BBC. Portugal parliament passed a law that would legalize same-sex marriage. -- Ashish-g55 00:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems to have been reported around the world as tends to be usual for this sort of event. Either way it a major change to a law affecting an incalculable amount of people. --candle•wicke 00:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Votes of same-sex marriage in Europe are not a big deal these days. I would support if it were the Vatican City which had voted for same-sex marriage. As for "an incalculable amount of people", the population of Portugal is 10.7 million, which is a perfectly calculable number. Physchim62(talk) 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what about those who are from Portugal but who weren't there to be counted? And minus those who just don't care either way. It's not that easy. --candle•wicke 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly because it still needs a final vote, but also partially per Physchim's above argument. ~DCTalk To Me 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed as well that the bill hasn't actually passed yet, which must be a killer for an ITN piece. Physchim62(talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until such time this is certain to happen; or even until it is formally adopted. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'd prefer to wait until the land border reopens, which is due to happen in April. That way we get all the developments at once. For the moment, I'm a bit concerned about aht we could say other than that this flight has happened – the ITN blurb would say that the flight has happened, but we should give more information for readers who chose to click on the link. Physchim62(talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge this isn't the highest level of competition, college sports are hugely important in the US, and the story will be of interest to people in the US. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added "In college football" and a picture. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 10:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the importance of college football in the US, and the subsequent worldwide image of that importance, I'm open to considering a support. I'd have to know, however, is this competition the highest level of competition for college football? HonouraryMix (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd need an expert opinion (of which mine is not) to be sure, but I think it is. Either way, it's harmless: either it proves popular or it get the sort of ITN hits that are usually reserved for dead ex-presidents and Andorran elections. Physchim62(talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the highest the level. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, is this the top college event of all sports in the US? Because, I'd prefer having max one non-top professional competition on ITN per year - so that this would not be used as a precedent to also post college basketball, baseball etc. --Tone 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, you have a good point Tone. This could set a precedent for including other US college sports, something I would not approve of, since at the end of the day these are only competitions for domestic educational facilities. HonouraryMix (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Division 1 basketball tournament. Those are the only two that people really care much about, and I'd say this one is bigger. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
im going to oppose since we oppose college basketball. The reason is the same. This particular event is of a domestic sport to begin with which isnt even on domestic level but rather college level. I dont think this should be posted. -- Ashish-g55 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "max one non-top professional competition on ITN per year" is a valid argument: a year is a long, long time on Wikipedia, and we have no idea which editors will be voting on ITN stories in December. We're not talking about adding this to WP:ITN/R, merely about adding a news story with an updated article at a time when we are not exactly overwhelmed with good stories. This event has also featured in the discussions at WT:ITN about the supposed "anti-American bias" of ITN. But if we spend our time worrying about which stories will "set precedents" then we'll never end up doing anything to improve the encyclopedia, which is surely a major role of ITN.
It's hard to say which is the more popular among WP readers between college football and college basketball. Last year, the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship got far more hits than the 2009 BCS National Championship Game, but college football topics seem to get more year-round and general viewing figures than college basketball topics. DC makes a fair point about the popularity of college sport in the U.S. compared to other countries. I can only think of one non-U.S. college event which we might consider – The Boat Race, which got more views than the 2009 BCS National Championship Game last year. But let's take each one as it comes up. Physchim62(talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the attack on the Togo team there is another sport event for today, one which was a matter of life and death and possibly the end of an international tournament. I know which one I would pick. Would it be too much to include this as well now? I know some people like variety. --candle•wicke 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can cope! We have a good range of topics and locations at the moment, but we have no