Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles Stewart (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 9 February 2008 (→‎February 9). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

To prevent vandalism on the Main Page, Template:In the news is protected. If you are not an Administrator and have a submission to make to that template, then please list it below.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page will not be put into the live template.

Current template and archive

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in 2023
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian

view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only)

Archives: February-March 2005 • April 2005 • May 2005 • June 2005 • July 2005 • August 2005 • September 2005 • October 2005 • November 2005 • December 2005 • January 2006 • February 2006 • March 2006 • April 2006 • May 2006 • June 2006 • July 2006 • August 2006 • September 2006 • October 2006 • November 2006 • December 2006 • January 2007 • February 2007 • March 2007 • April 2007 • May 2007 • June 2007 • July 2007 • August 2007 • September 2007 • October 2007 • November 2007• December 2007• January 2008


Suggested additions

  • Check the criteria at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page before making your suggestion.
  • Place new suggestions at the top under the appropriate date heading (create a new date header if necessary).
  • Remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There must be an existing encyclopedic article on Wikipedia regarding the subject.
  • Do not link to external news sites here. If the article has been appropriately updated it should speak for itself (Instead, consider adding those to the subject's article as references to improve the article).
  • Please use the following format for the candidate item:

Start the entry with a dot point/bullet (type an asterisk)

Add any additional comments you may have below --and sign & date your entry 12:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The next editor has something to say about the suggestion. --They've also signed their comment 12:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Another person has continued the discussion --User's Name 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And so on. When continuing the discussion please refrain from using dot points/bullets to allow the candidates to stand out from the discussion. Indent your comments for clarity.

February 9

  • Is this ITN material? Too tired to think of a hook right now, someone take over. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a Wikipedia article for it? ITN is not a news ticker. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've got Camden Market, which has been updated. AecisBrievenbus 23:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacks international significance. If Downtown Crossing and Quincy Market it would never make ITN. Charles Stewart (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

This was a pretty big news here, affecting 3 countries in the surroundings. The oil spill in Korea was in the ITN, luckily there was no catastrophe here but it came close to that. I think it fits the criteria. --Tone 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On first glance, I think this is a case of something that could have been itn worthy, but was avoided and isn't. However, I think that with the large problems that come with an oil spill, averting one is big news. They avoided a disaster. Support. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my support too (as the main editor) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what tenses and whatnot ITN posts are supposed to be written in, but the blurb feels a little off. I think "The fire" should at least be changed to "A fire", and the "is under control" be changed to something else, but I'm not sure what. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change "is under control" to "is brought under control," and add that it is a Turkish freighter. SpencerT♦C 20:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I know this opposition comes after the fact, but this seems highly non-notable - nothing happened. Obviously a different matter is there was an oil spill. One might as well report President Bush was also not assassinated today, a meteorite likewise did not wipe out a city, nor was there a terrorist attack in New York. It just seems to me that this doesn't even come remotely close to the high bar of notability we set for news items simply because nothing happened besides a fire on a ship near a coastline. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that it seems that this is a case of undue weight: "Look we're reporting on something that doesn't just affect the US or Commonwealth!" Madcoverboy (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkwood City Hall
Kirkwood City Hall
Among the killed are elected council members, police officers and a press reporter. --Camptown (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but rephrase as "A gunman in Kirkwood, Missouri kills five and wounds two people at city hall (pictured) before being shot and killed by police." Charles Stewart (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's much better. --Camptown (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable event that killed council members and police officers, and injured the mayor of Kirkwood, in addition to a press reporter. Hello32020 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was a shooting in southern Chicago over the weekend that left 5 people dead, that wasn't ITNed. While tragic, it's not notable enough to boost. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. International interest might be a stretch. The deciding factor is if a mayor in serious condition and two council members and two police officers being killed because if we put up every 5+ death shooting in the US, there would be one up all the time. ---CWY2190TC 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, per above, this is not internationally significant enough to merit its a place on ITN although it can be at the Portal:Current Events depending on the condition of the mayor. And also there are already three US-related items on ITN at the moment. That would be too much US content if we add it there.--JForget 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point: there was a shooting at Louisiana Tech that left 3 dead. CNN Madcoverboy (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a article on that one? I'm on the fence about this one... Chances are if there was a school shooting that killed/injured as many it would go up, but a school shooting does have a bit more newsworthy feel to it, in my opinion. I'll support this, I guess. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that we have two (unrelated) "multiple-victim" shootings within a 24 hour period (3 if you count the Tinley Park shootings in Chicago). All are "notable" but neither are substantially newsworthy-enough to warrant ITN coverage. They're just "regular" or "routine" shootings/gun-violence deaths. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you put it that way, your right. Aside from the fact it took place in a government building, there isn't anything notable about this one.--Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Government officials, including the mayor, being shot also makes this event notable. Hello32020 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is a question of a shooting inside an elected assembly; that's very different from "ordinary" shooting suggested by the opponents of this nomination. The article is also substantially updated. It should be posted. Bondkaka (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- not covered extensively. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- clearly who got shot matters, whether people like it or not (e.g. if Bush or Gordon Brown had been shot we wouldn't even be debating this). But while the mayor and elected officials of a city are important, I don't think the mayor and officials of Kirkwood has anywhere near sufficient influence or effect on world affairs for this to qualify. If it were Michael Bloomberg or Ken Livingstone then perhaps, but Mike Swoboda who we don't even have an article for just doesn't cut it Nil Einne (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

