Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2014

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

August 31Edit

2014 celebrity pictures hackEdit

Article: 2014 celebrity pictures hack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hundreds of intimate pictures of female celebrities are leaked via the image sharing website 4chan after a hacker gains access to the celebrities' iCloud accounts. (Post)
News source(s): Newsweek Sydney Morning-Herald

Nominator's comments: Not just another celebrity story--"one of the biggest mass breaches of celebrity privacy in history" according to Newsweek article. --Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - People do stupid things (taking nudes of themselves), news at 11. The larger story may be the hack of cloud storage systems which have always been purported as strong mechanisms which were broken in this hack, but I'd like to see more confirmation if there's a major problem there. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on two grounds. 1) On the grounds of WP:BLP, the "do no harm" ethos: Certainly, Wikipedia needs to cover this topic with appropriate article content. But advertising as such on the main page probably represents and undue level of attention to people who have been directly harmed by this, and adds to the problem 2) Even so, this is basically "look, a bunch of nude celebs!!!" type of news. Security breaches of this type go unreported when the people involved aren't pretty young hollywood types. So, even if my objection because of reason 1) seems to bother you, reason 2) is good enough to not post this on ITN. --Jayron32 01:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't often post items about celebrities, and don't think calling attention to some stolen pictures is a good place to start. Aside from its prurient appeal there just isn't much of a story here. Dragons flight (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't news about celebrities, this is news about a very serious security flaw in a cloud service by a multi-billion dollar company which affects millions upon millions of people. There is a huge story here. Most people don't realize the security repercussions of uploading private data to the Internet, or that iCloud backups contain not just private pictures, but GPS coordinates, address books, contact lists, text messages and other personal data. This is perhaps the most important security breaches since Heartbleed. If anyone is naïve enough to think that this is nothing more than "look, a bunch of nude celebs!!!", then they're not paying attention. Security is something that affects everyone who uses the Internet (about 3 billion people[1]). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    From the article: "An investigation by Apple found that to obtain the images, the leaker had breached iCloud accounts by guessing usernames, passwords and security questions". Apple screwed up by allowing attackers to repeatedly try guessing passwords (i.e. a brute force attack), and they have already fixed that. We could also blame Apple and users for not using stronger passwords and/or requiring two factor authentication. However, this event is not even in the same ballpark as Heartbleed. For that matter, most of the attacks listed at data breach are more severe than this. This attack just happens to be salacious because a group of celebrities was targeted, but the actual attack itself isn't that remarkable. Dragons flight (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    Most hacks aren't particularly remarkable. Heartbleed was a simple buffer overrun issue and 'Goto fail' was apparently a copy and paste error. What you're missing is the severity and ramifications of the breach. Just as Heartbleed caused a rethink in the open source model (see Core Infrastructure Initiative), we're already seeing a rethink of how the cloud should be used. While the salatious nature of the security breach is unfortunate, it should in no way diminishes the importance. We have kids committing suicide after being placed in similar situations. This is a very serious issue and something that shouldn't be swept under the rug. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    The Heartbleed issue was that it was a small bug in a core piece of software used in hundreds of software applications, and by hundreds of organizations that affected everyone equally, and required all of them to install the ssl library (or software that depended on that) to remove it and then reissue certs. That's a huge expense in terms of doing the software updates and informing users of the problem. Here, all Apple had to do was add in a login attempt counter on their end. While it affects celebrities (and possibly businesses) with some quantifiable monetary aspect, it is a trivially easy fix, and also preyed on people that put sensitive information in the cloud, and affected those with more celebrity status than any other user. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that you're confusing the cost of fixing the bug with the cost inflicted on the victims. Servers can be fixed. SSL certificates can be revoked. The damage done to the victims cannot be undone. Once this private data has been exposed, it can never be revoked. And this is not just an issue that concerns a hundred celebrities, it concern everyone who uses the Internet, which is about 3 billion people. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    Heartbleed leads to identity theft which can destroy anyone's life and no fault to their own. That's a lot more "valuable" than the reputation of celebs that decided to take nude photos of themselves, and while might have some image issues, are still making money. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    I sincerely hope that you're not blaming the victim. In any case, are you saying that stealing text messages, calendars, address books, phone call logs, GPS coordinates and any other personal data doesn't lead to identify theft? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    If you, as a person very visible in the public eye, take nudes of yourself, something that will knowingly ruin that image, and then store them in a location you don't have full control over, you are partially to blame for that. Now, I will say that the details lost in all the stories (because it is all about the nude photos) of their person contacts/calenders/etc. is a problem they can't be blamed for (All that stuff, not just Apple, but Android users too, all gets sent to cloud storage). But again, we are talking 100s of people (specifically targetted) affected by this compared to millions affected without scrutiny by Heartbleed. Far different situation. The fact that the story buries the fact that other personal details were taken far overshadowed by the nudes indicated how much this is sensational journalism rather than a serious tech threat. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    This isn't just about celebrities and nude pictures. This is about the security of cloud computing. Millions of people have personal data in the the clouds, and not just ones with computers and mobile devices. So the potential impact dwarfs that of Heartbleed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    It was an issue with Apple users which are a minority compared to all computing users which Heartbleed affected if they used any server that had old SSL libraries (read, pretty much any server that is serious about security). Further, it wasn't a "hack" inso much simply taking advantage of the lack of authorization tries on Apple's end. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Heartbleed also affected a minority of web servers (about 17%). Of course the attackers hacked their way into Apples servers. They stole data that didn't belong to them, correct? The fact that Apple failed to provide any safeguards against this sort of hacking doesn't make it any less real. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per AQFK. This is a big deal, as noted, because of the implications involved. Frankly, I am surprised more of the regulars here fail to see that. International story and widely covered. Jusdafax 05:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dragons flight. Not even close to the scale of heartbleed. All it confirms is that Apple had as good security as millions of other websites. CaptRik (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I have to come down on the oppose side despite the news coverage because if this wasn't a bunch of celebrities, it wouldn't be in the news. As said by Dragon's flight, it was not a sophisticated hacking job which might make it more notable. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A few celebrities got hacked, hardly life-changing news. Also seems like a terribly US-centric story. Valiant Patriot (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Valiant Patriot Just to clarify, per the "Please do not" section above, objections relating to an event being from a single country are not valid. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Nay that wasn't the point - outside of the US this issue has recieved between nil and zero coverage. A bit different from the 'US-centric' argument although I'll concede they are similar. The other objection still stands I would think, a few people getting hacked does not news make. Valiant Patriot (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Nah, this was all over the news in my place when it fappened. –HTD 12:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I see what you did there --Jayron32 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to reddITN. –HTD 13:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for making a case for something at Wikipedia. You don't merely win any debate by presenting a bunch of sources. You also need to develop consensus among people, and decisions can be made for a variety of reasons. Not having sources means we're not doing this at all; but the reverse is not true: merely having sources does not automatically mean you "win". --Jayron32 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand. I was responding to an editor above who claimed that "outside of the US this issue has recieved between nil and zero coverage". The list of sources is to demonstrate that this has been widely covered all over the world (Australia, Canada, UK, France, Germany, India, etc.). As for making a case, please see the following.[2][3] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simply put--not notable. The fact that this is happening to celebrities deosn't add to the notability. We don't want ITN to look like the National Enquirer website.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with your last sentence. Which is why we should treat this as a serious security issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose stupid people do stupid things. And then get caught. And clever people expose them. It's not really a story beyond the excitement generated from nude pictures of pretty women. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So the victims are "stupid" and the criminals are "clever"? Is that your argument? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as tabloid fodder. Sexy pictures get leaked all the time without making the news - the internet has more leaked photos of ex-girlfriend's breasts than it has videos of cats (ok, ok, [citation needed]). The only difference this time is that some of the victims are minor celebrities. Besides, the more attention this gets the more people look up the images. There's no need for us to contribute to further prurience. Modest Genius talk 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ironically, dismissing this as "tabloid fodder" contributes to the very problem about which you complain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • How so? Modest Genius talk 11:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Because cyber security is a very serious issue that affect billions of people. Dismissing these crimes as mere "tabloid fodder" suggests that security isn't a serious issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
        • You seem to be trying to spin this as a 'cyber security' issue when the news item relates to celebrities getting hacked. While similar, they are not the same. The 'we need to post this because everyone is effected by cyber security' argument is very weak IMO. Valiant Patriot (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Of course, it's a cyber security issue. The fact that the victims are well-known doesn't change that fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If we don't post this how will I know how to find it? μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion' How about an alternate phrasing: "Hundreds of personal photographs were leaked after a hackers gained access to the private iCloud accounts."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Donald TuskEdit