sports stories and no stories from the U.S. That's not a calamity in any way – we shouldn't always be featuring a sports story or a U.S. story – but it's harmless to put one up at the moment. I don't really think the Togo football team attack qualifies as a sports story either: it's a terrorist attack in which at least one person died. When people die, it stops being sport, IMHO. Physchim62(talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just for the records. --bender235 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On the grounds that we don't feature records from domestic tournaments also bcz of WP:ITNSPORTS. --yousaf465' 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. The Japan series wasn't added to that list 'til last year, for example. ~DCTalk To Me 05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for now, given the expansion of ITNsports and the claims above which I accept in good faith that this is the most prominent of American college sports and also the top level of American college football. Just to make that clear, that means I would oppose using this as a justification for including any other American college sports, at least for now Nil Einne (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make way for two U.S. collegiate sporting events to be included: this, and Division I men's basketball. I'd argue that basketball may a larger international audience than this one. –HowardtheDuck 06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose US-centrism is not automatically a Bad Thing if it picks topics that would vaguely interest anybody else outside America (Ted Kennedy etc). College football is only of interest to Americans, and is thus why this candidate is exactly the kind of US-centrism ITN can do without. MickMacNee (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Formula One Championship vaguely interests me, though I can't speak for the least unredneck 7/8ths or so.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BCS Championship Game is the championship for US college football at its highest level (Division I), so it represents the highest level of college football. That said, I'm not sure I can support, though I would add that I think this event is more notable than many sports events on WP:ITNR, and the article is good enough. College football is very important in the US but just doesn't have much traction elsewhere. I suppose I'm neutral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not the highest level of American football, and was deliberately omitted from WP:ITNR. Edit: upon closer inspection, this isn't even a formal championship, and is not recognised by the sport's governing body; as a result I'm changing to Strong oppose. Modest Geniustalk 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decisive argument for me was the fact this was omitted from WP:ITNR. Also, comparing this to Formula 1 is a bad example, in my opinion, because F1 is an international sporting tournament, whereas American college football only concerns one country. HonouraryMix (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AFL Grand Final is on there despite being the followed by (much less being the #1 sport of) only some of the states in a country with 14 times less population. See the comment below about not much less than half of Americans having college football as "their" #1 sport. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be said that at WT:ITNR this issue is hotly contested just like here. I don't think it's correct to say it's 'deliberately omitted', though it certainly is omitted. I personally think that many items on ITNR are significantly less worthy that either US college basketball or football.
The common argument against these items is that they are not the 'highest level' of their sports. I think the reason so many US WP users strongly support inclusion is that college football and college basketball are seen to some extent as separate sports. Aside from minor rules differences, the college sports have very separate media coverage and fan bases. It's very difficult to find an analogue in non-US sports that fully equates this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Johnsemlak says is true. Sport almanacs here treat college football and football, and college basketball and basketball as if they were completely different sports. There are 32 professional American football teams for 50+1 American states, some of which have more than one. So many states with no insignificant populations or hectarage such as Virginia, Mississippi*, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska*, and yes, even Alabama* have no pro sports teams at all. Oklahoma* has only one sucky pro team (basketball). Due to this, and football being the most common favo(u)rite sport of Americans, most of the people who live in a large portion of the US will therefore root most for a college football team in their area. *=powerhouse Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to User:Johnsemlak, so what? It's still the same sport. The difference in media coverage and fan base also exists in many other sports (eg motor sports, disability sports). Simply because the US media has separate sections for pro- and college- American football does not make them separate sports. At the end of the day, this is just an amateur variety, which is only open to 'students' (most of whom are on essentially professional athletic 'scholarships' anyway) from a single country, and this game isn't even recognised by the governing body of the sport. Modest Geniustalk 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And separate stadiums, which can even be larger than the professionals'.
