposed by the time of posting: Candlewickle, Mtking, Courcelles, Swarm, Crispmuncher, Medeis. (There was an earlier oppose by Kevin McE, but it said that he opposes "any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data", which is not the case for this new blurb.) I haven't counted the number of supports in detail, but there are more than ten. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. Fox said he based his decision on support shown over the various discussions and there were ten opposes to eight supports in the non-closed sections above my comment. And even if you counted only the opposes in the third section they still outweighed the supports in the third section! This entire process is highly irregular, claims of "significance" (versus "popularity) are absurd, and the discussion should be closed down. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You just accused someone of lying for voting in two sections and now you're counting all the oppose votes from both sections, three of which are repeated? I don't really give a damn about this post or whatever happened during the discussions, but you are being extremely dishonest here. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I nowhere said lying, and you obviously have a problem with the plain meaning of English words. But you do have my sympathy for your obvious distress. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that Johnsemlak used a false "excuse" to do something that would be clearly against the rules. That is plainly an accusation of lying. I have no interest in getting into whatever dispute you might have had with him; the only reason I brought it up is because you lashed out at Johnsemlak for doing the exact same thing you just condoned, namely voting in multiple sections. As for my English ability, it is just fine, thank you. You're taking this discussion way too seriously, and I suggest you cool down lest you ruin your reputation with another silly personal attack like the preceding comment. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A follow up to a post you disagree with does not nuke the original position. In this particular case, myself and others have questioned the significance of unadjusted figures. The response was a simple assertion that it was still a record breaker even on that basis. If thta is shown to be true I would probably move positions. So I asked for a source, twice, and none has been forthcoming. If that is a sourced statement why not? If there is no source and it was made up on the spot then there is no rebuttal of any significance whatsoever. So where are these counter-arguments that neutralise the arguments you disagree with? They are not on this page. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That is the assertion that has been made, so I am asking for evidence of it. It isn't an insurmountable burden since we are talking about opening rather than overall figures. We have more screens and screenings, with the 3D premium, and many more prints than in times gone by - the age of prints starting in the major cities, then being passed to large towns before ending up in the smaller towns a couple of months later are behind us. Films are released simultaneously in many more locales than previously to combat piracy. These are all factors that have arisen over periods varying from the last couple of years to perhaps the last 25, which collectively conspire to make for a much stronger opening. The fact we still can't find a real-terms record speaks volumes as to the real significance of the release. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Posted I am far from happy with this discussion, and I considered refraining from posting this item simply because of the unnecessary, abrasive comments, primarily from Eraserhead and Batjik Syutfu. And Medeis, in opposing this item, wasn't substantially better. As someone who doesn't participate in ITN/C discussions (and, to be honest, I actually don't), this discussion would be a deterrent for one to participate. I would like to point out to the sharks here that your respective opinions were made clear the first time you posted and, further, not a single person has changed his or her position on account of you hounding your opponents. So, perhaps for future discussions, instead of wasting your time and energy futilely ratcheting up the temperature in here, how about you work on finding and improving some other up and coming article?
With that being said, I think there actually is clear consensus that this should go up once it was clear Harry Potter broke the record. The precise record-breaking figure is not mentioned in the blurb on the Main Page and the item is not limited to US/Canada earnings, so opposes on those grounds seem irrelevant. There is no debate whether the film broke the record; it's just by how much. And I must say, I don't find it particularly savory that by halfway through the weekend, there was an almost unanimous decision to post the film on Monday at the latest. And then, when that time came, suddenly there were objections that could have been made before the film even came out. I honestly think some of you are setting the bar to high for inclusion of film items on ITN, but regardless, there seems enough support for this item to post with a well-written update to back it up. That's good enough. -- tariqabjotu19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your criticism is uncalled-for, Tariq. I provided arguments based on available sources that the film does not set a record for seats filled, just for cost to the consumer. The 20087 and 2011 average US ticket prices are widely published. I pointed out the oddness of having three separate listed support votes by one person when the posting editor was citing overall support from different threads--but presumably should have stayed silent in face of the hysterical accusations of my calling people liars (where) or in face of false accusation against me of lying about the total numbers of votes over various sections?
It is quite obvious there is no consensus in favor of posting this item. If consensus means majority, we should say majority--and tally the votes. Where has this been done?
