Template talk:In the news/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 14


Contents

Heads up on some possible items to watch

Def. worth an add in the future, but the article in question hasn't been touched yet. The Tom 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Peta, thanks for the heads-up, but both your suggestions above are premature. Please only make suggestions here when the candidates are ready for inclusion. You may want to re-read the criteria. --Monotonehell 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am entirely aware of the criteria; and I think it is useful to notify people watching this page (updating admins and news editors) that news will be forthcoming (within hours) so that people can keep and eye out and update articles; in the case of elections updates can be made as soon as the information is available. --Peta 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it is a useful and good idea to have a heads up, but perhaps it would be better on Template talk:In the news until it's ready, otherwise all you get is a load of editors complaining that it's not suitable. This page should probably be reserved for Prêt-à-Porter candidates. Otherwise it will become a tad messy? --Monotonehell 10:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
More 'heads up' can be found at Portal:Current events. Upcoming elections are listed there, too. --PFHLai 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the current events portals seem to be out of the ITN loop these days. :( --Monotonehell 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No funnies here yet?

Is the ITN section going to be serious all day long? :-) Carcharoth 00:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you see the overlinking ? :-) --PFHLai 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

David Hicks

Isn't the David Hicks blurb a little overlinked?

Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks receives the first sentence from the Guantanamo military commission, and the first conviction in a U.S. war crimes trial since World War II.

"List of firsts" (twice), "United States" , "trial", and probably "sentence (law)" and "conviction" are a bit much. Not to mention Hicks isn't mentioned in the "List of firsts". Cigarette 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was done for April Fools. :-) --PFHLai 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, see, that's not funny. The "funny or obscure but true" stuff worked better, in my opinon. Carcharoth 09:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
When things like '129', 'years' and the percentage sign were wikified on April Fools' Day, it gotta be a prank. Someone must have thought that turning every word blue was funny.... BTW, I didn't do it. -- PFHLai 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Only 3 items?

I'm getting ready to swap out items for DYK and I notice there's only 3 news items here. Any plans to include any more after midnight UTC? I ask because right now there's only room for 3 DYK items which is pretty low for that section. howcheng {chat} 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's enough room for DYK now. But we'll probably need more for tomorrow, as the FA for April 3 is really long. --PFHLai 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How to treat notable individual effort in team sports

The following was copied from the candidates page. After citing the example of:

I understand that this shouldn't usually make the ITN, but the achievements of Michael Phelps should make it worthy--AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding; the championship themselves wouldn't, but the record breaks do. --Golbez 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I see this as double standards! Lasith Malinga became the first bowler to record a double hatrick in ODI cricket during the 2007 Cricket World Cup, there were several other records broken. None of that went on the ITN so why is this up there? Double standards I think so.--Thugchildz 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The following item was suggested

There it is, now lets see if it gets up there.--Thugchildz 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) This has raised an interesting point of how we should handle notable individual efforts in team sports. And similarly, how to handle these results where they do not reflect the 'normal' measure of the sport. --Monotonehell 13:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As a follower and contributor in both sports, I feel that the double hattrick is nn for ITN. Firstly cricket is a team sport while Swimming is not. Secondly, when looking at individual performances, people are more likely to look at aggregrates like most runs, most wickets, rather than fluke performances over one day. Here Phelps has won five golds in individual events at a peak global event in the sport. In some of the races, he was cutting his own WR by 1.5%. That is massive. Everybody is hailing him as the world's greatest ever swimmer, etc, etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That's because its so rare, not many people have hatricks for people to look at, so that makes it even more notable to be up in the INT. Taking 4 wickets in 4 deliveries is massive too, and in cricket both team effort or individual effort is celebrated.--Thugchildz 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but this should be about merit. the double hattrick is very rare, but it is more about "flukes". This isn't a "guinness book of records", that's why when people sit down to work out which were the greatest cricketers, they go on measures of consistent world-class performances, such as averages and total runs andwickets. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if you go by what you're saying, surely you don't see the mention of averages in the news do you? And surely winning 5 medals doesn't make the bowler the greatest. There have been quite a few notable things happening but they didn't get on INT. Here one of the top of my head- Both Herschelle Gibbs and Matthew Hayden were awarded honorary citizenship of Saint Kitts and Nevis for their individual efforts. --Thugchildz 05:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess one of the problems with cricket is that it's a statistician's wet dream. There's so many things to count. I suppose we need to sit down and work out what in that competition is the notable measure. If we take the swimming above as an example it's a simple who came first and who has been the fastest. With cricket what do we measure? Runs, wickets? Number of seagulls stunned? The double hatrick above seemed to me to be a notable event, but I must defer to others as I'm not very "cricket aware". --Monotonehell 05:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the most notable of all is the double hatrick and the 6 six's. The others are notable but are not as uncommon. There's been other records breakings but as Blnguyen said its not "guinness book of records" but when a "fluke" like these happens its very, very notable.--Thugchildz 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I really should have nominated Kobe Bryant's four-consecutive games where he scored 50 points or more :p --Howard the Duck 07:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not as notable, its like Australia scoring 300 or more for like 5 straight games; we aren't taking about a streak. Those above are really rare, never before happened events and are very notable. But I do think Kobe's 81 points last year should have been on ITN, was it? If not it should have because that's notable--Thugchildz 07:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Kobe Bryant universe, that's pretty unnotable, but in the basketball universe, like when did you a see a player score 50+ for four consecutive games? I dunno about how cricket works (they seems to throw a ball at the wicket, then I dunno, lol.), but is a team scoring 300 (runs?) happens every game? Certainly a basketball player scoring 50+ in one game is rare, but a basketball player scoring 50+ appears once in a blue moon; its like a soccer player scoring 5 goals in 4 consecutive matches.
As for the Cricket World Cup, lets mention it again when a champion is crowned, we don't have to mention individual achievements in a team sport at the ITN. Heck, they don't even show the Cricket World Cup at our side of the ocean (considering that we have four sports channels here). --Howard the Duck 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A team scoring 300 in five games never happened before, so thats pretty much the same as 50+.--Thugchildz 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The swimming world championship has just finished so it's appropriate for it to have a line. We don't want to get into providing lines when anyone has a record in any sport. The cricket world cup should have another line when it's finished. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So where are we with this? Is it fair to say that individual efforts in team sports are not ITN fodder? Or if they are, under what conditions would we report on them, bearing in mind the torrent of sports stats that could be throw at the candidates' page. --Monotonehell 13:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Identify this as "cannon fodder", and set up a "sports stats" page to take the flak... Carcharoth 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to include an entry every time a sports record is broken, nor indeed every time a sports competition ends, but a record is an interesting "hook" to hang an entry on to include the results of the whole tournament. I guess sport-related entries are more likely to get on the Main Page if they represent the pinnacle of the sport and have a very wide international following (results of the FIFA World Cup, Cricket World Cup, Olympic Games - and not, for example, the UK football premiership, or the UEFA cup, or the Ashes cricket series, or the Commonwealth Games, Asia Games, etc...) or have some sort of resonance outside the sport (scandal, controversy, diplomatic incidents).