No updates on ITN until the candidates are confirmed. Also, I would prefer adding it in one notice together, not one for each party when they have their final candidates (if they are chosen on different days). --Tone 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already put that breaking news on the Portal:Current events/2008 February 7 page with a link to the CNN article but it is not significant enough to put it on ITN. JForget 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, even though nearly 2/3 of English speakers are from America, political events here just aren't important enough as say, elections in Belize or Georgia (not the state) Charles Stewart (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a globally-focussed enyclopedia that happens to be expressed in the English language. It is not an American news service. The Tom (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 of native English speakers. (You might want to change the caption on your userpage.) Regardless, this item shouldn't go up. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An ignorant American? Why I never. 203.88.95.12 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutly not. ---CWY2190TC 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would confirmed be interpreted as presumptive as in all other (serious) competitors drop out, the candidate crosses the delegate threshold, all primaries are over, or waiting until the convention? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Mitt Romney pulls out of White House race, after spending more than $40 million of his money". One down one left (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How bout no? The Tom said it best. This is world news. This isn't English news. It isn't American, Canadian, or British. It's world. A candidate dropping out of the race in a country does not matter. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wait a minute, refusing to acknowledge that this encyclopedia is designed more for English speakers than, say, Swahili speakers is just as ridiculous. I don't think this should be an "American news service," but to give preference to Anglophone stories isn't out of the question. That doesn't change the POV of the encyclopedia, just what we choose to highlight in the encyclopedia. It's a minute difference, but an important difference, I think. Also, can we work on consensus for what constitutes "nomination?" Waiting until the conventions will be silly since its likely to have been decided (at least on one side) well before that. At the very least, when one candidate secures enough pledged delegates to get the nomination that should be when the blurb goes up. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it wasn't for English speakers, but if there was preference for English speakers, or, in what is being argued, Americans since there's alot of them is absurd. I'm not against an English bias when it comes to the news, but that's just it: It's English. Most of the things that come up here that are debated are American; news taht is big there was isn't elsewhere. In this case, this mioght be big news in America, but is it big in Canada? New Zealand? Australia? The UK? No, it isn't. I'm not even sure if the nominations are that important outside of America. They announce the nominees, but not the winner. If we did what you were asking, due to the large amount of Americans opposed to Australians or Britains, there would be alot more American things going up simply because "Most people who speak English live in America". The way I see it, there are five major English speaking countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If something isn't important in at least three of them, it shouldn;t go up. And the nominations are when the parties officially announce the nominations. We don't put up sports stories early if a team is winning by 5. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the five countries you just named are so different politically, culturally, and economically that it is almost impossible for a story to effect three of those five countries you named without it having something to do with the UK and/or the Commonwealth. So, the argument you're making about removing US bias is a little faulty. Second, here on ITN, elections have been treated as something of a sacred cow, so I don't think its outrageous for the most important, hotly-contested election in half a century in the most important military, dimplomatic, economic, political, and cultural force in the world to be given some extra (or even just rational) coverage on ITN. Waiting for the conventions to put a blurb up about the nominees would be missing this story by months in most cases. John McCain has the Republican nomination all but sewn up, so within a few weeks it should be announced that he's won the nomination because he will have mathematically clinched it, or all the other major candidates will have dropped out. Even on the Democratic side, the last primary or caucus is a full 3 months before their convention in Denver, so by then we will know either that one candidate has won the nomination, or there will be a brokered convention for the first time in several decades, either of which are news. The US Presidential elections are longer, more expensive, and frankly more important than those in any other country in the world, and for us to apply the same rules we do to those elections in Georgia, Serbia, Kenya, New Zealand, Bolivia, or anywhere else is absurd. It's not biased to recognise the objective fact of something's importance. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the sentiment of Grant's statement as much as it might sound like American exceptionalism. I would propose that once a candidate crosses the delegate threshold for his/her party (either by direct endorsement or by election), that it should appear in ITN rather than waiting for the convention. When the conventions happen, perhaps they might mention an ITN notice or now... Certainly any scandal at the convention in which the candidate with the most delegates does not become the nominee would be immensely newsworthy if only because it is so improbable and controversial. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between the countries means that something that effects the majority of them is really international news. Alot of things effect Canada and the US together, but they won't effect the UK. In reverse, something that effects Australia and New Zealand won't matter in Canada unless it's really important. But, anyway... The nominees is waht matters, and the winner is waht matters. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if America is so important, frankly, to put something from an election that only effects America - and don't tell me this doesn't, because no non-Americans were involved in this - is bias, plain and simple. I really can't put it any other way. By doing something like that for America, we have to do it for China, since it has the most people, or Asia, since it has over half the world's population. The only strictly Canadian thing I ahve ever seen on itn was about an election in Quebec, and taht was becuase something historic happened, and I think due to the overall difference between Quebec and the rest of North America makes that quite notable. Does anyone else in the world care that a man who apparently had no chance to win the nomination dropped out? No. Does it effect anyone? If McCain has it clinched like you say, then it only effects the people who voted for him. And, like it's been said countless upon countless of times when it comes to elections: We only say who wins when it is officially declared by the party or government. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, honestly, why are we even arguing about this? I don't think it's going to go up, anyway - I think if it would have it would have gone up already. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) It shouldn't have gone up before now because there was nothing to report before. My point by bringing up American exceptionalism was that if Canada, UK, Australia, or New Zealand had a similarly large economy, population, or military, their elections might warrant mention as well. They don't and other countries, for better or worse, look to the US for leadership, thus its leader, on issues because its actions inevitably affect them. So we can split hairs about whether American football matches or baseball games should be covered if football matches and cricket tourneys aren't, but to delay reporting of the outcome out of some overformalized notion of geopolitical equality is incredibly naive. Nevertheless, discussing the matter of how INT will cover the nomination matters because we're going to have to address this issue as the nomination will be mathematically determined within the next few weeks and will saturate global media. The conventions when the nominees are "selected" won't be until August or September, months after the final primaries/caucuses in May. Again, I emphasize that when a candidate has passed the mathematical threshold for the nomination, it should be mentioned here with subsequent mention of the conventions themselves. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here! Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Huckabee? Did he drop out already? Although this is one piece of national news, it's a pretty important country, in fact several nations may have already started studying these elections and how they'll go along with the new administration. --Howard the Duck 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think from you're arguments Plasma, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying that the US presidential election only effects Americans is one of the dumbest things I've heard on here in a long time. As to you're other point, I'm trying to develop a consensus ahead of time as to what constitutes someone "clinching" the nomination. I don't think it should wait until the conventions because it will have missed the relevence of the story by months most likely. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the election didn't effect only Americans, don't twist my words. The actual election, between the Democrat and the Republican matters a hell of a lot, but deciding the candidates, I don't think so. I said Romney dropping out is not notable, just as Edwards dropping out was - try to read the whole thing next time instead of seeing what you jsut want to see.