Article: Donald Tusk (talk, history)
Blurb: Donald Tusk is elected President of the European Council. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Donald Tusk is appointed President of the European Council.
News source(s): BBC

 -- Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Donald Tusk was elected President of the European Council. BBC Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment please use the template in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Tusk article needs work, e.g. "He will Succeed current Herman Van Rompuy which he was the Netherlands.." Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support subject to a satisfactory update. A major international position. Neljack (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment could we have a blurb with both appointments, i.e. Donald Tusk as President of the European Council and Federica Mogherini as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy ? Otherwise I am not sure that "elected" is the right word for the blurb. Designated could be better ? Hektor (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    A blurb that covers both would be good, too. The Mogherini article needs more work and references, though, and we can always fold in her appoint into the blurb after posting. In the EUC's own English language documents, they use the word "elected" for these appointments and I assume that the council has some sort of voting procedure. (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support article is satisfactorily updated, given than there's nothing much more to say about this than what's in the article introduction (and infobox). Apart from some minor issues, the article is in good shape and is suitable for the front page. The recent EU appointments (including the Mogherini appointment) will likely have an impact on the EU's orientation toward Russia and the recent conflicts between. This development is covered in international media. (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — I would guess he's the first Pole to occupy such a (nominally?) high international position in the post-Cold War era — if not the post-WWII era. Pic. available. Sca (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose will this have any effect on Putin's promise to take Kiev? This sham is a shameful abomination, bureaucrats voting themselves sinecure with pensions. Get back to us when this position matters. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It does matter. It is one of the most important positions in the EU, whether you like it or not. Neljack (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? Please don't comment on things you clearly know nothing about, Meidy! (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Second in importance only to President of the European Commission. Regardless of certain users political opinions this is clearly ITN-worthy with an updated article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article still needs a lot of work; but once it's clean up, I'd Support. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a noteworthy appointment to a powerful position. If article quality is still an issue, a few sentences could be added to President of the European Council and that used as the bold link. Might be less work than Tusk's article! Also, 'elected' seems a bit much, 'appointed' would be better. Altblurb added. Modest Genius talk 15:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The most important international job for a Pole since John Paul II. — Kpalion(talk) 09:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention needed - this seems to have support, but there still needs to be some expansion of one or both articles. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now, but it would be a shame for this to go stale, especially as ITN has been rather slow recently. Modest Genius talk 21:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In that case its notready for postng IF not pdated. Miind you though, 2 sentences is enough to warrant an update...if so mark readyLihaas (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

August 30Edit

[ttention needed] [Ready] Coup in LesothoEdit

Article: 2014 Lesotho political crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An attempted coup occurs in Lesotho following several months of political tension. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​President Tom Thabane flees Lesotho after a military take over of some government buildings.
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems like a significant event, attempted coup in Lesotho --Valiant Patriot (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment suggest the nominator waits until there's an article, a blurb and some kind of conclusion before this candidate is re-nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
support but wait this has been a few months in the making since Thabane suspended parliament over said fears and SA pressure. We posted South Sudan's attempt so its a no-brainer./ I proposed (on my user page) to one day creat 2014 Lesotho Crisis suppose its time now...Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Now that you've made an article and updated it (thankyou) do you think its ready to post? Thoughts User:The Rambling Man and User:Lihaas Valiant Patriot (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)?
Support - definitely an article for ITN. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the blurb and the article claiming the coup to be "alleged". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose an "alleged" coup per TRM (as well as an alleged coup that the army denies doing). 331dot (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Which armies outright claim a coup? Our article on egypt last year says coup and the army (and others) deny it.
Reworded altblurb...and if you have issue with osomething feel free to change/alternate it. bette than grumbling over issues not related to conte.tLihaas (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Read again. Concerns are directly related to content, of both the blurb and the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
(to Lihaas) Generally people who are taking over a country admit to taking over a country. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
democratically/constitutionally...which coup says as much..ive just pointed the same to egypvvtLihaas (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Major national coup, this "alleged" business is nonsense. If we only posted news that every involved party agreed happened there would be a lot less on ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
even the time we post other stuff is before alleged becomes confirmation. And anyways, hgto the update so marked readvvyV V Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Just updated with Thabane returning in escort by SA police. Theres no orange tag on it eitherv.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So it's all over? Like literally before it started? Not sure there's any point in this story. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
1. No, hes nder th conver of a FOREIGN protection force (if harper or Obama cme bac k under cover of respective securities that is still notable.
2. the instability of thecoup still took place. not everyday a head f got flees the country.
We have an update an consensus, why being pedantic?Lihaas (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

August 29Edit

August 28Edit

[Closed] RD: Victor John StengerEdit

No references, no suggestion that this individual meets the RD criteria, no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Victor J. Stenger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Blog
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment beyond waiting for some kind of source, any chance of suggesting why this person would qualify under the RD criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unimportant in any field he is "noted" for. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing any field he would have been a "leader" in, also some concerns that the article reads as a CV rather than a bio. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment He was a well known figure both inside and outside of academia. I'm not sure his academic work is in itself exceptional enough for inclusion. Last year the Ref Desk refused an entry on Kenneth G. Wilson, so the standards for physicists seems to be extremely high, almost no one will qualify. But then Stenger was also known outside of acedemia for his outspoken views on e.g. religion. Count Iblis (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not seeing any listing in any news service indicating the man has actually died. Challenger l (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I'm not seeing how he meets any of the RD criteria, nor am I seeing any news sources about his death. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not wishing to beat a dead horse, but as per all above, not a terribly notable individual with sparse mainstream media coverage. Valiant Patriot (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Pulled] Remove 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict from OngoingEdit