FWIW, the 4-wickets-in-four-balls and 6 sixes are pretty unusual, but not as important as India and Pakistan being sent home after the first round (and Bangladesh and Ireland - !! - going through). But the Bob Woolmer story has clearly overshadowed everything else to date, and that got on the Main Page. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because india and pakistan getting out is like saying South Africa and England out of the wc in the 1st round.(in the case of the last cwc)--Thugchildz
Well, there aren't senate inquiries, riots etc when RSA and ENG lose. What I said about Phelps is that in swimming, it is basically a time trial, so if you do outstanding performances in five different events, it is due to hard work, exceptional training etc, no fluke. In cricket, over time, if you work the hardest, are the best, then the career stats will fall your way, but things like hat-tricks and six sixes in an over are fluky things which consist of a five minute span in a match which lasts 400+ minutes. You can bowl a good ball and the batsman can edge it and get four runs, and sometimes bowl a really bad ball and the guy goes for a slog and gets caught at long on. So to get a wicket, sometimes you can get wickets from bad play through good luck, or bowla good delivery and not get a wicket and get scored off. That is why to get a hat-trick or hit six sixes in a row, you need a lot of luck. To become the best player over a consistent period of a year, or to be consistently the fastest swimmer like Phelps, is not a "luck" thing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on how much the outside world makes of the achievement. If Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's home run record this year, it will be the number-one story in the U.S. -- not the number-one sports story, the number-one news story, period. On the other hand, Brett Favre's establishment of a new NFL career record for pass completions was just a sports story and therefore shouldn't be on the front page, IMO. -- Mwalcoff 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Barry Bonds record,when he breaks it, should be up there because Yousuf Youhana surpassed Viv Richards' thirty year old record and became the highest scorer in Test matches during a single calendar year and that wasn't just in sports news as opposed to him having most centuries in a calendar year which was sports news. So then I think, we should stay away from records altogether. And put the record breaking in the sports section and only notable events like the world cups etc up there after it finishes and other notable events in sports that isn't a record, because to one person one record may be not as important but to another it is. --Thugchildz 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said when Mohammad Yousuf aka Yousuf Youhana broke Don Bradman's 6-7 Centuries in the caleandar year, there are twice as many matches these days....so that warps things a bit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Majorness""Newsworthyness" aside, a wikiarticle must be well updated for the purpose of ITN. For an individual achievement, the individual's biography must get quite a bit of new materials, along with updates in the pages about the particular facet of the sport, be it Hat-trick, Top 100 winning pitchers of all time or World record progression 100 metres men. When there isn't much updating to write into the individual's bio, the record can't be featured on ITN no matter how significant the achievement is, IMHO. --PFHLai 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sporting records have no place on In The News. Let's face it that sport is a form of entertainment and it doesn't dictate most of the world around us. If sport start's to dictate the world around us then it merits inclusion in ITN. While Lasith Malinga's double hattrick triggerred a moment of happiness in Sri Lankan fans while their team headed for a loss, most cricket fans would talk about it but it won't dictate anything else. However, when India (runner up in the last world cup) and Pakistan (runner up in the one before that), were knocked out in the first round due to losses against a rising Bangladeshi side and a previously unheard of Irish side respectively, riots and parliamentary enquiries were triggerred. That merited ITN, I'm not sure whether it was on ITN but it should have. 58.178.172.75 07:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Then is it consensus that sports records shouldn't be in the INT?--ThugChildz 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps sports records made by individuals in team sports... --Howard the Duck 08:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree - I think it would be fair to say that sports records do not automatically qualify, but are not automatically disqualified either.
What about train speed records?  ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't think many sees that was a sport. :)--ThugChildz 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(obligatory edit break)

