| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| nominator = Wirenote <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| updater = <!-- Should be filled with the username of the person who has contributed the most to updates. -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring events. -->
| note = <!-- Can be used to note potential problems with the nomination or article. -->
| nom cmt = Oscar winning composer. Wrote a lot of other award-winning compositions. Article needs to be improved a bit, but it wouldn't require a Herculean effort.
| sign = --[[User:Wirenote|wirenote]] ([[User talk:Wirenote|talk]]) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
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).
Ukrainian forces in recently reclaimed city of Sloviansk discover documents that show pro-Russian insurgent leader Igor Strelkov handed down at least four death sentences under a Stalin-era law of 1941. (Kyiv Post)
Ukrainian forces reclaim control of the city of Siversk from pro-Russian insurgents, and move on to consolidate their position by repairing damaged infrastructure and funneling aid into recently recaptured territory. (Wall Street Journal)
A BBC investigation determines that photographs circulating on social media sites allegedly covering the airstrikes on Gaza include photographs taken from conflicts in Iraq and Syria and are up to five years old. (BBC News)(IsraelNationalNews)
A Myanmar court sentences four journalists and the editor of the Yangon based Unity journal to ten years hard labor for allegedly publishing state secrets in an investigative series of reports on a weapons factory. (AP)
A spokesman for Russia's Investigative Committee confirms that Nadiya Savchenko, the female military aviator who was captured by pro-Russian separatists on June 18, is now held in Voronezh, Russia, where she has been charged with killing two Russian journalists. (Radio Free Europe), (AP)
The Israeli Army intensifies its attack on the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip with 130 attacks on key sites such as command centers and rocket launchers after over 250 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel over the past week. Hamas rockets reached over 100 km into Israeli territory. (AP)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oscar winning composer. Wrote a lot of other award-winning compositions. Article needs to be improved a bit, but it wouldn't require a Herculean effort. --wirenote (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She founded Ford Models, a modeling agency which, according to the New York Times (see link above), "became the top agency in the world." Also, "It elevated the modeling profession into a serious business with $1 million contracts, represented thousands of beautiful young women, and created a market for “supermodels,” a select handful who could command enormous salaries for their looks." This, in my view, seems sufficient to pass WP:ITND criterion 2. --Jinkinsontalk to me19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportgiven borderline status ans total lack of competition at this point. 19:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Maiden flight of a major new series of rockets. Maiden flights are ITNR anyway, and this is one of the most significant of recent years as it is intended to replace most of the current Russian fleet. --W.D.Graham19:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
big bang theory Hollywood mrons can make fun all they want...but NASA just keeps biting the dust...sanctions indeed?Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "complete" is a transitive verb. "concludes successfully" would be better if you want to go with the posted formulation. Belle (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - No comment on whether this is notable enough for ITN, but we should post the event itself, not the decision/announcement. Wait until October. --W.D.Graham18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fed monetary policy significantly affects the value of the US dollar, and that dollar is used worldwide as one of a small number of international currencies. QE has been going on for so long that news of its end is newsworthy. The end of QE will affect much of the world population over the medium to long term. Since Fed meeting minutes are published, but Fed actions are done in secret, waiting until October may not give us an "event" to point to. Besides, markets are reacting now. SkyDot (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Markets react to news all the time and generally regain from short-term losses. The DJIA is trending upwards from its 180-point drop earlier today, and is now only down 50. This isn't even the biggest drop I've seen in a while, and most of the investors are discussing concerns with one of Portugal's largest banks rather than the end of QE.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several buses are set alight and an electronics store looted in the Brazilian city of Sao Paulo following Brazil's crushing defeat by Germany in the World Cup semi-final. (AFP via Yahoo! News Australia)
Nominator's comments: Since 1958, the top goalscorer has changed only 3 times (last time it happened in 2006). He has 16. Asides from Muller, the closest active player has 6, so record doesn't look like it will be broken again that soon. Klose could score more in the final, but he will remain the record-holder. Nergaal (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not formally opposing yet, but we generally do not post sports records(especially for a single tournament or competition, as opposed to the sport as a whole). Is this being covered in the news? 331dot (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are already many news articles on it. The difference with other single tournament or competitions is that they receive nowhere near the coverage and viewership that the World Cup does. By comparison, for Olympics we post opening, closing, and a few WRs; yet for the World Cup we only post the winner - which in my opinion is hugely underrepresented. Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. An important record. It's not true that we "generally do not post sports records". IIRC, ITNR used to have a (quite poorly worded, and rightly removed) guideline that we should post all significant sports records. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Used to have" means that we don't currently, so that has little bearing on this discussion. I admit that my view is based only on my personal experience here; I've seen very few nominated and posted. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not so long ago, we posted a record in cricket to do with Sachin Tendulkar, for example. We also posted a marathon world record last year and we posted a couple of records set at the London Olympics. We also post pretty much any record to do with auctions and natural history without thinking twice. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and accepted, though there is a difference between sports and news. This is "in the news", not "today in sports". We should tread carefully and ensure that these records are heavily covered(perhaps even outside of the sports page), though that seems to be the case here. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the cricket record was for ODIs only; and there was also some Messi seasonal record of goals posted a few years ago. Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not First off the competition isn't over yet. Unlikely, but possible for this record to be broken again in a few days. Second, enough soccer records. Most goals in a season? In a calendar year? In a club competition? Soccer has so many random contests around the world that someone somewhere is breaking some record or other. If this goes up, it should be at the end of the contest. NHL MVP was a "by the way", this can be too. Enough soccer. Enough. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive comments with the IP.