I understand what some may think here, but there is currently a ceasefire, which means that it is not "ongoing" at the moment. I know ceasefires don't last much these days but it is not up to us to decide. When the conflict heats up again (hopefully not) we can re-post. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Israel will just claim that they were attacked (without proof) and it will all start up again..not worth the time..--Stemoc 10:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support bringing original research and personal point-of-view into this isn't helpful, nor appropriate. As the ceasefire is holding there's no point in keeping the conflict at Ongoing. We can easily restore it should anything occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a long-term ceasefire. Not like the previous ones which are only designed to last a few days.-FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Please note that I suggest this as part of the ceasefire blurb below. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps we could keep it on ongoing with a changed wording. It's still a major ongoing story, if it's not a conflict.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Per the above Rambler. RGloucester 15:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support above views. CaptRik (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready to be removed, dare not do it myself given current "climate"! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed Stephen 22:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 27Edit

Troops from Russia launch new front in UkraineEdit

Article: War in Donbass#August counter-offensive by pro-Russian forces (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Soldiers entering Ukraine from Russia open a new front in southern Donetsk Oblast. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ukraine has also been showing interviews with captured Russian soldier, who say there were told to leave their papers and repaint their vehicle identifications - Russia say they "got lost and entered Ukraine by accident". And there have been a number of burials in Russia of soldiers, who Russia say died during "training accidents". The rebels were losing, and this Russian escalation of their salami tactics was forced to avoid the "rebels" losing completely. Thue (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment We have the ongoing Ukraine Conflict. Would this not fall under that? --MASEM (t) 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • As dictated on Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria about ongoing, "Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb". Surely you agree that Russia blatantly invading Ukraine falls under that? Thue (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • With the understanding that Russia's statements of late have been full of spin, I would argue from reading the NYTimes article that the news side of things see this as "yet more events" in the region and not a brand new major transgression. It's news, they are reporting it, but it's not a massive change in the ongoing issue. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what Masem just said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • For fucks sake, celebrity deaths and sports events breeze through, but huge world-changing events struggle. WTF is wrong with you all, ITN? Thue (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Calm the fuck down. I asked a simple question, as we have the Ongoing item covering Ukraine, why would we need an additional blurb? It's a reasonable question and doesn't warrant your own Ongoing point-making and swearing (although I can tolerate the latter more than the former). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I also agree that this shouldn't be added because it's part of the Ukraine Conflict already listed in "Ongoing". AHeneen (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. I detect that this nom may also be POV and emotionally charged. --WaltCip (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I am extremely frustrated with ITN. I have been following the conflict closely, and do have a clear personal opinion. I am also right about the facts of the Ukrainian situation, and still able to make non-PoV judgements. Thue (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as covered by Ongoing, as lacking verification, and as WP:POV. I also suggest that the nominator take a few days to gain some perspective. I don't know where this "celebrity death" thing comes from, but this sort of petulant bickering doesn't do ITN any favors. (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You just opposed a worthy ITN item out of pure politics, or at least from a position of ignorance. Perhaps you should do some introspection? Thue (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This does seem to be gaining strength as a story; (at this moment on the top front of BBC, CNN) and near the top on some other sources I see. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The way these are being written is that the press still considers this simply a continuation of the ongoing fighting and cases of "he said, she said" in terms of what is actually going on. Yes, something heated is going on, this could be an ITN soon, but this is more of the same that ongoing covers. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • To add, as I've watched twitter over the last 30 m since I've typed, things are moving quick here. I would rather wait for either an affirmation from neutral parties (non-Russian, non-Rebel, non-Ukraine) that Russia has invaded, or what effectively would be a declaration of war by one side or the other. But it is still in a state of mis-information by the involved parties that makes this hard to take as news yet. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • CNN now says the US Government believes 1,000 Russian troops have entered Ukraine. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
          • In which case it should be a blurb. It appears that NATO have also agreed that this is the case. I'm still perplexed as to why this doesn't constitute an act of war and why Ukraine/Russia aren't formally at war with one another if this is genuinely the case, but hey, I'm just a consultant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It is really quite simple: Russia is lying about everything, as we also saw on Crimea, and the lies really are fairly transparent. I am not being facetious. Waiting until Putin admits the obvious truth is silly. Thue (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
          • As Wikipedia editors , we need to elevate ourselves past common politics. Has Russia lied about its activities in this conflict before? Very highly yes. But we cannot presume, without violating OR/POV, that they were lying now when charged with the question of their troops in Ukraine. As soon as we got third parties (and better ones than just the US, who of course aren't 100% neutral here) to make the claim, then we're at a point that we can say "Russian troops are in Ukraine" and that's the validation to make this a ITN-worthy story. But we can't ride on the claims of Ukraine or the presumptions of Russia's questionable statements to make that. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • My claim that Russia is lying in this case is not based on past behaviour, but also knowledge of the situation and independent news reports. I was just giving you a starter hint for understanding the situation, since you seemed to not have a very deep knowledge about the situation, ans were giving undue weight to Russia's statements. Thue (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
              • You were trying to get this in before we had independent reports, which I completely agree are fine otherwise. But without those reports, trying to push a news item based on the claims of "Russia's lying", despite their past behavior, is POV-ish. --MASEM (t) 22:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Now that there appears to be both US and UN assessments that claim Russian intrusion into Ukraine. Ongoing should be maintained. I have not checked the article for quality but we're clearly at a possible turning point. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I would not've supported before, but I agree with Masem's reasoning. A "turning point" is exactly what this is. RGloucester 21:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Update: Having read plenty of newspapers over the past few days, it is clear that this event is dominating the news. Therefore, I've changed my position to "support" from "weak support". RGloucester 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support considering this and this but the blurb should make it clear that it is not 100% confirmed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned in the nomination, Russia is in Bagdad Bob territory, saying that the 1000s of soldiers from the Russian army there are "on vacation", with their tanks apparently. I maintain that we to not have to wait for Russia to confirm fact which are widely confirmed in independent media, and we do not have to mark the blurb as not 100% confirmed. Thue (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "we do not have to mark the blurb as not 100% confirmed." is flatly against was WP stands for. We are not rumor mongers. Once we had UN/NATO confirmation, that gave us the confirmation, but no amount of claims maid by Ukraine and denials by Russia would have made this ITN without neutral confirmation (or a formal declaration of war). We have to keep POV here and be clinically neutral in the news coverage. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is highly contentious. We need to wait before we jump into conclusions. Also, it's not clear if this will have much impact on the war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with your hesitance, I cannot agree with "it's not clear if this will have much impact". Already, Ukrainian forces have lost control of most of the land they gained in their recent offensives, other than northern Donetsk Oblast and northern Luhansk Oblast, which they have held onto. RGloucester 23:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is all over the news this morning, with the US, UN and NATO all making the claim, and with satellite imagery from the latter. It may not be clear what impact this will have, but that the impact will be significant is hard to doubt. GoldenRing (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Our article describes a swift loss of the whole border of the Donetsk region with Russia (at least the border guards furthest south fled), and losses of ground elsewhere for Ukraine's armed forces, where before this new offensive the Ukrainian armed forces were slowly gaining ground. Looks like a turning point to me. Narayanese (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support is there really bigger news than Russia invading sovereign nations? SeraV (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Extremely significant event. --GoldenMew (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Much more could be written in the War in Donbass article linked, but it is updated enough that it is meaningful to post it, so I have marked it as such. Thue (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Biggest country in Europe invades second biggest? Is there something stronger than Duh one can say here? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Statement is contentious. Both the rebels and Russia deny that the offensive originates from Russian troops moving in from Russia, which is what the proposed blurb implies. --Tocino 08:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tocino FYI, at least some rebels do not deny the presence of Russian soldiers [4] 331dot (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