It's seems that general consensus is that generally sports records shouldn't be placed into ITN. But not "not never". How about we say "Generally sports records do not qualify for ITN inclusion, however if an event is noteworthy enough to generate a very substantial update to its respective article a request can be made for consensus on an exception." Or is that way too subjective? --Monotonehell 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then the problem is, which record is noteworthy enough and which is not? That will not be fair all the time, so it would be better not to include any sports records no matter what unless it is related to other INT news like the swimming was.--ThugChildz 11:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That was my concern. So the best policy is to not include any sports records except as part of a wrap up item at the end of the ultimate level multi-national competition? --Monotonehell 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This proposed policy would exclude things like Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. If someone breaks this record, it's ITN-worthy, IMO. --PFHLai 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairness? That's hard to achieve, and can be subjective, too. A feat "universally" considered notable should qualify for ITN (provided that adequate updating is done), but it's hard to define that. Not everyone (see above) thinks Lasith Malinga's quad-trick is significant enough, so this should not be on ITN. Another reason to keep this off ITN would be the lack of updating in Lasith Malinga (just 3 sentences... it doesn't even say where the record was set, or whether Malinga's feat had any impact to the match.... And no references, either.)
Let's not set up a restriction just because one record is left out this week. There will be slow-news days when we need them. --PFHLai 15:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The slow news days exclusions lead to people citing them as precedent when trying to get their own items up. I've agreed with lower standards when news is thin myself, but doing so does seem to create this perception of inequity. Just an observation, not sure what to suggest there. --Monotonehell 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's something to avoid doing, but sometimes something needs to be done. Fairness is hard to achieve. We just do the best we can. Such is life. --PFHLai 15:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently that's what Ned Kelly said just before they hanged him. --Monotonehell 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Right. Life is unfair. And Kelly's execution should be on ITN. His article is long. Former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan of Iraq was also hanged, but let's leave this execution off ITN for lacking updates in his stubby biography..... --PFHLai 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone breaks Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game(kobe came close) and that gets on it then why not stuff like Brian Lara's 400 game and stuff like that. It all depends on the sport people are into and so it shouldn't be on it. If the news is running thin I'm sure there's other news other than sports. So to be fair to all exclude sports records and include the conclusion of events that are pinnacle of the sport just as world cups, etc.--ThugChildz 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kobe had 81 and missed by 19 points, which was not even close. Most NBA players don't even score 19 points in an entire game. --PFHLai 09:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Kobe's 81-point "performance" was #2 on the all-time list, so it was "close"... --Howard the Duck 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind having individual records in team sports, but I think it should be generally limited to records which show career long consistency, such as someone breaking the record for the most career runs/goals/wickets etc, whereas things like double hat-tricks, scoring six goals in one match, 20 tries in one match, 10 touchdowns in one match, also are dependent on luck and having "good days" and are more fluky and trivial in nature. I also do not think a swimmer brekaing one record is notable, but if they set records like 5 WR or 7 gold at one Global competition, then it is notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(another edit break because I don't like scrolling)
Blnguyen makes a good point (and has made it before - yes teacher I have been paying attention ;) ) There's records in sports like athletics which are broken incrementally as a matter of fact. They probably shouldn't be included as the weather analogy would apply there. (Weather, like sports results and entertainment news, is made all the time. We only include major weather events in ITN that have a widespread or devastating notable impact. The same should apply to these other categories).
Although slightly subjective; "Fluke" events generally form part of "sports weather". For example, a sunny day in the middle of winter. But a career length achievement or the final result of the ultimate level competition (an average rise in temperature over a number of years) is something that has a greater holistic impact on the subject.
This of course would have to be backed up with a high quality article, stating the background that lead up to this recognition and documenting the achievement itself. --Monotonehell 04:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, individual records on team sports should rarely, if ever, appear on ITN. On a team sport, the main point is to win for your team, if your team scores 5 TDs and you still lose, it doesn't matter. I'd say post it on ITN if they break or tie the all-time record (like if Kobe scores 101). Now for individual records in individual events, more often than not, if you break a record in a competition, you'd win. --Howard the Duck 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That's still an individual all time record though in a team sport. So I think the only sports record that should have a chance as an exception for the ITN is for carrier/year long records which would have to be a big/notable record in the sport.--ThugChildz 18:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture change suggestion

Seeing as Viktor Yushchenko's item has fallen down to third, perhaps the image could be changed to this available free one of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 03:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Done a second time, with Commons:Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2006 - thumbnail.jpg. --PFHLai 09:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Reverted to Commons:Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2005 - thumbnail.jpg. Commons:Image:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 2006 - thumbnail.jpg turns out to be a copyvio. --PFHLai 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