(unindent)"If McCain has it clinched like you say, then it only effects the people who voted for him. And, like it's been said countless upon countless of times when it comes to elections: We only say who wins when it is officially declared by the party or government. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC) " I'm not just seeing what I want to see. Acknowledging only the general election results is treating this like every other election in the world, which it clearly isn't. There is a consensus that the US Presidential election is more important than any other election. As a result, as I've said before, we should cover the nominations of both major parties as well as any significant third party announcements (i.e. Bloomburg, Gore, etc.). What I'm trying to build consensus on is when someone "clinches" the nomination. The consensus on this is that when someone either reaches the mathematical threshold with pledged delegates, or someone is the only remaining serious candidate, or someone is endorsed by another candidate giving them a mathematical victory, then we announce. The only other alternative is to do a blurb during the conventions, which will miss the story by several months in all likelihood. I don't care if we skip the conventions, as long as there is not an event of significance (i.e. brokered convention, scandal, etc.). That's all I'm saying, and I apologize if I came off rudely before. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by quoting me up there. I was just saying that, if McCain is almost guarenteed to be the Republican winner, then I don't think someone who apparently isn't going to win anyway dropping out is that big of news. I just felt like I needed to clarify that in case you missinterpreted it. I'm going to stop commenting on American politics till McCain gets the clincher - they give me a headache. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that as soon as the nomination is clinched (by either primary, sole candidacy, endorsement, etc.) it should be reported. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic about the party nominations, I think it'd be better served when McCain actually gets the clincher for it. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the reason why this won't be put up since this is GOP news. >:p --Howard the Duck 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here! Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, no one even bothered to suggest John Edward IIRC Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because when Edwards dropped out, there were still 2 contenders in the Democratic party. When Mitt left, McCain virtually clinched the nomination. --Howard the Duck 08:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to develop a consensus ahead of time, then the talk page is probably a better place to do it. You might be interested in these discussions ([1] and [2]) where people seemed to agree that the announcement of the nominees and the eventuall winner of the election would be put up, but nothing else. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm not saying more than that should go up, I'm trying to ask when we put it up, because that matters. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) I think each party's nominee could probably be announced once they pass the minimum number of delegates required to win, and the national convention becomes a mere formality. In that case, there would then be no need to mention the actual convention if it is just confirming what is already known. But in the case of the Democrats, isn't there a chance it will come down to the wire and be decided at the Democratic convention itself? Anyway, someone dropping out of the race shouldn't go up unless it means the frontrunner is as a result automatically past the minimum number of delegates to secure the nomination, if that makes sense. That's my 5 cents. - Mark 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 203.88.95.12 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that, but if we're going to know that the Democrats will have a brokered convention by the time the primaries are over (beginning of June), that is also big news because it hasn't happened in more than 50 years. In that case that deserves a mention and then another mention when the nominee is eventually decided. Treating this like any other race in any other country is ridiculous. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