August 26Edit

[Pulled] Remove Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) from OngoingEdit

Did I miss something? The article clearly shows that the offensive ended on August 19. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support pull yes, it was posted inappropriately as it hasn't been updated at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - No longer ongoing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we have a better target for ISIL? There was a clear consensus for an article for ISIL, and the discussion which had a clear consensus for an ISIL link also had a rough consensus for that target article. Is there a way to keep a link to ISIL in ongoing, but move the target to a more appropriate target? Any ideas? --Jayron32 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I suggest replacing with a link to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014_events (though it is only up to date up to August 22). The level of news coverage for IS is obviously still newsworthy enough. Thue (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Unless we have a target which is up to date, we should withdraw this, it's embarrassing enough now, to replace it with another stale article is no solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you guys missed the main article for this conflict, which is Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). I believe that it would be a good article to link to in this instance. 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hardly, it's far too long and plastered with maintenance tags. Please feel free to improve it. (Not to mention the fact it's a week out of date and contains gems like "but later ISIS accept the resposbility of this action") The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I meant if it was improved. Our articles for the Syria–Iraq continuum conflict are a total mess, organisationally. There is no clear scheme in the division of content. Regardless, if that's the case, I support removing the link until we've got an appropriate article. 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
So until then, you'd agree we should pull the article as right now it's embarrassing to link it on the main page, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is "embarrassing" or not is not something I want to discuss. However, I agree with pulling the article. I would encourage people with interest in that conflict to help improve the articles, though, so that we don't have this problem. RGloucester 15:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just proposed a content split to a new article here. If anyone is interested, please join the discussion so we can get over this issue once and for all. It is equally embarrassing to not have an article about the current ISIS conflict featured on ITN, considering the significant media attention it is receiving. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please read the relevant discussion at ISIS/Iraq/Syria - ongoing (wikilink doesn't work b/c of brackets used in "[Posted to ongoing]". The Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) did not end on August 19, it's just quieted down similar to how the Gaza conflict quieted down, but it still ongoing (and listed in "Ongoing"). There has been a major issue as to what article to link to, since Wikipedia coverage of the ongoing ISIL conflict is chopped up among several articles. I'd re-write some of that discussion here, but it's much easier if people read the discussion I linked to. AHeneen (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Please, then, update the article so it reflects current events. Or else we simply shouldn't be linking to it from the main page, claiming it to be where we keep our "ongoing" news on this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Just because it's "ongoing" doesn't mean we can link to it. There are dozens of ongoing conflicts around the world right now, most of them, to borrow your phrase, have "quieted down". The "ongoing" section is for ongoing events with constant breaking news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
support removal ITN links need to be updated.Lihaas (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The linked article, Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014), has not been updated for over a week. The latest event in the article is from 19 August. Why is this article in the main page? How can this be considered ongoing? If the article is not going to be updated soon, it should removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ukrainian unrest" ongoing modificationEdit