United States Olympic Bid

On April 14th the United States Olympic Committee will announce whether Chicago, IL or Los Angeles, CA will be the United States nominee to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. I imagine this will be a newsworthy event. Can you tell me how to contribute to the {{In the news}} phrasing of such a story. If Chicago wins, I would like the following articles to be included in the description Chicago 2016 Olympic bid and Washington Park (Chicago park). Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The page for suggestions is located at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates (or WP:ITN/C). However, I must warn you of the criteria, located at the top of that page. I don't really believe this would make it to ITN because it's not of international significance. On the other hand, when the IOC chooses the 2016 host (a few years away), that would be noteworthy. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly not just a Chicago story. It is among the www.cnn.com lead stories. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I sense a slippery slope here: If we put this on ITN, we will have to post every single time a National Olympic Committee announces its nominee? I can see it now: "The United Arab Emirates National Olympic Committee announces it has accepted the Dubai 2016 Olympic bid as the United Arab Emirates nominee to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. " Does anyone remember putting "The Japan Olympic Committee announces it has accepted the Tokyo 2016 Olympic bid as the Japan nominee to host the 2016 Summer Olympics" on ITN back on 22 August 2006? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As with the US Presidential election and other such events, nominations are not listed in ITN, only the results of such elections and the final decisions that are handed down are listed. It's analogous to Zzyzx11 announcing that he intends to win the Nobel prize. Unless he actually wins it, it isn't notable. --Monotonehell 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from candidates page

Please, update ITN with a new free picture (the wreck has been there for more than a week...).Bondkaka 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone posted one of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan a couple of hours ago. How about that? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

Since Wikipedia is not a 24/7 all news web site offering first-hand news reports on breaking stories, can someone explain to me how the Virginia Tech massacre article, which is currently only about two hours old[3], has international significance and thus deserves to be on ITN? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC News is giving it as a big and bold headline on their homepage.[4] The article is substantive and covers the topic as well as could be expected. ITN is for new or greatly lengthened articles pertaining to current events, so I think this qualifies. —Cuiviénen 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree this has international significance. I was originally concerned the article was added prematurely, but if you look at the histories, the article was probably good enough for ITN (barely) when it was added Nil Einne 18:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The death toll needs to be updated, but apparently us lowly wikipedians can't edit it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It sucks to be a plebian, doesn't it. --Golbez 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be insensitive to the tragedy, but isn't 30 killed a daily average in Iraq? I seem to remember that just yesterday some 30-40 people were killed in Baghdad. Now it is true that it doesn't get that much attention these days, but if the criteria for inclusion was the headline size in western media then the death of Anna Nicole Smith should have been a permenent fixture on ITN. --Denoir 20:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

When I added it to ITN, I was going by a precedent set by the inclusion of other school shootings on ITN in the past. Some notable ones include the Amish school shooting and the Dawson College shooting. I remember there being a big debate over the international significance part, but IIRC, people were fine with it. Nishkid64 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That is war. This is a school shooting. That's why. 129.120.86.71 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Is that an argument for inclusion? The only concern the greater world could have is purely sensational. What does a school shooting in VA mean in the UK? The consequences of random violence are tragic but local. When it comes to natural or commercial disasters, some government or authority might counteract... there is no evidence that this was anything but stressed kids, and ain't nothin you can do bout that.
The kids killed at the school were no younger than the ones in Iraq, btw... Similar sort of random cruelty actually, albeit at very different murder rates. Potatoswatter 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently quite a bit based on the BBC World coverage I'm watching right now... The largest civilian shooting in American history or in any country's history is undoubtedly notable in terms of current events. If you don't think it's that notable, you're free to hold that opinion but I think consensus has already been clearly established on this issue. Sasquatch t|c 00:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Considering the death toll and noteworthiness, this shooting should be on ITN. The problem was that this item got onto ITN when the article was still somewhat stubby and (probably) before the incident became known as the "deadliest civilian gunfire incident in U.S. history." Whoever posted this on MainPage so soon has demonstrated clairvoyance and ignored due process. I would've waited while the article grow longer, but I guess how much updating is "enough" can be rather subjective. --PFHLai 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. That is what I was thinking when I first started this discussion. When it was first put on ITN, the article was basically full of unconfirmed reports being constantly repeated on the 24/7 all news TV channels and web sites. I would have rather waited until these news reports were confirmed and verified. Otherwise, ITN is no better than the Voter News Service controversy during the United States presidential election, 2000. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacre vs Shooting