If NHL final would happen every 4 years and if it would receive the same amount of interest WROLDWIDE then I would be fine with posting that. And if you did not read the nom, this record is not handed out yearly, but it happened 3 times in the last 56 years. If you get MVPs at a rate of 1 per 18-19 years those MVPs will definitely word being posting those. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go, the tired old "It's the most popular sport in the world" excuse which was used to prop up Mesi scoring the most goals in a calendar year, and Mesi winning the Balloon Hors d'oeuvre, despite no other sports award being posted. The DE wiki hasn't bothered to post this. The 2010 world cup had a record number of competing nations, and the 2006 world cup had Klose set a scoring record then, and Ronaldo scoring a record number of total world cup goals. WOW! A WORLD CUP THAT SET SOME WORLD-CUP-CENTRIC RECORD!!!! WHAT A SURPRISE. Don't post this idiotic item please. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So by that rationale we should not post NHL winners because they are NHL-centric? Should we post rock throwing records because how popular the sport is is irrelevant? Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about winner? Certainly not I. Of course will will post the world cup winner! What should not be posted as a separate blurb is this tidbit of world cup trivia. There is a record set in every world cup. Should we post rock throwing records because how popular the sport is is irrelevant? I'm glad you acknowledge that the popularity of a sport is irrelevant to the amount of attention it receives, and I look forward to you changing your !vote to oppose. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. "It's the most popular sport in the world. No other sport should be compared". Then you put up a ridiculous straw man comparison (NHL winner vs FIFA scoring "record"), and get all upset when I call you out on it. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your words "the tired old "It's the most popular sport in the world" excuse" imply that popularity is irrelevant for a sport-related ITN entry, implying that an amazing rock-throwing record could be posted since the sport lacking any popularity is completely irrelevant. Secondly, if a WC-centric record is not surprising, then a NHL-centric winner, where the winner can only be from a narrow set of teams in North America, is similarly unsurprising and should similarly be shut down. Q.E.D.Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the matches in the tournament what makes you this that one is worth specifically worth highlighting? See my comment below about sports stats. If a plyer stops to retie their bootlaces a record number of times in a match is that ITN worthy? 3142 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all the records broken in this match. The catchiest include:
Germany has now the most World Cup goals (221).
Germany scored more goals tonight than England have in their past two World Cup campaigns combined.
Most goals scored against the World Cup's host nation.
Brazil (supposedly football's all-time champion) has never let in 7 goals at home throughout its history.
Support Breaking the record for highest goalscorer at the FIFA World Cups is notable achievement which has not been attained very often in the past. The record may be marred by Germany's epic victory tonight but it still finds its place in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strikes me as more sports stat than record. For a start the whole assertion of notability is restricted specifically to the World Cup making it a tournament record as opposed to a world record. The second point would be that it's a team sport and therefore individual "records" such as these are premised on an unequal playing field to begin with - if you're the best player in the world but in a crap team you may not even qualify to become eligible for this "record". Even if your team does half the teams that qualify go home after three games while the ultimate top four have seven games in which to exceed any given target which obviously makes that target an easier goal. Finally, and as noted by the IP above, this could yet change again in the next few days. Possibly one to be merged into the final results blurb but not as a standalone item. 3142 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, since Michael Phelps won a good bunch of his record medals in team events where he had to rely on 3 other teammates. Even if the record number changes in a few days, the record holder will still be the same (that is why I left out the number). Plus this entry can be merged with the final in a few days. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that this is about his performance itself, not about awards he has gotten for it. Very different. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He scored goals without performing? Wow, he must be good to do that. Traditionally one must participate in a soccer match and perform to score a goal. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wp:pointy? A goal is the result of performance the same way a world record is the result of performance, and last time I checked we are posting world records. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 3142. This is a tournament record, not a world record. If desired, it can be posted when the winner is posted, as 3142 suggests. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that rationale, why did we post Phelps record medals? Wasn't it a tournament record, including team events? Was it technically a world record? Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Nergaal. The case with Michael Phelps is a very strong precedent on why we should post this one as well. The Olympics are far more popular event than the FIFA World Cup but we should scale down to include this as well due to the immense popularity that the record receives in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, Phelps's record was about the number of awards he has gotten for his performance, not the performance itself(as is the case here). 331dot (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To add, there are soccer games happening all the time, and there have been better records - the FIFA-only count is less than other records, and thus not as significant. In the case of swimming, there are only a handful of major events that involved multiple swimming contests, the Olympics being one of them, so the record being broken there is much more meaningful. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give an example of some "better records"? And there are plenty of swimming events, including essentially every developed and developing nation having national competitions (some swimming WRs were broken at the Australian national trial-or-something) — you are not aware of them simply because they lack in notability compared to the Premier League.Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems a rare enough record, unlikely to be broken in the near future. This seems on par with Miguel Cabrera's triple crown, which we posted back in 2012. Not every anything needs be posted, but this one record this one time seems important, rare, and newsworthy enough to be posted, IMHO. --Jayron3200:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even more disruptive comments with the IP.