  • I've been trying to do this for ages to no avail, but I'm going to try and do this again regardless. The present "ongoing" note for the War in Donbass says "Ukrainian unrest". Obviously this is not an appropriate description, given that the ISIL and Gaza conflicts are referred to properly as "conflicts", and the name of the article in question. Please change this to "Ukrainian conflict", so that we can avoid euphemism. Also, I'd propose that the blurb link directly to War in Donbass, rather than Timeline of the war in Donbass, as all other ongoing blurbs, even ones with timelines, link to the main article. I think this is most appropriate, as the timeline provides no context. The timeline is linked to from the main article, so it will still be accessible. RGloucester 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I support changing the target link , and doing a google search shows 18m hits for "ukrainian conflict" vs 4M for "Ukrainian unrest", on that principle I'd support changing the language. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. "Unrest" sounds like some protests and riots. This is well beyond that. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed to conflict now. --Tone 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the archival. The request isn't "done", as the target link hasn't been changed. RGloucester 14:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fine. Done. Please now make sure that article is compliant with WP:LENGTH as most of our main page readers will struggle to load it as it is so cumbersome. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, not archiving as the article demanded is far too long. Please actively work on fixing this issue since you made such a fuss about getting it on the main page. It's terrible for our readers to have to wait so long for this turgid and cumbersome page to load. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The timeline is no better in this respect. I'd note that WP:LENGTH says that there is "no need for haste", and that some articles are just "long", and this is true. Cutting down and splitting the article right now, as the events are ongoing, is night impossible. Once the events are finished, it will be easy to do (as the notability of individual events will be more clear), which is what we did with Russo-Georgian War. I do not think your suit is warranted. RGloucester 15:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The main page, and articles linked from it, are supposed to be accessible. A massively overblown article such as that which you have demanded is not accessible. I look forward to you actively helping solve the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Gaza Conflict Long Term Ceasefire AgreementEdit

Article: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: Egypt helps to negotiate a long-term ceasefire between Hamas and Israel after seven weeks of conflict. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hamas and Israel agree a long-term ceasefire brokered by Egypt after seven weeks of conflict.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Key endpoint in the present round of conflict. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support when confirmed by Israel As I understand it, this is the first ceasefire intended as permanent. This being Israel/Palestine, it will of course be broken at some point, but we can't speculate on whether the violations will happen soon enough to not post the news item. Thue (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support, obviously much more important and welcome than the outbreak of hostilities. A huge relief to be posting good news (one hopes). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support caveated with the fact that most of these last no more than a few days and we must adjust/pull the blurb if/when the transgression occurs. Article needs update. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is Israel/Gaza we're talking about. I give this ceasefire two days, not worthy of ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So your oppose is based on a personal prediction? Does your oppose expire after 48 hours? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support especially given this is a long-term agreement, not just one that will expire after a few days. I don't think we should be crystal ball-gazing about whether it will fail. I've added an altblurb because I think it's a bit odd to lead off with a focus on Egypt helping to negotiate it - the main story is Hamas and Israel agreeing the ceasefire, so that should come at the start of the blurb. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is potentially a major step towards a conclusion of what's probably the world's biggest story right now. CaptRik (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Just another Israel-Hamas flameup completely predictably ending with just another status quo is not the world's biggest story right now! ISIS and Russia's continuing invasion of Ukraine have more casualties and far bigger geopolitical consequences. Thue (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Notwithstanding Poroshenko's proposed roadmap for peace, which might itself yet be a ITN item? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, he says he will present a roadmap in the future. But the situation seems very much in flux, so he might change his mind - I wouldn't hold my breath. I would rather post a news items about the newest Russian incursions into Ukraine (captured Russians who had intentionally removed their markings, White trucks crossing without permission, "insurgents" apparently crossing from Russia). Thue (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, with altblurb. Widely reported, major news. --LukeSurl t c 08:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There's an orange tag that has to be resolved before this can be posted. --Tone 09:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alternative Blurb Item merits posting but I prefer the wording of the alternative blurb as it places emphasis on the two fighting parties rather than Egypt as the primary blurb does. Thanks, Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb per above. But I thought we didn't link country names here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • We're specifically talking about the political entities here so the countries here are germaine and reasonable to link. If we were talking more narrower location, such as a city, we'd not link the country to it. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready and suggest this is posted at the same time the Ongoing "conflict" is removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Burger King buying Tim Horton'sEdit

