This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Time's up. I expanded the update and posted, since the Olympics item appears controversial and there are no other candidates. And I didn't choose this just because it's almost certainly the only time three images in a row of black men have been put on a Main Page template. ;) OMG, TEH BIAS! - BanyanTree01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to Oppose this, even though our timer is running out. It doesn't matter if a timer is running out...it's a reminder, not a guideline. He is simply "briefly" detained, and we have never mentioned other famous people being in police custody, i.e. Mel Gibson for drunk driving. I feel this can be a dangerous precedent for a "brief" detention. I know I have nothing to suggest, but I prefer quality over quantity. At any point, We'll probably be seeing some new stories sooner or later as daytime passes through Asia. SpencerT♦C01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is a presidential candidate for one of the most powerful nations in the region, who may have won the first round anyway, who was detained for addressing a crowd of his supporters, and was released following formal protests from multiple nations. I think equating this to Gibson drunk driving is a little off, though I'm probably more familiar with the background than most users. I would wheel like a fiend to keep ITN from being filled with the inanities of celebrity 'news'. - BanyanTree06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also Oppose. Lets not become the BBC and slavishly report every little thing that Tsangvirai would like us to. This isn't important enough to be ITN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.45.5 (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Lets not become the BBC and slavishly report..." - ok, this made me grin. I suppose The Washington Post, who had this story on their front page when I posted, is also Tsvangirai's slave. What a powerful man he must be - and yet unable to get his votes counted. - BanyanTree06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Please refrain from straight support or oppose votes; instead the discussion can focus on the relative merits of the available candidate items". This is part of the trial period guidelines. The idea is, than you can suggest better items rather than opposing. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've put up the Stanley Cup (Dang I was hoping Pittsburg would win), can we take this down now? I knew we'd have somesthing soon, and its just a hair past the little timer. SpencerT♦C11:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, if something is worth putting up for a short time then it's worth keeping on till it rotates off. However,, I'm still waiting to see if Harami2000 comes through with his inflation item (from June 3rd) which would replace this, as two Zimbabwe items at one time may be a bit much. - BanyanTree13:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per my discussion with Random89 at Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0, I am explicitly operating on a "consensus required to exclude; no consensus=include" basis. As such, right now even the Olympics item below is still considered marginal for inclusion, rather than being outright rejected. - BanyanTree22:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) "...explicitly operating?" I apologise for being blunt, but I feel this is why we have WP:IAR. Here's a compromise: How about at the next update, we remove this and add the new, instead of the bottom item. SpencerT♦C00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like blunt, though I don't quite know what you mean by "this is why we have WP:IAR". It almost sounds like you think I shouldn't explain myself. Or maybe you mean I should ignore my own judgment in order to obey the norms of the system that had caused the template to stagnate before, in which case the IAR thing to do would be to push for inclusion. - BanyanTree00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not clarifying...when you say "I am explicitly operating on a 'consensus required to exclude; no consensus=include' basis," I was suggesting that we ignore this basis. But how does the compromise sound? The item wasn't really approved...and the two "suggesters" besides the nominator both opposed... SpencerT♦C01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24.118.45.5 is an obvious political partisan, and I disregarded his vote as soon as I read it. In my mind, it's 1 vs 1. I'm operating on a no consensus=inclusion basis as I stated in earlier discussions on ITN reform, and posted an item that I have judged to have no consensus. I see no downside to keeping the Zimbabwe item on for its natural lifespan, though I'm hoping that another item, perhaps the detention of US and UK diplomats, the expulsion of aid organizations or the insane inflation (the country is a real mess), replaces it. This is completely consistent from my point of view as apparently one of two admins interacting at ITN/C, but may seem unfair to you. You might want to ask an uninvolved admin to review if you feel strongly about it. - BanyanTree01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the last time I went through what I thought were the most likely suspects for articles. It's possible that someone has updated an article and it just hasn't gotten to the portal, which seems to happen fairly frequently. - BanyanTree02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I happened to read the current events page for June 5. I feel that this also sets a dangerous precedent, because one could similarly argue for Zarganar being added. SpencerT♦C00:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article Zarganar was updated adequately and suggested at ITN/C, I would consider it for inclusion, though I would probably wait and hope something that would prompt less people to yell at me was suggested. That said, he is apparently a notable critic of the government (though not the level of Tsvangirai), but has not been released (as Tsvangirai has). I have also been looking for an angle to get Cyclone Nargis back on ITN, since it certainly has not gotten the level of ITN attention it deserves, and that would weigh in any decision as well. If I could embolden Cyclone Nargis rather than Zarganar, I would be more favorable to it.
I feel that I've given a fairly detailed description of my possible reasoning process. What is your reasoning process for a prospective Zarganar item? - BanyanTree00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see where you're coming from. I'm really hoping for a major news story, because when this happens (as it appears now), I notice notability debates become more frequent. I actually agree with your reasoning process for the item. But when you say "...apparently a notable critic..." we need to have a ref for this in the article. Cheers, SpencerT♦C01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