Some people would say the same thing about Rugby Union and Rugby League. They're both rugby, they look the same. Why does ITNR have events for both? (I do recognise the difference but I know many people are unaware of the difference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to USer:Sagittarian Milky Way, again so what? There aren't many big American football teams in the UK either, but that doesn't mean we should post the winners of the BAFL. You also appear to be falsely conflating 'professional sporting team' with 'member of the big four major leagues'. There are plenty of professional teams outside the major leagues, some of which are even in Alabama - we even have a List of professional sports teams in Alabama. Modest Geniustalk 13:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is no one in Britain cares about American football. In America, 50-100K attendences of the college game are common and 24 hours of matches are shown on national TV a Saturday. 1⁄3 of all 12-12 autumn Saturday national TV is live college football. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the relevance of the fact that the match is not recognised by "the sport's governing body". When it comes down to it, the vast majority of sporting events that are featured on ITN are completely irrelevant in any global context: the only reason they are featured is because people watch them and read our articles about them. We don't do a simple count of viewing figures to try to keep a bit of balance and variety on ITN, but I hardly see how balance and variety would have been hurt by featuring this match, which was obviously very popular in the United States and on Wikipedia. Physchim62(talk) 14:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is this sport's governing body? As far as I know, American football in the U.S. (and most pro sports there) isn't under the control of any "governing body". The NCAA and NFL govern the sport separately. I guess you meant the NCAA doesn't recognize the champion as the national champion (that distinction goes to NCAA Division I Football Championship (aka Division I-FCS formerly Division I-AA), in which in British terms, Division I-FBS (formerly Division I-A) = Premier League (which is not within the control of the Football League), while Division I-FCS (I-AA) = Football League Championship. –HowardtheDuck 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the levels from I-A, to I-AA, to II and III (progressively tinier colleges) are governed by the same association, the NCAA. They decrease in quality of play and most people probably couldn't even name who won I-AA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, I don't think most Alabamans even know that they have pro sports teams. –HowardtheDuck 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The governing body of college football is the NCAA. But according to our NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article 'the championship team is not determined by an NCAA championship or tournament', 'the NCAA, the sport's governing body, does not determine or declare a national champion' and multiple restatements of this amongst the related articles. That's what I meant by it not being recognised by the governing body. Your British football analogy is completely off the mark, since the Premier League and Football League are entirely recognised by the Football Association (which is the governing body) and the champions are determined by the top team after all games have been played, not a third-party playoff based on computer-generated rankings. Besides, we don't post the Premier League champions anyway, since it's not the highest level of club competition (that's the UEFA Champions League), and that certainly has higher interest, both nationally and internationally, than this. Modest Geniustalk 15:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Football Association is the governing body of football in England. There is no governing body of American football in the U.S., and even if there is, no one cares/knows about it. The NCAA has never controlled or held a championship for this type of football at this level, just like they did on basketball or any other NCAA sport. This doesn't diminish the impact of this event. The NFL and the NCAA are not under one umbrella just as the Premier League and the Football League. As for club competition and interest, just as lawyers ask to the judge, it is irrelevant.
To make it clear, the NCAA is not the "governing body" in this level of this sport. There is no "governing body". –HowardtheDuck 15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I opinion that, with the game having occurred nearly 3 days ago, it might be too late to put this up anyway. HonouraryMix (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that listings usually stay up for longer than that, I don't think this is an issue. ~DCTalk To Me 16:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian, news.com.au The Ady Gil has sunk. The ship was owned by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and was involved in a collision with the Japanese whaling ship Shonan Maru 2 on 6 January. In addition both Australia and New Zealand (where the ship was registered) have said that they will launch investigations into the event, which has been called "a dramatic escalation in hostilities between whalers and campaigners". This might be a bit of a long shot but the articles seem good enough, there are free pictures of the boat and people have been requesting a quicker turn around of stories recently - Dumelow (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this as important enough for the ITN spot. This is blatantly playing into the hands of PR savvy Watson's publicity stunt strategy. So, please, take this off. __meco (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly see how sinking a crewed boat in the Southern Ocean, one of the most inhospitable places on the planet, can be seriously regarded as a "publicity stunt". If you have any sources to back up your claims, feel free to add them to the article. Physchim62(talk) 14:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watson intentionally and regularly provokes such confrontations. This has been widely documented, indeed Discovery channel has run a dedicated series showcasing Sea Shepherd's acutely media-conscious policy of engaging in high-risk stunts in order to attract attention of international news media. This was no unfortunate accident. As all news reports do in fact seem to agree. The only disagreement is who's (the more) to blame. By selecting this incident for ITN we are being played, and although we shouldn't categorically reject any headlines which have this aspect to them, that certainly should make us reconsider twice before posting. THAT was definitely not done in this case. __meco (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I register a "wait, what?" oppose here, despite being late to the party? As noted above, the Sea Shepherd folks are likely using this incident for their own promotional needs, and it's not, to me, a notable enough story to be included. I'd rather see it pulled for further discussion. Tony Fox(arf!) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping the story up. I don't see a single outside source to back up the claims being made here, which are verging on a BLP violation. The place to take this is the article talk page, should anyone consider that the sinking was in any way intentional. Physchim62(talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or we pull it and never again post a story about terrorism, war or random shopping mall shootings, which are also "publicity stunts" under this sort of definition. Physchim62(talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my point is more of a "who cares?" thing; is there nothing more important going on that we can highlight? Seems to be a very fringe topic for ITN. I also wasn't suggesting there was anything intentional in the sinking, just that Watson and his folks are very good at using the media for their own gains in situations like this. Tony Fox(arf!) 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - what? This has nowhere near enough significance to be featured on ITN - don't these people go around trying to get in situations like this anyway? Interesting for fans of the show, presumably, but not an important global event. I had to have a good rummage to find external coverage of it too. – Toon 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whose significance? The story was far more popular than the gas pipeline or the Malaysian church burning. Physchim62(talk) 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by popular? Are you talking about number of people reading the stories on external sites? I agree that significance is subjective, if that's what you mean, but IMO (as ITN has loose inclusion criteria compared with elsewhere on WP), the coverage that this conflict has garnered has been due to the fact that the crew feature on a TV show that is reasonably popular in the US, rather than because of the events' implications and wider impact. I don't see it as an extraordinary event given the group's apparently confrontational attitude, and the results do not have the devastating or far-reaching effects (not just in terms of lives but also social and political effects) that, to take an example from above, a terrorist attack that kills civilians would have. – Toon 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "popular", I'm talking about Wikipedia page hits. Earthrace, the article bolded in this piece, got 20.2k hits on Wednesday and 16.0k hits on Thursday – note that those are not huge figures for an ITN story, but Friday's figures aren't out yet, and the story only made it to the Main Page on Friday. Malaysia v. The Herald has yet to make a thousand daily hits (although it was only posted on Friday), while Dauletabad – Salyp Yar pipeline (former link for the pipeline story) got 5.2k hits on Thursday. To give a better comparison for the Malaysia story, while we're waiting for Friday's figures, you can just about see an increase in page hits to Allah and Malaysia over the last few days compared with December, but it is 2–3k, far from the 20k hits shown by Earthrace. Physchim62(talk) 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, popularity ≠ significance, or we would have Gordon Brown singing songs from Les Miserables as Simon Cowell decided who wins the general election. Although, I think a "popular articles" tab would be quite an interesting feature, to be honest. – Toon 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed for now. Apparently, I removed another one as well, my bad... I see this is fixed now. Thanks. --Tone 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Who gives a damn if it "plays into" what tis Sea Shepherd crowd is trying to do? That isn't what ITN should be about. It was a very notable, very widely-played story. These opposes sounda lot like IDONTLIKEIT arguments, at least to me. UnitAnode 22:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with posting news stories which don't attract much attention. However, our readers certainly read this story, which makes me very wary of simply saying that it is "insignificant". After all, "significant" ≠ what I like. Physchim62(talk) 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are those viewing stats systematically published somewhere for ITN entries? I was following the response an article I nominated got once on ITN, and the increase in viewing was quite staggering. Not as much as for the Burj Dubai (you have to combine the views for the current name and the redirect from the old name), but some/much of that will be people arriving at the article from outside or just searching for the article after reading about it in the news. Watching the viewing figures tail off over time is interesting as well. The ones I looked at: [1], [2], [3]. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Please move this to WT:ITN if that is a more appropriate place.[reply]
I'm compiling the figures for 2009 at the moment. You have to be a little bit careful with directly comparing two stories, as there are several effects which can skew the figures for individual articles (such as the time of day the story is posted, or the presence of personal names in the blurb). Still, you can say that Magnus Carlsen (peak 68.6k) was a popular story, in the top quartile, while Burj Khalifa (peak 212k) was an exceptionally popular story, in the top 2%. The record is held by Michael Jackson with a peak of 5.9 million page views in a single day. Physchim62(talk) 13:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was a world record attempt, made using environmentally-friendly materials and it sank after colliding with a whaling vessel, after an anti-whaling campaign. Icelandic fishermen killing a fin whale made ITN, so this should as well. ~AH1(TCU) 18:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy of a court ruling on the use of Allah escalates. A church was torched as a protest against a court ruling which determined that the term "Allah" is not exclusively owned by Muslims and that it can be used by the Catholic Church in Malaysia. There were attacks on several churches in the country which failed. __earth(Talk) 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another church suffered slight damage according to Malaysiakini -- it's not entirely clear what's going on right now. I'm somewhat biased since I used to attend that church, but this is rather notable I think -- Malaysia is not exactly a country where you expect this sort of thing to happen. Johnleemk | Talk 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have picture too. Though there's issue with the license, I've sent an email regarding permission to use the photo from the author to permission-en at wikimedia.org __earth(Talk) 10:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The impact of this ruling is mainly domestic. However, this is an interesting case by its own right because neighboring Indonesia does allow churches to use Allah to refer to God. Newspapers are talking about it in Indonesia and Singapore as well. Arsonal (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article talks of one church torched and attempt was made on another. What's the definition of "several"? Even Reuter news says 1 church only. Why is this so important news? --122.248.161.91 (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