Articles: Burger King (talk, history) and Tim Hortons (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The American fast food corporation Burger King agrees to buy Canadian coffee and doughnut chain Tim Hortons for US$11.53 billion, and also announces its intention to move its headquarters to Canada. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

 --Jinkinson talk to me 15:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Widely recognized international chains; both articles in good shape. Big business news right now. --Jayron32 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Headline news in both countries. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 18:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

*Support on the fact this also means BK is moving its HQ from US to Canada as part of this. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

    • Oppose per discussion below. When the deal closes, it is ITN ready, but not at this state. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose oddly, while both articles seem to have a "copy-and-paste-and-tweak" para about this proposed merger, neither mention the headline 11.53 billion, and this is simply a proposal, it hasn't happened yet. Why would we post something that hasn't happened yet?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • True, the acquisition is not going to complete until next year but [5] makes it sound like this is the point of no return, barring regulatory issues (no stockholder votes, etc.), which would be the point we report. Also this article does give $11B. --MASEM (t) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yep, I'll wait until it happens, much like we do with just about every other article at ITN. Supporting a business deal that is complete "in principle" is absurdly premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I could have sworn we were using the "papers signed, now waiting for complete" point of these business stories for the ITN but you're right, all the business deal stories I could spot in the past were at the point of completion, barring a few very limited cases (this is not of the same ilk as those others). So yes, I agree with holding off. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)There's the catch-22, however. By the time the deal gets finalized and inked, no one covers the story. It won't be in the news then, because between now and then it's just a bunch of lawyers and accountants in smoke-filled rooms hammering out the boring details. The news is the announcement of the deal itself, not the boring legal work of fine tuning the details. --Jayron32 19:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Not really, in the meantime anything could happen. We wouldn't want to post news that doesn't actually happen, would we? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Again, that's what I thought but spot checking the archives of business deals that were posted or not, we nearly always went with the closing point. Perhaps it is a sign if a deal is so important that the point of closing gets covered in the news compared to those where it is just final and covered with little depth. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is news not so much for the deal itself but for the fact Burger King is seeking to reincorporate in Canada to avoid/reduce its US tax bill(Canada has a much lower corporate tax rate), the idea of which has been in the news since Walgreen's changed their mind about moving after a backlash. Notable story dealing with more than one nation. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It's a crystal ball story, it's an "agreement", nothing more. (Don't recall anyone disputing it impacts just a single nation, so the emphasis on it impacting the US and Canada is somewhat ... unnecessary). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The issue is in the news now (finalizations are rarely in the news as a top story, if at all) and is so because it highlights the issue I mention above. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Per AP article : "Burger King executives also stressed the deal wasn't being driven by a desire for lower tax rates: Schwartz said the company doesn't expect to achieve any "meaningful tax savings.", so I don't think the escaping-US-taxes angle works here.--MASEM (t) 22:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above discussion. RGloucester 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iff this is the biggest such US>Canada corporate tax flight so far. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
'oppose' no great shakes, its not even landmark/first in its domainLihaas (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not the first acquisition in the industry, the amount is not record-breaking, and the acquisition itself doesn't seem to have the potential of making significant changes in the economy or even in its own industry. As for the relocation of the headquarters in order to legally avoid paying taxes under higher rates, good for them, but it's only a very simple and widely known corporate strategy done plenty of times before. In addition, the amount of tax revenues that the United States will lose and Canada will gain as result of this can be rounded to 0% for the sake of precision and will surely not change anything in the public finances of both countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have to say that the "It's not the first acquisition in the industry" argument has to be Whopperiest argument. I presume the "first acquisition in the industry" must've happened in the Stone Age. –HTD 11:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Or maybe in the Mesozoic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Great to see the dinosaurs practicing capitalism. –HTD 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I am kind of in a hurry so I WP:TLDR above , but What if the hook said they were going to buy Tim Horton's and move their headquarters to Canada. I think that is a big deal to move to canada.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have since expanded the hook so it does mention this. IDK if that will change anyone else's mind besides Tonythetiger's, however. Jinkinson talk to me 22:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: This isn't making worldwide news. This news is really only relevant in Canada. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but this very page warns us not to "complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." Jinkinson talk to me 01:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I worry that the deal might fall apart before the final papers are signed; also it's not a "record" deal just fairly standard for businesses in today's world. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Rotherham sex abuse reportEdit

Article: Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham concludes that more than 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham has released its report. This is a major breaking news story in the UK media. See the article for sources. -- The Anome (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you like to propose it like all other normal ITN proposals? i.e. include a blurb, a set of references etc to enable our contributors to assess it rather than just say "see the article"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd probably support this if someone were to put through a full proposal. Dismas|(talk) 12:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome to suggest your own. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, done the hard work for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Taco Bell Offers "Lifetime" of Free FoodEdit