It is completely inappropriate for admin editors involved in a naming dispute to change this ITN template to favor their contested article title, citing "consistency with article title" as the rationale for change. I call on User:Maveric149 to cease editing the ITN template for the duration of his involvement in the Virgina Tech naming dispute. Italiavivi 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to consistency with the article title, 'massacre' does not by itself convey the means by which the killings took place. Since that is bolded term, it would be best, IMO, to have the most informative and least emotional term used (we can use 'massacre' safely once/if it becomes clearly the most common used, but it is a bit early to settle on that yet). Also, the word 'shootings' was used until it was changed by David Levy about 3 hours ago. That said, I won't revert since that would be juvenile (not because your 'call'). I'll let others weigh both sides of the argument and we can form a consensus here. --mav 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Using "for consistency with article title" as an excuse to edit the "In the News" template knowing good and well that your preferred name is contested is completely inappropriate. As an active participant in the naming dispute, you should not use your administrator access to support your naming on the "In the News" template. You can make your case concerning the term being "emotional" on the article's Talk page same as every other user. Italiavivi 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, you have been requesting a name change because of what it says on the Wikipedia Main Page. Another admin changed it repeatedly to "massacre", despite a number of disagreements from other admins. I have changed the headline to what it is. Usage of the word "massacre" has been removed from ITN in the past, and this is no exception. Nishkid64 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Nishkid64 is another active advocate for one side ("shooting") in this naming dispute. The willingness of these sysop editors to edit the ITN template to agree with their position in an ongoing naming dispute is a completely inappropriate use of sysop access. Italiavivi 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It is completely appropriate to have consistent, informative and dispassionate wording until the naming dispute is settled. If any edit were inappropriate, it would be the original change from the consistent and dispassionate wording to the disputed 'massacre'. --mav —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
For you, an editor involved in an article's naming dispute, to change this template citing "consistency with article title" as a reason is inappropriate, or are you denying this? There is also definitely POV-pushing going on here; User:Nishkid64 has said on the Virgina Tech talk page that he even opposes the use of "massacre" in the Columbine article [5]. I again call on both of these editors (Maveric149 and Nishkid64) to cease changing the ITN template's Virginia Tech section due to their (very active) involvement in the article's naming dispute. Italiavivi 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I changed "shooting" to "massacre" for linguistic/stylistic reasons (not as part of the naming dispute). It actually was a series of shootings (hence the article's title), and the word "shooting" appeared elsewhere in the sentence. Also note that at the time, School massacre was linked from the article's lead, so it seemed like a logical description to use in ITN. I do, however, support retaining the article's current title for the time being. —David Levy 23:34/23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved admin, living in the UK and so having a reduced level of interest in the incident, I feel that "massacre" is far too emotive for the Wikipedia main page, where as "shooting" is more informative. A massacre could be caused by any over zealous use of a dealy instrument, whereas "shooting" somewhat qualifies the issue. In addition, Wikipedia is an enycylopedia for the world, not just for the US, so the use of emotive phrasing is by no means appropriate on the basis of the feelings of the editors involved. Martinp23 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's now changed to a more appropriate title: "series of shootings". Nishkid64 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your POV of what is or is not "appropriate" is just that, your POV. Whether the term is emotional or inflammatory is irrelevant in the face of WP:RS. You, who even opposes the use of "massacre" in the Columbine High School article, should recuse yourself from editing this template rather than continue changing it. Italiavivi 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I can, with some certainty (though not complete certainty), so the most of the world's media outside the USA won't refer to a series of shootings in the USA as "a massacre". Several hundreds of people are killed every day in many countries around the world, yet we do not call the latest killing caused by a suicide bomber or masked gunman in Iraq a "massacre" (we probably don't even report them). Massacre is, by definition, an emotive term, and there is no way to avoid that. The US media will empathise with the feelings of its viewers, and use an appropriate level of such language. The world meia, however, will try to avoid it. Thanks, Martinp23 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I changed it to "series of shootings" (and changed the second "shooting" to "gunfire") because my only concerns were linguistic accuracy and avoiding redundancy. I didn't mean to contribute to this "massacre" dispute. —David Levy 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That said, I do think that 'massacre' could be used in a nominative way once/if this event is most commonly has that word in its name. Notice the stress on nominative - it would be inappropriate even if 'massacre' were the most common term used for us to call the event a massacre (that would be close to a moral judgment). And I'm from the U.S. and have friends in Virginia. However, it would be diffcult and perhaps a bit contrived to try to use 'massacre' in a nominative way in the ITN format. -- mav 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If anything your comments here are even more reason for you to cease editing this template. If you have friends at Virginia Tech, while my prayers are certainly with them, conflict of interest questions must be asked of your preferred wording. That you have also openly stated your belief that 'massacre' is inappropriate even if it is the most commonly used term among reliable sources illustrates that your editing should take on the dispute's Talk page section right now, not a Main Page template directly related to the dispute. I really am sincerely sorry if the word "massacre" carried emotional connotations due to your having friends there right now, and it is not my intent to offend those affected by this massacre. Italiavivi 23:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, "shooting" is not POV at all. Massacre is. POV does not belong on ITN, and the word "massacre" has been removed from various ITN headlines in the past. Also, stop justifying your case because of "reliable sources". News headlines have always been written to attract the attention of readers. The way one news organization expresses the situation does not mean it is correct. Nishkid64 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Massacre is in no way POV; furthermore, it is the most accurate and reliably sourced term. Again, your speculation as to the media's motivation in using the term has no place in determining article content. Italiavivi 23:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think "shooting" is somewhat more reliably sourced, as it is forming the basis of every report. Martinp23 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article's current title is appropriate, but I don't understand why people object to the use of the word "massacre" to describe the incident. It merely refers to "the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals." (Would anyone seriously argue that this description is inaccurate?) The term carries a negative connotation because this is widely regarded as a deplorable act. It isn't our job to vilify the gunman, but it also isn't our job to downplay the severity of what has occurred. —David Levy 23:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Both wordings are acceptable, but that doesn't change that they are contested. Sysops engaged in content disputes shouldn't run off changing Wikipedia's Main Page to support their preferred side in the conflict. Nishkid64 and Maveric149 need to recuse themselves from editing and reverting Virginia Tech's section of this template. Italiavivi 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We avoid any POV on ITN. That's why it was appropriate for me to change the wording to "shooting" from "massacre". Italiavivi, I'd be fine with changing it to "massacre", but not now. I've repeatedly stated that I wish for users to wait a few days before making a final decision on the name. If we change it now, we might end up with an unwarranted move war. Nishkid64 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Massacre is no more POV than "mass shooting." The only POV thing here is editors opposing the term due to their feeling that it is "inflammatory." You have stated opposition to the term "massacre" being used at Columbine's article, and are an actively participating advocate in a naming dispute. You need to recuse yourself from sysop activity on a template directly related to the dispute you're involved in. Italiavivi 23:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that "massacre" is an inappropriate word for ITN, but "series of shootings" is fine and shouldn't be objectionable to anyone. I don't know why this dispute is so heated. —David Levy 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Italiavivi, I changed it to "campus shooting", not "mass shooting". David Levy, the dispute is this heated because the article has been fully protected against moves, and editors are trying to see whether or not it should be termed "massacre" or remain as "shootings" on the article talk page. Also, I changed it to "shooting" on ITN during the debate because people were using the fact that ITN said "massacre" as an argument for changing the article's title. All I requested was for other users to wait a few days before making a final decision on the article title. Nishkid64 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not "all you requested." You have stated an opposition to use of the word "massacre" in Columbine's article, and upheld a revert by another editor directly involved in the naming dispute. Two sysop editors here, both supporting the same side of a naming dispute, reverted and re-reverted this template to support their preferred wording. This was wholly inappropriate use of sysop access, and I again call upon you to recuse yourself from changing Virginia Tech's section of this template due to your involvement in the dispute. Italiavivi 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down, Italiavivi. I'm not seeing a conflict of interest here. —David Levy 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
One administrator felt "massacre" was appropriate while Maveric and I felt that it wasn't appropriate. I've dealt with ITN on many occasions and I know that "massacre" has been removed as a POV term. Prior school shootings have been reported as "school shootings" not "school massacres". For example, look at the ITN headline for the Dawson College shooting: [6] Nishkid64 00:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Nishkid. That seems reasonable. —David Levy 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
He feels it is not appropriate, which is contested (by a great deal of the article's editors) on the article's Talk page. He is an active participant in a content dispute, and reverted this template (a sysop responsibility) to reinforce the wording of another editor also involved in this dispute. He believes that "massacre" shouldn't even be used on Columbine's article, a POV I sincerely doubt you will find much support for. The article has now been moved to "massacre" per Talk consensus and reliable sources, and ITN should be changed back to match. Nishkid and Mav should recuse themselves of altering this wording given their active involvement in this dispute.
I also don't appreciate being told to "calm down" when I'm simply advocating a (widely-held) position, so spare me the condescending rhetoric. Mav has talked about having friends near Virginia Tech while expressing concerns over the term massacre being inflammatory, and Nishkid opposes the term "massacre" on principle (and he often disparages media outlets, our reliable sources, speculating over their use of the term to "sell" news). Editing the ITN template under a banner of matching ITN to the article's title while participating in an ongoing dispute over the article's title demonstrates conflict of interest in every way. Italiavivi 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I also edited the template based on an opinion (albeit one that had nothing to do with the naming issue). You perceive Nishkid's and Maveric149's edits to ITN as an attempt to gain leverage in a separate dispute, and I disagree. I believe that both were using their judgement to word the item in the manner that they felt was appropriate.
I asked you to calm down not because I believe that you aren't entitled to your opinion, but because I believe that you're overreacting to honest disagreement. Please try to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors.
I also don't understand why you object to the "series of shootings" wording. Perhaps you could explain. —David Levy 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they were reinforcing their mutual agreement from the Talk page dispute here on ITN, absolutely. They are entitled to their opinions of what is and is not appropriate, but when their opinions end up contested by a significant number of editors, they should abstain from trying to shape sysop-only content to match their POVs. Their behavior was inappropriate for sysops directly involved in an active content dispute. I object to their changing the wording at ITN to gain leverage in the discussions at Talk:Virginia Tech massacre foremost, not the phrase "series of shootings." "Massacre" is still more accurate ("shootings" can take place without victims dying) and widely-used by reliable sources, and should be restored here at ITN immediately. Italiavivi 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
1. We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Nishkid's and Maveric149's conduct.
2. The sentence clearly conveys that the shootings left "at least 33 people (including the gunman) dead and another 29 injured." I don't understand what the problem is. —David Levy 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The deadliest civilian shooting?