News reports suggest at least 3 churches were targeted in the violence, not just one. [4]Scanlan (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that any suggestion that there is a connection between the court ruling and the attacks is speculative at this time. I have removed the link, with the suggestion that it be re-added if a separate article is created for the attacks, or if arrests are made and a connection is publicly confirmed. Andrew Levine (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(BBC) Gunmen have attacked the Togo squad bus, at the Congo-Angola border, wounding several players and staff. The 2010 African Cup of Nations is due to start on Sunday. It is not yet mentioned in the Africa cup article and I couldn't find a stand alone article on it, the story has only recently broken and details are few and far between. This is similar to the 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team which we put up, although thankfully there are not yet any reported fatalities - Dumelow (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support once an appropriate article is updated. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, have they withdrawn yet? Even if they don't I would still support but especially if they do. Plus with that many players and staff injured physically and psychologically would it not severely affect their performance anyway? They don't seem to want to play which makes it more tragic that their sport would be affected. Also several of the players seem to play in England and this is the English Wikipedia as well but even if that isn't the case I would still support as well. And there has been one death now too which I don't think has been mentioned above. So yes in every way, can't see any way to oppose it if it is updated. --candle•wicke 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I don't think we should rush this one. It is notable, but it is a team from a French-speaking country attacked in a Portuguese-speaking country, it is going to take a little longer than usual to do the update properly! I would say check back in 12 hours time. There should really be an article: 2010 attack on the Togo national football team. Physchim62(talk) 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with updated article. As already stated, we had the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team too and although there's no evidence this is related to terrorism, it has similar ramifications Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was going to nominate this myself, and then realised it would have been nominated already. There will be more updates over the next few days, so if it does go up, someone may need to keep an eye on the tagline. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posting, but there is something about the picture's license. It says "Own work of The weaver" and, at the same time, "Public domain Photo with permission from weberberg.de". Who is the author, the user or the website? And I don't see the picture on the website... Just to be safe, I won't use the picture. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. However, if the tournament is cancelled (or Togo pull out of the tournament) I recommened we either modify the blurb or replace it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Togo pulls out of the African Cup of Nations. I suggest we update the blurb accordingly. There could be more serious fallout consequences to come. I'd rather we keep it as one item though it may become necessary to report a later development separately.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support Physchim's updated blurb. The current one is now out-of-date.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to Physchim's blurb. Thanks for updating it - Dumelow (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Togo to play in African Cup. Jeez, well, that story just reversed itself. Can we go back to the previous blurb? Or further update the blurb, noting that the Togo team have decided to participate despite its government's order to withdraw?--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has fixed it after it came up at WP:errors - Dumelow (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that this is pushing the number of ship articles linked to in the in the news section, and that the nom is fashionably late, but here we have the largest ship ever built, and she's being scrapped. I feel that the distinction of death of titan like Knock Nevis ought to be something worthy of a main page ITN appearance. I ask for a little leniency with the nom on account of the fact that since Knock Nevis has been in the middle east and is heading further east still the news agencies of the west have been slow to pickup on the story. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how this meets out death criteria ;-) Seriously, the story just doesn't do it for me. Big ships are scrapped all the time. I'd be more likely to support a story about the launch of a ridiculously big ship than it's ultimate demise, unless there were a huge amount of fuss over the scrapping (see, eg, French aircraft carrier Clemenceau (R98)). When I see that the Lloyd's List story is date 15 December, that really kills any enthusiasm. Sorry. Physchim62(talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article she's the longest ship but only the 5th largest ship Nil Einne (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other four have all been scrapped though so technically TomStar81 is right when he said that it was "world's largest sea vessel currently in existence". (Just seen the other part where he says "largest ship ever built"). I still oppose this story though as it occurred back on 15 December - Dumelow (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