It literally happened two world cups ago. The "56 years" is also typical soccer chest thumping. One tournament every 4 years, 14 tournaments. 3 records in 14 tournaments, or 1 every 4.5 tournaments, and it starts to sound a lot less amazing. Try to get a perfect game in baseball, which happens on average every 3 seasons (2012 was a record on it's own), and it's "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa American bias". So again, "56 years" utter garbage. It's 3 times in 14 tournaments, the last one just 2 tournaments ago. Seems likely to happen all the time. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that by badgering everyone who thinks different than you do, it weakens your own position considerably? --Jayron3202:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do, and I'm pretty well over it at this point. It's funny, I didn't watch the game, or read the highlights, but when I saw the score I knew it had to be some record or other and that there would be a blurb nomination here, so I pass by and sure enough it's here. It's utterly pointless and futile to try and stop a soccer nomination: "it's the most popular sport in the world". That's the only thing which seems to matter. ITN is the death and destruction board, with a heavy dose of sport. I'm a little surprised there isn't some European political squabbling to overflow the list. I don't regret leaving this project, and am sorry I stopped by. I'll come back and oppose when someone nominates the most shots on net blocked while facing the sun on even numbered Saturdays during a fortnight since some bloke did it back in 1961. Because futbol. Sigh. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at news sources, this isn't the leading World Cup news at the moment - that is Germany's record-breaking victory over Brazil. On the other hand, it is a major record. So perhaps Fitzcarmalan's suggestion is the best - combine them in a blurb. We could easily tack on something like "in Germany's 7-1 semi-final victory over Brazil" at the end of the blurb (and I'm sure the blurb could be made a bit more succinct if length is a concern). Neljack (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I support a blurb that mentions the Germany v Brazil result but oppose otherwise, since the extraordinary semi-final is the bigger story in my view - a view that appears to be shared by the news media and public. Neljack (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is a record on goals, what matter, in the World Cup, when matter most. Also put actualization-expantion on Sunday when WC end--Feroang (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - combo blurb Notable achievement in football gaining worldwide coverage and Brazil's heaviest defeat in any competition makes it ITN worthy. Suggest wording, ...in Brazil's heaviest defeat, Miroslav Klose becomes the record World Cup goalscorer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.38.153 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting it alongside the result of the final so that if we mention a number it will be after he's had a chance to score more. Oppose mentioning the semi-final result as that story on its own is not ITN-newsworthy. CaptRik (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We posted Bjorndalehn's record before the last of the Olympics event he took part in (he failed to bum his record in his last event). Don't remember if we did the same for Phelps. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[[2]] Phelps nomination for reference, couldn't see it above. Looks like we did post that separately from the main Olympics closing post although it's clear it was heavily debated. My opinion is still that the record breaking on its own is not a strong enough story as a standalone news item and also having 2 football items up at the same time gives undue weight to the sport. CaptRik (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klose (as it is an all-time tournament record) but oppose mentioning the 7-1 defeat of Brazil, because otherwise we'd be setting the bar too low for future nominations (This is X-land's record defeat, This is X-land's record margin of victory, etc). Post it now, and assuming the blurb is still up there when the competition is over and posted, combine the two. BencherliteTalk09:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am counting 13 supports and 3 opposes. Of the supports 1 is "weak", 2 are for waiting for the final and 4 are for (some only) combined blurb of the score. What sort of consensus does this count as? Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article looks in fairly good shape to me. I suppose the problem in terms of consensus is that some people (including me) support a blurb that mentions the semi-final but oppose one that doesn't, whereas others support a blurb that just mentions the record but oppose any mention of the semi-final. Something along the lines of your suggested blurb sounds like a reasonable solution, however. Neljack (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also can we not say "FIFA World Cup finals", as the altblurb does? The use of "finals" is ambiguous here - people who aren't very familiar with the World Cup might take it to refer to goals scored in the final of a World Cup. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Altblurb2 is simply too long. By the time I got to the end of it, I'd forgotten what the beginning was. It also has the jarring ENGVAR issue of Germany being in the singular. Formerip (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not opposed to any of the three blurbs but I personally think Klose's record is all that needs to be mentioned here. There have been many equally or greater lopsided results in WC history. Yes the 7-1 demolition of Brazil is getting lots of press now, but Klose's record will remain in the books for many years to come and be a subject of conversation for a much longer period of time. Thus my preference is for the original blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the scoreline, this was Brazil's heaviest defeat ever and this will remain in the books for an even longer time than Klose's record. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the a record defeat for the world cup (a semi final maybe but that's a very narrow record category). Brasil is just one team. Miroslav Klose's record is for all players.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil is not just a team and Klose's record is only tournament-specific, while the national team's records in this match are not necessarily about the World Cup. He only scored 16 goals so far and even La Liga and Premier League goalscoring records can be more significant than this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support combo (altblurb2) Breaking a single record isn't noteworthy, but taken all together, this match and the many record-breaking instances will be what the 2014 World Cup will be remembered for for decades, much more than who might win the finale. – sgeurekat•c11:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was an important record. And it is not a local record as well. It is a world wide record and seems unbreakable. This must go in the news. JimCarter12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb now — Keep it simple. Klose's record will be old news by Sunday. And for a 36-year-old, it's a fine career achievement. Pic. avail. Sca (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tally I see something of a 16-3, with the 16 being split among what to put in the blurb. Can some admin put a blurb up and then alter it depending on addiitonal comments? Nergaal (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the harm in waiting a few hours more, it's not been 24 hours since the match and clearly there is still discussion and opinions surfacing. It's not a race :) CaptRik (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose any of the current blurbs, but would support one that notes the number of records GER broke on the match (of which would include the individual record) (eg a variant of alt2). The social media "noise" for the match itself is much much louder than the individual record at this point, being the highest-talked about match on twitter and other services due to how many records were broken. Note that if this is the case, the blurb should mention this as the semi-final match since the cup isn't over yet. Should GER win the entire this, I would then include the individual record as well at that time. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would set a unfavorable precedent to start posting blurbs about sports games that are not the championship games. One could argue that there are already too many sports items listed in the ITN as it is. --Tocino14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would say the match itself is significant enough to warrant posting, as it has been described by a number of sources as the most shocking World Cup result ever; it is also the most tweeted sports game of all time. As long as the article is in good shape I would support posting it. It has ramifications in sport as well as in politics. A number of articles on prominent newspapers have commented on the 'aftermath' of the game and its implications and not necessarily the game itself. I am opposed to posting Klose or any other such records from any sport. Additionally, "FIFA World Cup" is already in the 'ongoing ticker' so adding either story may well be redundant. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The World Cup has been "ongoing" for a month now, we're about to get the ITN/R posting of the champion, enough is enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, everybody in the world who follows the Cup is already aware of this, and that's one or two billion people. Second, the ongoing tag is plenty for people who are looking to be updated. Abductive (reasoning) 17:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we should really keep our World Cup blurbs limited to the result of the final unless it is something really, really extraordinary (Like Brazil losing an elimination match at home by a six-g—oh, wait. Never mind; they've been humiliated enough already). Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate 4, mentioning the match only, possibly alongside the fact it's their first home defeat since 1975. The Klose record, and all the others it set are almost footnotes to what the manner and magnitude of this defeat really signified to Brazilian society and world football, in the opinion of experts such as Tim Vickery - the complete and total shaming of an entire nation, whose sense of pride and very national identity is indivisible from the reputation and performance of its football team. It's not hyperbole to describe this as the shock of the century as far as world football goes. For those who perhaps don't get football (soccer), the impact of this result would be comparable to the USA losing by all-time record scores to the next best countries in Ice Hockey, American Football and Baseball, all in the same year, and all at world championships being held on US soil. The Wikpedia article on the match just doesn't even come close to doing it justice. The result of the final will be meaningless by comparison, even if it's an amazing game. MarkBM (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At the end of the tournament we should say: 'X won the FIFA World Cup at the end of a tournament in which.....' The Klose record will be worth mentioning, but certainly not individual results which are simply not very important (unless you're in Brazil). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not important? BBC Sport have turned out no less than 12 stories on this shock result, and I doubt they get much readers from Brazil. Just one of them is the Klose record, not making it any higher than 5th on the page. The final will get perhaps half that level of coverage, even less if nothing exciting happens in the game. The only way the final will get massive coverage, is if Argentina are in it and they win by a large margin through a brilliant footballing performance, and obviously that will only be in large part because it will merely heap even more humiliation on the hosts, given the huge rivalry with their neighbours. MarkBM (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Posted - There is consensus support for Klose's record. Whether to post the match or not is less clear, so I am including it in the blurb, but not bolding it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mistake. You really need to read the coverage to see how that just doesn't reflect the nature of this news - the Klose record is getting far less coverage than it would usually merit, and "a match in which several records were set." takes away all the actual significance of the result, which is every bit cultural and emotional, than just merely statistical. MarkBM (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the players involved in the 1950 game. According to experts who know a bit about South American football (as opposed to internet trolls like yourself, who don't), the shame of that defeat stayed with them for the rest of their lives - they were effectively shunned by society, and even though they're in their old age now, some even still feared for their physical safety. Which kind of puts this result into perspective, given what reports like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28223461 are saying. MarkBM (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trolling. It's not big and it's not clever. Either say something that shows you understand what the significance of this particular match was (and then perhaps give a rational argument as to why it's not important enough to be called front page news on Wikipedia), or say nothing at all. MarkBM (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB is blaming the extremely poor way this has been presented on the news page, on everybody here who referenced the record - apparently this is the consensus, and reality on the ground means nothing. So, as a last ditch attempt to get this fixed, I am going to appeal to you all - if you genuinely believe the Klose record is the story here, and the match was so relatively unimportant it isn't even necessary to mention the teams or the score, let alone anything else that would give the non-expert some idea why the footballing world has gone crazy over this game, can you please present here the name of a newspaper, or a TV bulletin, or a link to an internet portal, where the Klose record was the lead element. It cannot be the case that something so obviously wrong like this, can just be ignored. On my own TV coverage, which has just started to cover the 2nd semi, they still haven't even mentioned Klose, and we're 15 mins in now - and clearly it's not going to be mentioned, they've already moved on from talking about the Brazil shock, to tonight's game. MarkBM (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't assign "blame", I assessed the consensus and acted on it. Since I don't see the consensus as wrong, I certainly am not "blaming" anyone. What we really have is one very vocal person (you) disagreeing with the consensus. You are certainly welcome to disagree, and also free to try to change consensus, but as it stands now that is the consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clue what you mean when you say consensus, not in this context. Can you please explain, in simple English words, how it makes sense to present this news, in this way? You bet I'm disagreeing with it, and vocally, because as it stands, it's just a monumentally stupid error. It's beyond belief that anyone could think that Klose's record is the story here. If you don't see this as wrong, then surely you can explain to me why my view is wrong? Surely you have some way of demonstrating to me that it makes any sense, any sense at all, to be presenting the Klose record as the single most important element of this news, so as to not even mention the names of the teams? I mean seriously, have you even read a newspaper, or looked at the TV or online news, before doing whatever it is you did to come up with this decision. It's incomprehensible to me. MarkBM (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, don't bother. In anticipation of a non-reply type reply (or even better, just being completely ignored), I'm off. I'm hugely angry that I've missed the first 15 mins of the other game, on something so ludicrous as trying to persuade people here that Klose is not the lead in this story. It's just beyond obvious. Whatever it is you're smoking to believe it is, despite that view being in complete and total contradiction to the output of the entire world's news media (including Germany, for crying out loud), for your own sakes, lower the dosage. Crazy, just crazy. MarkBM (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who cases so much about the game that you chose to spend those 15 minutes arguing with strangers on the internet rather than watching it. You may have some good points, but I'm finding them hard to pick out of the walls of text and the personal attacks. Please especially refrain from insults about people's intake of medication; it's really unconstructive.