The main page blurb calls it "The deadliest incident in U.S. history" ignoring the 100 to 140 civilians shot to death by civilians in the Mountain Meadows massacre. Please change it to something more objective like "one of the deadliest." Edison 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I ain't sure if the Mormon militia would be considered 'civilian' enough, since they were armed and somewhat organized. I've removed the words "The deadliest civilian shooting incident in U.S. history" from MainPage, anyway. --PFHLai 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
However, it is the deadliest US school shooting ever, by final death toll (32 students plus one gunman). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
When was the last time you heard of someone killing 30 people in a university? That's why this should be on ITN, especially now that the article is well-developed. --Howard the Duck 10:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any dispute it belongs on ITN. Nil Einne 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Several editors above disagree with you. Of course, if it had ever happened in any other country, it would certainly belong here, but because it happened in the US, it's unimportant. Corvus cornix 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Mm, keep in mind a lot of knee-jerk comments get made in the first few hours before the whole story comes in. The above doesn't reflect everyone's continued opinion ;v) . Potatoswatter 04:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is one person I can count who potentially think it shouldn't be on ITN from the above discussions. Several people have suggested it was premature (either because of the state of the article or because the significance wasn't clear at the time or both). Most of these people had clarified their views before you posted. Potatoswatter hadn't previously, but he/she has now. One person, who hasn't continued discussion hardly counts as a dispute IMHO. Is there some discussion I'm missing? Nil Einne 07:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech

I think the Virginia Polytechnic... Institute should be changed to Virginia Tech. Even the university's own website refers to it as Virginia Tech. Yonatan talk 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and personally prefer the shorter and more commonly used name on ITN. However, I suspect that if the shorter name is used, someone may restore the longer formal name (on the school's logo) with the edit summary "pad", just to occupy more space on the rightside of MainPage. TFAs and DYK on the leftside have been rather long these days. If ITN doesn't keep up, MainPage may look unbalanced. :-) --PFHLai 00:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting in the shorter name. Let's see what happens next.... ;-) --PFHLai 01:10, 2007 April 19 (UTC)
I'd rather go with "Virginia Tech University," since "Virginia Tech" is too informal. --Howard the Duck 08:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Text/image alignment

It looks jarring to have the picture of Băsescu right next to, and appearing to illustrate, an item about Boris Yeltsin. Yes, I know that it says "(pictured)" further down the list, but the reader doesn't see that at first glance. Can the Băsescu picture please be moved down to align with his news item? Or, if the image in ITN really must be at the top, can another picture about one of the top items be used instead? --mglg(talk)

This, and solutions for it, have been brought up time and time again. But for many reasons consensus for change can never be reached. --Monotonehell 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The ITN template is not only used on MainPage. Moving the image around means messing up these other pages. --PFHLai 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that it is confusing to have the first bullet not match the picture. Why can't a picture of Yeltsin be used? Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It took a while to find a 'free' pic of Yeltsin. We can't post any pic we like on MainPage, you know. To suggest pictures in future, please go to WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 06:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Gliese 581 c be listed in current events?

It's one of the biggest discoveries of the century and it doesn't even get mentioned on the main page.... wow.... Zazaban 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ITN instructions are at the top of this page and you don't read and follow them.... wow.... --74.13.128.93 04:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What 74.13.128.93 is trying to suggest is that you could have added it to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thue | talk 08:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added it. Thue | talk 08:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Biggest discovery of the century?? People, do not buy into the hype!! This planet is thought to be within the "habitable zone" of its parent star. No life was found. nor are any other details about its composition are known. Calm down, and put the facts into ITN, please. Awolf002 11:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The planet itself hasn't even been found. Its existence has been calculated/deduced from velocity measurements of the mother star. AecisBrievenbus 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
so? it is still notable as the first such discovery. There will probably scores of similar ones over the next few years, this isn't the "discovery of the century", but it is a notable sign that measurment precision has crossed the threshold to detecting earth sized planets. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we change the "potentially habitable" part? In the context, it makes it seem that the planet is potentially habitable for humans only (space colonization), and not the bigger idea that extraterrestrial life may be there. Instead, we should note it lies in it's star's habitable zone. --Philo 11:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary habitability is a much stronger page than habitable zone and we should be linking to our best. I'm not quite getting you on implying space colonization. Marskell 12:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Euro, dollar exchange rate entry should be removed

(moved from candidates' page)

Regarding the euro article on the Main Page. Why is this even here? For one, it was not even discussed upon, leading me to believe that it may be the result of an overzealous admin. Second of all, the articles linked to do not contain substantial info about the record event (if you can point out where this new info is I might just concede). Third, is this really of serious international importance? I know economically it might be somewhat notable, but compared to other major events should it be included? Just because we are lacking in financial ITN items doesn't make it have overwhelming importance. Finally and MOST IMPORTANTLY, won't the value of the euro fluctuate so that it will reach new records again? Should we update for ITN every time this happens? What makes NOW an appropriate time to post in ITN? I apologize if I come off the wrong way, but there is no discussion on this issue and I am somewhat befuddled. If an admin can give me appropriate responses to my concerns then I will understand. Thanks again. The great kawa 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I fully support featuring the Euro article on ITN today. It's an excellent article, very informative, and it makes for a refreshing change from all the election results, disasters, accidents and politics related articles usually dominating ITN. No, it shouldn't be there every time a new record is broken, but once in a while featuring one of our good articles on current topics for a change is good and I for one applaud user:JIP for adding it. Shanes 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the euro news, I've got to ask (sorry I'm new to this): is the Dow reaching 13000 worth a mention here? It's a record high, too, with a strong psychological meaning as proof that the market has recovered from the dot-com bust. And it's obviously just a number subject to fluctuation, but 13000 is a much more obvious milestone to people than 1.3649. I'm no financial expert, but I know this has been getting a lot of play in the financial news in the US and has international impact.Krong 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In my humble (or something) opinion, the Dow reaching an important milestone could be listed, but not now with the Euro up there. Two economics/index articles of this kind would be too much on the same ITN, or even in the same week. Maybe next time. Shanes 21:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The euro reaches its highest ever value compared to the US dollar, with 1 € equalling 1.3649 US$.