Worst of all, intentionally making the blurb vague so that its claims of "record setting" has no verifiable meaning is the sort of thing one expects from tabloids, not encyclopedias. Which this is. In case you have forgotten.
Tariqabjotu fulfilled the role of admin here which is judging the debate and finding a consensus. We need more of that rather than less and I for one thank him, regardless of how I feel about this issue. I also think that once an admin makes a call, everyone should move on. If anyone has questions about how an admin came to a decision, it's probably best to take it to the talk page, or for that matter the admins talk page. RxS (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to move on as well, but given that Medeis just accused me of being hysterical, I'd like to clarify two points. First, what Medeis described as "point[ing] out the oddness of having three separate listed support votes" is this comment: "Wow, Johnsemlak votes THREE (bold caps intentional) times in support of this topic with the excuse that he "can't remember" whether he's voted here before?". I found this an inappropriate remark directed at another user, but obviously Medeis did not think it was. Fine, point settled.
Second, I did not accuse Medeis of lying. What I said was that he counted six "oppose" votes coming from three users (in two sections), right after he lashed out at another user for voting in different sections, and this seems to me quite bizarre. That is all that I said, and I apologize if anyone found this "unnecessary" and "abrasive" as Tariq did. For that matter, I did ask Tariq on his talk page about which comment of mine he referred to, but he chose not to respond. I'll respect his privacy. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, "lashed out". Pointing out factually that Johnsemlak was either disingenuous or incompetent for voting three times while saying he "couldn't remember" whether he had voted or not is a sin on my part. Of course.
If this were something important, like impeaching Barack Obama for his illegal war in Libya, I could understand your placing POV above factual accuracy and common decency. But go ahead, accuse me of crimes against humanity for protesting that Harry Pottery is not a reason for debasing Wikipedia to the sensationalist level of the New York Post and the News of the World. As for you 'administrators'--the ones who pass this nonsense, and the ones who let it stand--Shame on you. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't a debate about whether the film broke the record; the debate was whether the record was significant. And Tariq, finding a way to discount some of the opposers, obviously couldn't do so with the supporters who utterly failed to answer the argument that the record isn't significant. On top of that, I don't see how he could have interpreted a "clear consensus" based on only 53% support of the first blurb and 34% support of the second blurb. Yet he somehow managed to, providing a weak posting statement complete with a paragraph dedicated to personal attacks. IMO, this discussion definitely didn't yield a "clear consensus" and is the second instance of terrible judgement on the part of Tariq in the past few days. SwarmX15:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This being posted is a clear example of how strong can the "fan lobby" be. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides recently became the eighth film in the history of cinema to surpass 1 billion in box-office performance, but this meaningless opening record is away more important... Maddox (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Critising tariq. I don't think his complaint was so out of line to warrant any complaints on my part. I have taken it on board and so should you. With regards to significance it was pointed out several times that the opposition on that was too fussy as it'd mean we'd never post a film record.
With regards to "fan lobby" yes I have read the books but I haven't seen this movie yet and I've only seen about 2 of the previous ones (and yeah I do go to the cinema every couple of months) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise, surprise: Middle Eastern news agencies (less Xinhua) covering... Middle Eastern news! There are no actual newsworthy rolling developments to justify a sticky. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SP. No actual newsworthy developments. I wouldn't consider "updates are too slow" to be a problem anymore. SwarmX18:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see the new issues i just added for libya, syria, yemen and bahrain. more bomigs, takeover of town, takeover of town with rival tribes and withdrawal fro natl dialogueLihaas (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major new developments every day. If there's anything here that's going to be in the history books 30 years from now, this will be it.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just one of several eruptions since Thursday night. There's two million people in that province and only 5,200 had to be evacuated. No reported casualties, and its smoke may disrupt flights. Unless it causes major casualties, property damage, or some type of major societal disruption (e.g. the Icelandic eruptions), it doesn't seem to be too major. SwarmX18:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your stance, I must object to your second sentence. Evacuated population vs. provincial population has no relevance in this story. North Sulawesi is a much more rural area compared to Java, which is the location of the highly reported 2010 eruptions of Mount Merapi. No population size in the outer islands of Indonesia will ever come close in comparison to the population density of Java. I ask that you don't simply dismiss them as "only" 5200 people. That is ground for systemic bias. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