STS-122 launch
STS-122 launch
Support. Was carrying a German, a Frenchman, and the new European laboratory. ---CWY2190TC 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I know I've been in that page mostly for the tornado outbreak, but I support this nomination for ITN since I have lots of occasions where space mission launches have been on ITN in the past.--JForget 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. Pictures should become available from NASA multimedia at some point today.Madcoverboy (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I was going to mention it. :( Anyway... perhaps a picture won't be needed. Glacier Wolf 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tornado outbreak should get the pic. ---CWY2190TC 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thue | talk 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, add the picture. --Camptown (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also added. Thue | talk 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

Idriss Déby Itno
Idriss Déby Itno
  • The Serbian President elect has been on the main page since last Sunday... Time for a change to the Chad item? (President Déby pictured) --Camptown (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree about a new picture to be placed, but the problem is that unless there is a new element related to the Chad situation, this is the oldest item (or less recent) on ITN at the moment and will be the next to be removed. The most likely candidate item that would have a picture on the ITN would be the tornado outbreak since there will likely be several possible pictures.--JForget 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dramatic, but poor quality (not surprising under the circumstances, of course) --Stephen 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently added in the article a picture of a home ripped off its foundation in Arkansas. The image is from the NWS Office in Little Rock during their survey.--JForget 13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If reduced to the Main Page's thumbnail size the photo would be indiscernible. --Howard the Duck 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay probably a photo with a wider shot would be needed for ITN then. The problem with that one is it the picture taken by the NWS team may have been too far to the left which means it didn't show the entire foundation of the home and it may have been too close to it. Although here some of the pictures with heavy damage may be more clear and discernible. Probably not the mall but the overhead shot of a business or the residential district may be good (unless someone found a NOAA picture from the Union University.--JForget 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the one on the right. The Clinton tornado was one of, if not the strongest tornado. ---CWY2190TC 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is also this overhead view on top of a warehouse/business in Memphis, possibly the one that killed three workers. But again maybe the Union University shot may be more dramatic, Unfortunetly it seems very difficult to have a perfect image of damage to be placed - either too far or too close. You can see the damage of the roof but for some it may be difficult to see--JForget 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45 dead now. Strong support. ---CWY2190TC 12:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support the above, I had stopped for 9 hours editing and during those hours the toll rose from 13 to 47 deaths. Although since I'm among those who started it, I will let another admin promote it on ITN if it merits to be there.--JForget 14:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number continues to rise and it is still ongoing (at least 45, report compilation suggests 52), so I give my strong support. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thue | talk 16:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please update to indicate 52 confirmed deaths. -RunningOnBrains 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tornadoes are tragic, but this is not notable international news.--WaltCip (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the winter storms in China were? ---CWY2190TC 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on the the 2008 Chinese winter storms page, it seems that those had alot more impact then these tornadoes. Even if the fatalities aren't that much higher, it seems like there is more damage. So, yes. I'd say the winter storms in China were more notable. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the only reason the African earthquake is on because it happened near a border and effected multiple countries? This was the deadliest tornado outbreak since 1985 in the US. I find it hard to believe that it is not notable. ---CWY2190TC 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the African earthquake. That shouldn't have went up, since it's a stub, regardless of what happened there. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt this is in the news and has our readers' interest, so I think we should add an item. Thue | talk 16:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed below, we are leaning towards waiting for the candidates to be confirmed. --Tone 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American and as someone who participated yesterday, this was very big. But, 3 of the top 4 stories being strictly American might cause some problems. ---CWY2190TC 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as a Canadian, and someone who read about the results with some interest, it wasn't major. It was of interest, sure, but was it important? Not really. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an American who was glued to the returns and staying up into the wee hours of the morning, I actually don't think this should be included. Maybe once the candidates are confirmed. Even I think including it now would be too US-centric to include now. --Siradia (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should go. Only the final election results should go up, not primary elections. SpencerT♦C 11:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