I think this new additions should be removed for two reasons. First, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in euro. In fact, there is only one sentence, which reads "On April 25, 2007 the euro reached a new peak 1.3649/€ against the dollar." Second, the fact itself is not encyclopedic in nature; it's just a statistic. Picaroon 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it is notable or newsworthy enough to be on this "top six" list. Andrwsc 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I removed this just before I saw this discussion. The Euro article needs more information on this, and second of all, it doesn't seem to be that significant since it is something that could easily happen again. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Fourthed. The Dow broke 13,000 today. Should we be adding that as well? I think not—two second business news sound bites are not what we're here for. Marskell 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was about to mention that, but I thought it would be pointy. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
To add one other point: astronomical discoveries and updates are something Wiki does very very well. A discovery is announced and we'll have a page in, literally, less than an hour; a glob of editors will pick up on it and can thrash out a good page in a day. The role of ITN has always been debatable to me because we're not a news service. At the very least it should play to our strengths, so why not leave Gliese 581 c up at the top for at least 24. Marskell 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Because we're not about to start making arbitrary decisions about what ITN entries are "more important" than others. I agree with you on the role of ITN, but the practice is to add entries chronologically and then to let them fall off the bottom of the list organically. Any other practice will lead to endless discussions (there's probably two of them above, on the candidates' page or on talk main page) over what entry takes precedence over others. :/ --Monotonehell 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it shouldn't follow the usual pattern and be moved down and off like others. But we can and should discuss precedence in placing things on to begin with. It's not an importance issue, but a question of Wiki's utility. No one concerned with the value of the dollar or the Dow is going to turn to Wikipedia as a source given that you can find to-the-minute updates elsewhere on the web; and I would suggest that the "follow-this-link" value of euro and US dollar would be relatively low on ITN. Gliese 581 c, by contast, has had hundreds of edits in a day-and-a-half, is generating attention on related articles (judging from my watchlist), and is already at the top of google. We should give priority to ITN items that will create activity of this sort. Marskell 09:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant by "...so why not leave Gliese 581 c up at the top for at least 24" I thought you were proposing that it be held at the top of the list artificially or taken out of the list artificially after 24 hours. If you're only saying that things like currency rates, sports results and daily weather shouldn't be inserted at all, then you're spot on there. Only major -economic, -sports and -weather events are considered when notable and supported by the existence of quality wikipedia article on the event. --Monotonehell 10:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Propose adjustment of procedures

I would like to propose an adjustment of procedures that has been knocking around my head for some time. This would be meant to accelerate the posting of new items by directing people if they wish to help develop ITN-worthy items that would require only a moderate-sized update. I propose a new page at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Potential, that would be transcluded as a part of Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates in much the same way that Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is transcluded at Talk:Main Page. Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Potential would list items that are potentially ITN-worthy with a modest update (not something that would require a whole new article), along with links to media stories that would be useful in writing the update. These items would then be regularly cleared out (after, say 7 days), without bothering to archive, if they have not been used in ITN by that time. I believe that by breaking up the process into steps that different persons could perform and collaborate on, we will be able to update ITN with new and interesting items on a more regular basis.--Pharos 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The ITN candidate system is already way too complex for new editors to understand. While I see benefit in what you suggest, I don't think there's a large enough core of editors around this project to make use of it. Nor do I see new editors coming to grips with such a system before they become disillusioned by the process. Stubby or non-updated candidates are normally suggested by new users or even fly-by IP users who aren't aware of what ITN's purpose is nor of the criteria. Most of whom don't stay around ITN after their suggestion has been included (or rejected).
The whole process really needs to be simplified, as well as the criteria re-examined. I started this process back before the end of last year, with intentions to re-establish it soon. But I and others have been too busy with life to get stuck into it properly. The discussion is still in the archives and was getting somewhere, but needs a lot more thought in a few areas before it would work. --Monotonehell 10:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we already list news items with ITN potential at Portal: Current events. --PFHLai 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In one sense yes, but Current Events is rarely used for such purposes. I believe that a select working space specifically set aside on the ITN suggestions page, with perhaps room for short comments on work that needs to be done, would encourage such collaboration on a more regular basis.--Pharos 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick changes needed

Cricket World Cup Trophy
Cricket World Cup Trophy
ICC CWC 2007 team captains

Can someone please put the trophy in the picture? and change the sentence to-

--THUGCHILDz 07:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why isn't any of the pictures from above being used? It's the lasted news with free pictures, so I think it should be used.--THUGCHILDz 16:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to mention this on ITN/C and I forgot. I'm skeptical of the licence used at Flickr. The Flickr-user (caribbeancricket) has a few other pics in his (her?) album that appear to be copyvio's to me (screenshots, logo, and some pics labelled as "Official Photo"), so I decided to avoid using any pics from this user on MainPage. --PFHLai 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, looking at this album I would say that it's can fairly trusted that it's his picture. The few others that appear to be copyvio's, are probably just to show his viewers what's going on or what he's talking about which is common for flickr users and I don't think he's saying those are his pictures anyway. So I think it's a reliable source. So in the future it, it should be used. :) --THUGCHILDz 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Election in Ireland

Is announcing a general election in Ireland really notable enough for ITN? As the article itself states, "Current legislation requires that the Dáil be dissolved within five years after its first meeting (6 June 2002) following the previous election..." This is common procedure, there is no political crisis. Holding the general elections should be mentioned, winning the general elections should be mentioned, but announcing? AecisBrievenbus 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an expected procedural move with little significance. I'd support its removal from ITN now and we should put it back after the vote tallying. --PFHLai 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's hardle a busy news week if you can suggest something more important then by all means remove it but until then i dont see the point (Gnevin 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC))
This and the recent inclusion of the French primary are both against normal practice. But as Gnevin said, suitable candidates have been slow to surface recently. --Monotonehell 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest removing Ireland to make space for the political crisis in Israel following the Winograd Commission interim-report, but I'm not sure the article has been updated sufficiently and I do not see a consensus on WP:ITN/C. AecisBrievenbus 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've displaced this for now with a line about Ivica Račan's death. --PFHLai 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)