Thaddeus et al, please reconsider - I think mentioning the competing teams and the scoreline in the blurb would be better if it could be managed. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'll chose to bother. Consensus means weighing all the arguments made and making a decision that best represents all points of view going with the stronger arguments when there is irreconcilable disagreement. See WP:Consensus for more information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From where I'm sitting, consensus means sticking your fingers in your ears, and ignoring reality. There is no argument that can be made that the only news here is the Klose record, never mind a strong one, so whatever it is you think you've read from all of the above, it's a fantasy. An example of a strong argument is 'I've read a newspaper/seen a TV/read an online news outlet'. An example of a weak argument is don't post the result, because "we'd be setting the bar too low for future nominations" - and this was the first argument I even found that was explicitly against posting the match result. By the time I reached that, two or three people had pointed out the obvious, that the Klose record was the minor story here. So, from here, it sounds like your idea of consensus is to pick the stupidest argument offered (don't post this most humiliating/shocking/embarrassing/unexpected result in history, because they happen all the time). MarkBM (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just say it would be preferable to say "in the semi-final of the World Cup" or similar, rather than the currently nebulous "in a match in which several records were broken". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with RM — the phrase "a match" seems needlessly (and oddly) vague; suggest making it at least "a semifinal match" or perhaps "a semifinal match July 8." Sca (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added "semifinal". Several people said they desired the record-setting aspect of the match to be mentioned, so that is why I included that. I know it is slightly wordy, but I'm not sure it is 100% accurate to say "record-breaking victory" or similar as the win itself was not a record. It works informally, of course, but I'm also not sure the informal usage captures that several records were set - it might be seen a reference back to Klose's record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd have a better chance at creating something that makes sense, if you bothered to actually read a newspaper? Only in your mind are they talking about "a semifinal match in which several records were set." at all, let alone as some kind of footnote to the major news, Klose's record. Everybody else can see that they are reporting about a shock result, in which Germany comprehensively beat Brazil 7-1, inflicting their first home defeat since 1975, in what is being widely reported as a shameful humiliation, a landmark point in their history and a touchstone event in world football (which as someone correctly pointed out, sees records of all kinds being broken all the time). The reality is, if you bothered to open your eyes, Klose's record isn't even the second, or even the third most significant thing about this result. Whatever process you think you used to make it the main point of the story, in reality you basically made it up MarkBM (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, if the final is as uneventful (nee, boring?) as the 2nd semi-final just was, does anyone here seriously believe that outlets like the BBC are going to be churning out TWELVE separate stories on it? Is there going to be anything in that reportage that remotely refers to things like national humiliation or historical landmarks? Whatever logic is being used to argue that the news of this shock result could wait for the final, or that somehow the Klose record is the main part of it (despite it being just one of those twelve stories), it isn't grounded in reality at all. Not one bit. MarkBM (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And lo, the soccer record went up. Just like the coach from ManU (Alex something?), someone showed up out of no where to angrily berate everyone who opposed the nom, and in this case, even to berate the poster for not posting enough of it. This is why soccer news should be ITN/R. It's always posted, after upsetting a lot of people. Interestingly, neither the German, Spanish, French or Portuguese Wikis posted this story to their main page ITN sections. Only the EN (and NL) wiki decided after 24 hours of raging debate to post breaking a soccer record. This, for the "most popular sport in the world". It's really time to re-evaluate this absurd argument, and the depraved devotion to otherwise insignificant bits of sports trivia, over hyped due to soccers popularity, when most of the other large wikis can't be bothered to do it. --166.205.66.146 (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd, but inevitable. Either stop with the soccer records, or ITN/R it. Btw, this factoid got lost in an edit conflict: of the 9 wikis with 1000000+ articles (EN,DE,FR,NL,IT,ES,RU,SV,PL) only 3 (EN, NL and RU) posted this to the main page. Even the language of the host nation, PT, didn't bother.. I wonder if that is a blurb worthy soccer record. --166.205.68.17 (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This news isn't about a record, it's about the massive cultural/historical impact this shocking and humiliating defeat has had on Brazil and the wider footballing world. Sure, some people here seem determined to pretend this isn't the case, that it's really just about some dumb-ass scoring record, but it really isn't. So you're not a football fan? Well, if there's ever been a similar event in whatever minority sport it is that you love, feel free to share it, so I might ponder if it would be posted. The idiot above who said "It's just a game" is apparently a cycling fan - which makes me wonder if he had a similarly glib response to the news that Armstrong had finally admitted to doping. That would have made Wikipedia's news room, surely? MarkBM (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of curiosity, why has Nergaal been singled out as "disruptive" when explaining why some comments were hidden? After reading the hidden comments, that seems to me to be a slightly non-neutral assessment. - Tenebris 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggest revising the blurb: I certainly do not endorse the language that user MarkBM uses to advance his points but there are some things that we ought to consider - there are many, many newspaper articles from all over the world written about the loss and its multitude of effects on Brazil. Very little news coverage has been about the Klose record. There is no comparison here. As such the current blurb, which seems to have been revised to dilute the match's historical importance in favour of Klose's record, seems awfully unbalanced and amateur, unbecoming of the front page of one of the world's most visited websites. Colipon+(Talk) 20:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question to consider. I think there is something here that needs to be considered. If Klose had broken the record in a more ordinary match, would the record be posted? I think it would have been, in the same way we had a blurb six months ago for Ole Einar Bjørndalen. If Klose had not broken the record in this match, do you think the match would have been posted simply because of its result? I do not think it would have been, even though it seems like the more important story. I cannot recall a sports post at ITN ever being made just because its outcome was surprising. The other records that were broken in the match were not notable in themselves: it was the general nature of the victory that made them notable. Ultimately, it is easy to write about an obvious record like Klose's, but harder to analyse a match in such a way. For example, if it had been the final match, I am sure it would have been posted because Germany won the tournament, not because she won it so amazingly. As much as I sympathise with MarkBM and agree that the result is of more interest, I am not sure it means that the result should be posted. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post, The Rambling Man? I was actually agreeing with what has been posted and what has not been posted. I was trying to close the discussion by focusing on MarkBM's concerns. As I wrote above, I sympathise with him, but I disagree with what he is requesting. I hope you have just misunderstood this, because I have come to respect your viiews very much over time. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Death toll is not significant yet, but this was clearly expected and the situation is still developing. I believe I have a green light to nominate this per the previous unsuccessful nomination relating to the Israeli teens' murder. The article, however, clearly has disturbing neutrality issues. This usually happens in newly-created articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Will try to address the problem tomorrow morning if no one gets there first. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yet another Israeli offensive. Nothing new here. My recent favourite moment of Mid-East hate-each-other news was a reporter saying "Israeli forces used tear gas to calm the riots". That always works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when neutralized. This is a significant escalation of the kidnapping+murder situation, not typical Israel-Palestine hostilities. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to the neutrality issues being addressed. An armed attack by one country on another certainly warrants inclusion on ITN. Neljack (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The operation was not in response to the killing of the teenagers, but rather was in response to an increase in Hamas rocket fire. I support the inclusion of this article in the In The News, but the blurb should be more accurately worded. --PiMaster3talk12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request. There are multiple error comments about this ITN item. Can those who supported it, or with a good handle on the topic, go to Main Page Errors and help clarify, correct, or edit? Rhodesisland (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
btw- if were posting the Israeli teens then lets post that Palestinian that died too...its all part of the cucle leading up to this. and it wont take more words on here than a fewLihaas (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The significance of this event also lies in that it challenges previously widely held beliefs about how light a bird has to be in order to be able to fly (see sources in the article for more on this). --Jinkinsontalk to me03:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decent article start, interesting scientific discovery (more about the flight aspect), and to note this is information reported in a peer-reviewed journal. Note to nom that this is a prime DYK if the ITN candidate doesn't work. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well that date needs to change...its far from resolved. Although if its not updated then it should be removed from ITNLihaas (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: From the Guardian: Alfredo Di Stéfano, probably the greatest player in Real Madrid’s history, has died at the age of 88. Winner of 5 straight European Cups. --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for full blurb: This man was widely regarded as one of the best players of all times, and was often described as the most "complete" footballer the sport has ever seen. By some, he was the best. He was the leading figure in the golden ages of the Real Madrid, where he won five straight European Cups. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Real Madrid Section How many Real Madrid nominations have we had in the last 12 months? Looks like we need to add Real Madrid to RD and Ongoing. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several references and reduced some of the unnecessarily large, unreferenced sections. I propose the orange tag be removed so the article can be posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support if confirmed — A great story, obviously, but from the BBC report it seems unconfirmed as yet. ("... the insecurity is so rife ... and the access so poor that it is not yet clear exactly how many of the young women managed to escape from Boko Haram.") [3]Sca (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. From the BBC: They were among 68 abducted last month near the town of Damboa in north-eastern Borno state. ... Boko Haram is still holding more than 200 schoolgirls abducted in April. It seems these are two different stories. --Tone15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone and Sca: it seems the media is messing with everybody by bringing the Chibok incident into an unrelated escape. Can I suggest Altblurb to clear it up? I'm sure lots of people will be turning to Wikipedia to find the truth. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These attacks are made by organised militant groups as part of a campaign against something. US shooters are usually mentally unstable. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Re Altblurb, suggest "...Haram, in a separate incident from (not to) the Chibok schoolgirl kidnapping, escape in Borno State, Nigeria." Agree the distinction from Chibok should be made. Sca (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
News to me. Examples of 2.2 [with object] Distinguish between at online Oxford English Dictionary [4] are all separate from. But of course I'm willing to learn. Sca (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're also apparently willing to teach, even when no-one asked you to, and doing so is a distraction from discussing a serious news story. Please consider not doing that. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wait there were also an initial round of escapes and a majority are still probably lost forever if they crossed into Cameroon or whereeveritwas rumoured.Lihaas (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support for RD once the article is ready, as per TRM. Shevardnaze was a key figure in the late USSR and early independent Georgia. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very important figure in late 20th century international affairs - perhaps even more so as Soviet Foreign Minister than as President of Georgia. My only doubt is whether this should be a blurb, but it is a high bar so I guess RD is fair enough. Article will certainly need work on referencing. Neljack (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — A pivotal personality during the late-'80s changes that led to the demise of Soviet-style Communism, the unification of Germany and the end of the Cold War. (A full blurb would be okay with me; younger readers may not recognize the name.) PS: He's on German, French and Spanish RDs. Sca (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the section on his presidency, presumably the most important part of his life, is almost completely unreferenced. That will need fixed before it can be posted. A few other sections also lack proper referencing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree about the need for referencing, I tend to think his time as Soviet Foreign Minister was the most important part of his career. It is also sorely lacking in citations. Neljack (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The Soviet Union's Foreign Minister at a very significant period and President of Georgia during a civil war, economic crisis. The Rose Revolution which toppled him was also a major event in Georgia's and the former Soviet Union's history. For these reasons, I support a blurb. --Երևանցիtalk18:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassment we've already had it assumed that an update is entirely unnecessary for an RD posting. Why not just comment out the orange sections and post this? That we're not posting probably the third most important man in the fall of the Soviet Union is about as obvious sign of disease as a syphilis chancre on the tip of WP's nose. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the "orange sections" constitute basically his entire career, no we can't just comment them out. And no, it has never been assumed that an update is unnecessary for RD. As has been proven in recent nominations, no amount of support is going to get a subpar article posted. If people don't like that, they need to start an RfC to change the guidelines. Complaining about the rules here is a waste of time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Have to agree its clearly been assumed/ A whole bunch of arbitrary definitions change per posting to determine update requirements. Lets get something concrete in talk (though I doubt itll be enforced as some admins (not you) will go about posting willy nilly.Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update requirements are arbitrarily enforced. Im not talking about tafs (though in the past if the SECTION is done weve posted it)Lihaas (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat Lector are we to assume then, that he read can comprehend the rest of the article. but can't fathom the significance of the orange tags (if not, they're useless, aren't they) or of the CN tags? The article should be posted with the tags, and readers might then even help address them. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus based ITN guidelines call for high-quality articles, with orange-tagged articles specifically disallowed. If you think they should be changed to be based on notability only, then you need to start an RfC to get them changed. As it is, this article does not meet our consensus-based standards (no matter how often people say we should ignore them in specific nominations, the standards remain in effect until they are changed via a new consensus-based decision.