Yes, when the results come through. Even though a lot of people like harping on about US-centric or don't like the US, the same people will be glued to their sets with baited breath on every US political move. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow American politics, so will there be a winner coming out of Super Tuesday? If so, then I think it should go up. If all it does is produce a frontrunner or less, then there is no reason. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No person can clinch enough delegates for the nomination. Oppose. ---CWY2190TC 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would be hard pressed to find an admin willing to touch this with a bargepole until at least the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates are decided. --Stephen 03:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you know anything about Super Tuesday, you'll know that this day will almost certainly define who wins their parties' nomination for the presidency. Strong support. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do know about it. Which is why I'm saying nothing will be posted at least until the winners are announced. All elections are treated the same way - No result, no posting on ITN. We don't post that an election is happening. --Stephen 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's . . . not what we're suggesting. This is just to make sure we get the wording right, like with the Superbowl. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's . . . not what the suggested hook says --Stephen 08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't need a running commentary on the primaries. Lets just announce the candidates when they're officially selected. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that for sure, especially on the Democratic side. ---CWY2190TC 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have to support. This is the biggest one until the Conventions. Lawrence § t/e 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, we can put this on ITN when the results are known. We never put news like "elections are going on in this country", always "this guy wins the elections". So if the elections produce a clear candidate, it's for ITN, otherwise we should wait to have the candidates confirmed. --Tone 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive the imprecise phrasing of my nomination, as I am rather new to ITN. My intention in this suggestion was not to list it because Super Tuesday (2008) is an election (big deal, those happen all the time), but because it is the largest primary election ever held in the U.S., with 52% of the Democratic and 41% of the Republican delegates awarded in one day ... a process that normally takes weeks or even months. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must concur. There seems to be a phobia of putting something that is even related to the current election. True, it might only be happening in the US, but the whole world is watching. To put up against a current ITN topic, yes, it is a tragedy that 39 people died in the Lake Kivu earthquake, but just because it happened to occur on the border between two countries doesn't make it more important than a huge event in one country. Looking at BBC, the story isn't even appearing on their Africa page, let alone the main page. However, the lead story pertains to the primaries. I see above (and in other discussions) that because "we don't do it for other countries we shouldn't do it for the US." However, I don't think anyone here would dispute that the elections in the United States have more of an impact on the world than say a small African country. Why? The US is simply bigger and the sole superpower. Why should ITN have a phobia of a topic that, like I said, take place in one country yet is watched by and pertains to the entire world? I wholeheartedly support the inclusion on Super Tuesday in ITN. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, strong support. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Overwhelming national importance, and significant international ramifications on this one. As it's now almost 11pm PST, and polls should be closed everywhere, please put it up on ITN. Lawrence § t/e 06:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since when are party leadership convention winners (or 'primaries', or whatever they are called around the world) covered on ITN? For the rest of the world, we usual only include the actual election (and resigning/death/etc) of Presidents and Prime Ministers. In the U.S. that won't happen until this fall. Kilrogg (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually although it was extensively covered, there seems to be rather a boring conclusion - no candidate won the nomination outright, ergo no news. The weather disturbances above may even have a chance if it would be extensively covered by the media. --Howard the Duck 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A city-wide Low Emission Zone has been introduced in London, making this the largest scheme in Europe to reduce pollution and one of the largest schemes in the world.

I'm not really sure i have summarised this properly but this is a notable scheme. (Could someone make this better?) Simply south (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's London, and one of the main arguements will be "It's London", I don't think it should go up. Really, even if it's London it's still one city. If Sydney did this I oudln't see it going up. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying one of the reasons is "It's London", some reasons are it is one of the first of it kind and does not just cover the city centre but (mostly) Greater London. And i know i could have summarised the above a bit better. It will be an ongoing scheme and a pilot, if you like, gradually tightening to 2012 on restrictions of vehicles emissions etc. Simply south (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken a German city did this before and it wasn't put up. --Howard the Duck 03:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few according to Low Emission Zone. It may be the largest but it's not the first, so I don't see a impelling rationale for putting this up. Perhaps a DYK? --Stephen 03:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support DYK if it is a relatively new article. --Tone 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

Serbian election

This is ITN for sure. Let's just wait for some more votes counted, it will be done within hours. --Tone 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get the wording correct now, so if you have any ideas feel free to change them. ---CWY2190TC 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote counting will be done soon and after repeated elections at some posts, final results shall be published on 16 February. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XLII

I assume Super Bowl is one of those few sport events that don't need long discussions whether to have them on ITN or not. I would prefer the short formulation, unless the statistic is really so important. --Tone 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not. There are a lot of people who feel it doesn't meet the criteria. Also, the mention about the 19-0 is very very important. ---CWY2190TC 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the admins included the 16-0 story means this should go in. Also, no matter what other people had or will say it will still be added so it's futile to complain... --Howard the Duck 16:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, for the record: We are not putting in the Super Bowl XLII is being played in Arizona thing again. The game is only itn worthy when it is over. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With one second left, I think it's safe to say the Giants have done the impossible. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new wording

Right now, half the wording is about the stadium. I would change it to simply:

Yes. --Stephen 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. You might want to restore the commas around the score though -- it's Associated Press style, anyway, to set off a score with commas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the wording change? Is it an American thing? Personally I think defeat sounds alot more encyclopedic then beat. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the way I had it had "defeat" and "undefeated" in succession. We could change "beat" to "defeat" and "undefeated" to "unbeaten." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the reader who may not be interested in gridiron. Although I have no great desire for the headline to be lengthy, it should at least make clear what sport we are talking about, and avoid the reader wondering how many years or decades the Patriots had been unbeaten. Kevin McE (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - can't we just add "In American Football" at the start like we did when we had the Patriot's unbeaten record up there (see [3])? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? --Stephen 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has it been changed back to read "17 to 14?" This seems like extra letters to me. At the very least, "17 to 14" should be set off by commas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to defeat|unbeaten and comma'ed the score. I've no opinion on "-" over "to." --Stephen 05:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would've favored the "to" convention if the score were single digits. --Howard the Duck 06:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why is this important enough in the wider world to be the top story? American-centric or what? Could someone please adjust? --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 10:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Main Page#It's that time of the year.... --Howard the Duck 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda earthquake

  • An earthquake shakes Rwanda, killing at least 21 people. --Tone 13:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, with updated death toll, as
to displace old news from 10+ days ago. Please expand this stub. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

Idriss Déby Itno
Idriss Déby Itno
  • UFD rebels fight government troops (President Idriss Déby Itno pictured) in a battle for the Chadian capital, N'Djamena.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly support. The capitol of a sovereign state has been partially occupied by a rebel group, and the government may fall. This is highly, highly significant and notable, and should be on the main page immediately. We're talking about a revolution happening right now. It is the main story on the BBC world news website. If this story is not included it will only highlight again the fact that 'in the news' shows consistant systemic basis in favour of events that happen in the developed world. Please please add this very important event and save my faith in wiki! Willy turner (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, added a picture of the Chadian president. --Camptown (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. You HAVE saved my faith in Wiki! Willy turner (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

Support. Finally, some real news. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two of the most important and largest computer/internet companies in the world. ---CWY2190TC 21:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, until they actually buy it. A bid is still just a bid. --Tone 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tone. Will support the mention on ITN about the formation of the world's largest __(insert appropriate industry)___ company, but not when negotiations are still ongoing/incomplete. --PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just the announcement of a merger will have major repercussions on the tech industry, and is thus newsworthy enough to make ITN. Lovelac7 00:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Yahoo! hasn't said "yes" to the proposal yet. We'll have to wait. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who put up "Internet services are disrupted in parts of Asia and Africa after two undersea cables, including SEA-ME-WE 4, are damaged."? The article SEA-ME-WE 4 makes no apparent mention to this. I stand corrected...but still the article only has ~5 sentences mentioning this...shouldn't it be expanded more?SpencerT♦C 02:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 sentences and as many references is a reasonable update, and the impact of the event was widespread. Feel free to expand it more. --Stephen 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FALCON (cable system) is apparently cut now too Mad031683 (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A third cable loss, in as many days, is definitely notable. Support its addition to Main Page listing. Radagast (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider expanding (with some more background info) and re-formatting the FALCON (cable system) article. The stubby page doesn't appear ready to be featured on MainPage, IMO. --PFHLai (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7225455.stm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=190279592"