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely notable enough, but the article really needs some TLC for his career as President of Georgia as well as his legacy. --Challenger l (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is clearly the section on his presidency in Georgia, which is understandable given that Georgia is a country written about in English far less than other countries and given the instability there and its conflicts with Russia; many people have strong and highly biased opinions on events there. For example there's an unsourced claim that the Russian military carried out an assassination attempt on his life. I'd recommend completely rewriting those sections using the numerous obituaries from reliable sources as a guide of what to include. I made a slight start but I won't be able to do any more work for a few hours.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the only problem - the section on his time as Soviet Foreign Minister has no references except for one on him being baptised. Neljack (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The window to post most definitely has not past. As long as it is newer than the oldest item on the template, it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are figures who deserve to posted regardless of article quality concerns and Shevardnadze is one of them. Shevardnadze was the number two or three most important figure in the Soviet Union's twilight years, and without a doubt the most influential Georgian since the days of Stalin and Beria. --Tocino14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references, streamlined some sections, removed unreferenced material. I believe the tags may be removed and the article posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to over 25 rockets fired from Gaza into Israel on Sunday, the IAF carries out airstrikes killing six Hamas militants. Over 150 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israeli civilian areas over the past three weeks. (Jerusalem Post)
Nominator's comments: I created the article but it needs work. This is a notable attack which has gained quite a bit of coverage. Andise1 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the frequency would be indicative of a suitable candidate for our Ongoing section.... if there was an appropriate timeline-style article describing the events in Kenya that is... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The instability of the situation in Kenya seems to me all the more reason why this is significant and worth featuring. I don't think this is "Ongoing" territory yet. Neljack (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes we posted Kenya recently, but that also happens to be the only other notable incident there this year. At this point, it is not an ongoing situation but rather two separate (possible related) incidents. The death toll is significant, as is the fact it may be a sign of future escalation. Article is now updated and ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
No consensus for an ongoing blurb, and the ranking of sporting events based on their viewership isn't going to be resolved here. Stephen00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Tour is ITNR so it will be posted after the last stage; this came up earlier with the World Cup and another event(which I can't recall right now) but I don't think the ongoing line was intended to post sports events in progress.(The World Cup was posted without any discussion AFAIK) A larger discussion about that issue should probably be done if we are to do it. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need me to answer that question- My point is that it is a slippery slope. The Ongoing line isn't meant to link to updates on sporting events and the more that are let in the harder it is to say no to the next one. The winner will be posted; that should be enough. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An ongoing entry takes up relatively little space on the main page. We can do that for the third-most watched event in the world for a few weeks. Thue (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This would have never been a sticky in past years; Ongoing is not supposed to be an "easier sticky" but rather a chance for items that rotate off too quickly to get a little more coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The World Cup shouldn't even be in ongoing. People who are interested enough in certain sports to want regular updates can get them from other sources. Post the winners. 9kat (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The inclusion of the World Cup under "Ongoing" is entirely appropriate and in accordance with precedent - there was a sticky for the last World Cup. But I would be reluctant to go beyond the World Cup and the Olympics, which are - by a long way - the two biggest sporting events in the world. After that, it becomes much more difficult to draw lines. If we have the Tour de France should we have the Rugby World Cup, the Cricket World Cup, the ICC World T20, the Basketball World Championships, the Athletics World Championships, the Commonwealth Games, tennis grand slam tournaments, the World Series, the NCAA basketball and American football tournaments, etc? I think we cover sport quite sufficiently already. Neljack (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that has been already well made and explained clearly above is that the Tour is the third-most watched sports event worldwide after the World Cup and the Olympics. It clearly supersedes all of the examples you have given in viewership. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is that the criteria for sports events to be listed in Ongoing; the top three most viewed sports worldwide? 331dot (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But my point is that there is a much bigger gap between the top two and the Tour than between the Tour and numbers four, five, etc. Why should we stop at top 3 instead of top 4, 5, 10 or whatever? Much better to just stop at the two that are, by a long way, the biggest. Neljack (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're basing it on page view stats as a proxy for interest amongst Wikipedia readers, the page view stats are too low to merit a mention. To compare, the FIFA World Cup has 20x, am the Winter and Summer Olympics 10x as much views. –HTD11:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling bullsh!t on this claim that the TDF is the 'third most viewed sporting event' or whatever. I read the source that claimed it and there may be some statistic that dubiously backs up the claim. However the source above doesn't say how the TDF is the 'third most watched' event. I can cite many reliable sources that claim a billion people watch the super bowl and a lot of other statistical nonsense about sporting viewership figures. Is this statistic based on a global tv audience? Are these ppl watching it at the same time? Are they live spectators? This claim is about as genuine as Lance Armstrong's 7 TDF titles.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that the Boat Race's 200 million viewers is now/just/who knows its rank 4th? Interesting! –HTD15:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see how much greater it is compared to the Olympics and the World Cup and seriously, compared to those I mentioned just, do you think every country gives a damn about men doing a road trip through French countryside for 3 weeks.
Quoting a claim every cyclists like to make "the third most watched sports event after the..." - then I'll put this to facts, in the UK, the first 3 stages were screened on ITV1, its main channel, for obvious reasons, the rest of it is shown on ITV4, which is some less than mainstream channel and look at the list of broadcasters on its official site, are they covered as much as the Superbowl and the World Series outside their home countries, yes definitely becuase its not like every country gives a damn about it even when the opportunities are presented to them; are they covered as much as the World Cup and the Olympics, absolutely not. Donnie Park (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks the larger scale appeal that World Cup/Olympics draw. We'll certainly post the winner, but I can't see the need to have ongoing. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I thought this might be a big enough change in territorial control to go from a sticky to a blurb. The Sloviansk article suffers from recent edit warring though, and an OR tag that probably refers to something in the infobox that was subsequently fixed. --Narayanese (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment The Ongoing would then be interim replaced by the blurb to then go back to ongoing when done, I would think.
Also we would need a stable version to post in bold (we can make it non0-bold). Perhaps full lock that page till consensus is made?Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Blurbs are somewhat wordy, I know, but I am open to suggested improvements/totally new ones/whatever. As for the event, it seems to be arguably even more significant than the 3 Israeli teens, because some have suggested this was done by Israel getting revenge for their teens getting killed. --Jinkinsontalk to me15:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support. From what I understand this is for putting the article in the template of "In the news" on main page. Of course as the one who started this article I'd support it. --Midrashah (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pure sensationalism. If the conflict between Israel and Palestine actually escalates beyond crowd control, we might be interested in posting at ITN. Otherwise it's another day at the Middle East office I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think "every day" is a bit of a stretch given that just 43 attacks were launched by Palestine on Israel in 2013. Given that the year has more than 43 days in it this doesn't seem to jibe with your comment above, TRM. But it is true that these attacks are far from unprecedented, especially between these two countries. Jinkinsontalk to me21:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the murder could have taken by arabs as no one was cought yet everything is open. every day missles are fired and nothing real major happen in the field. if this get published than what next, every murder in every country get shown here. every week i see this rock thowring news. – HonorTheKing (talk)01:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HTK unless there is some major development arising from this incident(such as open warfare or mass protests). 331dot (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seriously discussing this?, they don't need a reason to fight, they will fight if someone even farts in their direction...--Stemoc (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC
This can be discussed and possible taggd on to the current blurb. Plus if we don't "vote ocunt" than the above immediately has no reason either.Lihaas (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment - I do not believe we have posted the anniversary of anything ever (please correct me if mistaken) - that is what OTD is for. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I understand the nom, but ITN is not for anniversaries, even there is a current match being played to celebrate it. Lee's beamer could have killed Warnie though, that would have been ITN worthy. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lugs, I like it, you like it, he/she/it likes it. We like, you lot don't like it, they really don't like it. Done deal I'm afraid. Not even going to make OTD either, but I do applaud one of our US brethren for attempting to compare Lords with a baseball park. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the final day of meetings of the Catholic Council of Cardinals, the group sets sights on the Pontifical Councils for the laity and the family, mentioning the potential inclusion of laity in those councils' tasks. This round of meetings, held July 1-4, was the fifth meeting of the council of cardinals. The next three sessions will take place Sep. 15-17, Dec. 9-11, and Feb. 9-11. (Catholic News Agency)
Disasters and accidents
An 11-story building under construction collapses in the Indian city of Chennai, crushing to death 61 people, most of them workers on site. (CNN)(BBC News)
A Kindergarten teacher is stabbed and killed in front of students at the Edouard Herriot school in Albi in southern France. The suspect was the mother of a new student who suffered from psychiatric problems. (New York Post)
A 20-year-old man is arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder in connection with a June 28 shooting that occurred at Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S., which killed one person and wounded eight others. (Yahoo! News)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Not seeing the significance yet; it is something that can turn larger but this seems to be an initial charge and not a final determination. (Also, not sure if either article target is the best target for this.) --MASEM (t) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not seeing the significance of this; nor do I see the connection to Snowden. Would feel better if there was an article (or even just a better existing article) for this, as well as evidence of wider news coverage. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: (Copied from below, sorry for not putting this here at first) According to the NY Times, his "support for right-wing causes laid the foundations for America’s modern conservative movement and fueled the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton." Also, "Mr. Scaife and Joseph Coors, the beer magnate, were the leading financiers of the conservative crusade of the 1970s and ’80s." [9] --Jinkinsontalk to me13:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on a more serious note, criterion 2 says that he should have been "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." According to no less than the New York Times, Scaife's "support for right-wing causes laid the foundations for America’s modern conservative movement and fueled the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton." Also according to the Times, "Mr. Scaife and Joseph Coors, the beer magnate, were the leading financiers of the conservative crusade of the 1970s and ’80s." [10]So yeah, Sca is basically right. Nvm, this was supposed to be sarcastic, he isn't just famous for being rich, but for what he did with the money, that's not what I meant. Jinkinsontalk to me13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that him having a lot of money was your reasoning. I've never heard of the person in question, and it's usually a good idea to list RD nominations with some reasoning. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (And SNOWclose if down to me). Doesn't meet any RD criteria. There isn't even a citation from a reliable news source with the nomination, for crying out loud. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No claim of sufficient notability. Not obviously at the top of his field - even the field of being old, white and rich. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Significant, sure, but doesn't meet the bar of notability required for RD. Old rich white cranks are a dime a dozen. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given this was archived in less than 12 hours, I'll comment that withot him Reagan would probably not have been elected, and that he would probably have been embarrassed by an RD listing. 00:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
[Closed] HMS Queen Elizabeth naming ceremony
No consensus for the naming, but there's at least five supports to be carried over to the launch nomination... Stephen23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: New aircraft carriers are hardly frequent events. It's not due to enter service for a few more years but this seems a significant-enough milestone to mark now. The ceremony is in progress at the moment, and the article will need to be update once the ceremony has taken place. Whisky has been smashed, some updating has taken place, but a bit more may be needed, I don't know. --BencherliteTalk10:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No indication of significance outside the cluster of islands off the north coast of France. Claim that this is "the largest warship ever built for the Royal Navy" is clearly a matter of "big fish, little pond" when you compare the HMS Queen Elizabeth's 65,000 tonnes to the USS Gerald R. Ford's (launched last November) 100,000 tones. --Allen3talk11:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. Perhaps a reminder of the message above is in order: "Please do not... complain about an event only relating to a single country". In addition to the newslink from South Africa, here's the story being covered in Japan and India. BencherliteTalk12:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yours' isn't as big as his Bencherlite, so yours' doesn't count for anything and you need to get over that. After all, the Royal Navy is a mere speck in the history of world military compared to the mighty overseers of the universe, don't you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not because of the location/significance outside the UK, or the size compared to the Ford or others, but because I wouldn't consider the naming ceremony to be significant enough for ITN, but would the launching. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The UK's navy is still one of the five biggest in the world, with a glorious history. Having a modern aircraft carrier in your navy is a huge deal for power projection ability. And side from the US's hugely disproportionate carrier fleet, this will be the biggest aircraft carrier in the world. Thue (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Rather sad to learn that a perfectly good bottle of Bowmore scotch was sacrificed for this media event. Sca (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect bi-directional systemic bias is at work here. The US editors look at this and say "puny vessel, what's the purpose of it? Carrying doughnuts?" while the non-US and non-UK editors say "big deal, a massive boat gets a name". However, it's notable than most of the opposition would be satisfied to support once she launches, so we'll take note and pause for a while. See you soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TRM only one editor made the former argument of the 'bi-directional' systemic bias, so a generalization is unnecessary. I'm not sure I care whether the launch or the naming is posted--is there any doubt it will be launched?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)