Perhaps not. BencherliteTalk 07:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Taco Bell (talk, history) and Dollar Cravings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On August 26, 2014, Taco Bell announced the new contest "Everlasting Dollars" in which the 11 participants in 11 American cities could win a lifetime of Taco Bell food. However, the "lifetime" supply comes with restrictions. (Post)
News source(s): The Consumerist
 --DrWho42 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Finally, some real news. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - This story is important for posterity. --Buttsleuth (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it's 1 April and I missed seven months. Very amusing but not newsworthy in any real sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We aren't here to advertise Taco Bell or any business. Not covered in any news sources AFAIK. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Definitely promotional. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This looks like promotional baloney, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 25Edit

Shooting of Charles VaccaEdit

Article: Shooting of Charles Vacca (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A nine-year-old girl inadvertently shoots and kills an instructor at a shooting range in Arizona. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News

 --Jinkinson talk to me 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose by all accounts 18 people under the age of 24 are killed every single day by firearms in the US. The fact that someone thought it was helpful to place a 9mm Uzi in the hands of a very small child is beyond me; to me it is an act of utter stupidity, not notable in any sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was an accident at an otherwise controlled environment. While I'm all for gun control etc., the story is being used heavily by the gun control lobby and hence getting blown out of proportion. Also, single death of other person (why do we even have an article on this?) (I will note to TRM that it's not the age of the person that died, but the age of the shooter, and far outside the range ~18-24, that makes this "interesting" but I still agree it's not appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    The ref was more to indicate that deaths through firearms, even limited to a small age range, are commonplace in the US. This is only in the news because it was caught on video. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An accident which happens quite often in the US(not specifically with those circumstances, but gun accidents in general) and was, unfortunately, largely the dead man's fault by not properly supervising the girl and violating his own employer's regulations(they permit 10 and older, not 9). It also is being promoted by the gun control lobby as stated above. Isolated workplace accidents are not for ITN. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

First functional organ created from scratchEdit

Article: Thymus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists successfully create the first functional organ from scratch. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists at the University of Edinburgh successfully create the first functional organ from unrelated, reprogrammed tissue cells in mice.
News source(s): Nature Cell Biology BBC Huffington Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This seems notable for ITN as it is a first. Andise1 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Very important achievement with significant media attention. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure about using the term "from scratch". Is that the correct scientific term? Will most users understand it? Rhodesisland (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't know, but surely "from scratch" is how all thymuses have been created for as long as there have been thymuses (?). Formerip (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (once article is updated) - Major achievement. However, "from scratch" should be replaced with "from reprogrammed cells."--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvement; I have provided an improved blurb that I think captures the importance here (the ability to take cells meant for one purpose, gene-imprint/program them to have another, and show they can grow out that way.) --MASEM (t) 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any update. Maybe a better target would be Artificial organ? (That article has a bunch of issues, btw). --Tone 15:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment waiting for User:Abductive to provide a comment, I saw this on the BBC and considered it worth nomination but then thought "do I believe the hype?" Not sure it has all the scientific backing, peer reviews etc required to meet ITN, hence the call on Abductive (like Batman) to come and save the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Nature Cell Biology is a spinoff of the main Nature journal (Eg the top ranking journal for scientific publications), and thus pretty much assured this is peer-reviewed and considered important by that journal's editors. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • My only objection is rather weak; that it was done in mice, not people. But I have no reason to believe that they did not grow a thymus and the sources all seem to say that this is a first... Plus ITN could really use updates. Abductive (reasoning) 01:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. I like mentioning that it was created in mice and the more precise language than "from scratch." Rhodesisland (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not an update in sight? Stephen 03:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I updated artificial organ. It's not worth more than a very short update though or it'd give too much weight imo. Narayanese (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but it's got a maintenance tag at the top so it's not ready for posting at ITN under our current instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 66th Primetime Emmy AwardsEdit

Article: 66th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 66th Primetime Emmy Awards, Modern Family wins Outstanding Comedy Series and Breaking Bad wins Outstanding Drama Series. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Breaking Bad and Modern Family win awards for Outstanding Drama and Comedy series at the 66th Primetime Emmy Awards
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: (It's a bit scary that I just copy and pasted this nom from last year, since the same shows won from them, but might as well stick with the format :) MASEM (t) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support checks all the boxes for ITN. (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alternative Blurb I'll make no comment on the merits of the nomination itself as I'm not yet familiar with the process of recurring nominations but I do oppose the proposed 'alternative blurb' offered above Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI Valiant Patriot, recurring nominations(those events on the ITNR list) have already been determined to be worthy of posting on their merits; discussion here is to ensure the article quality is adequate for posting and discuss/agree on a blurb(as you did). 331dot (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting, ITNR and the updates are there. --Tone 09:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow. When it comes time to advertise a commercial product, Wikipedia doesn't let the grass grow under its feet! Wnt (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
LIKE ;)Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, if you don't like ITN/R, please do something pro-active about it and suggest that such commercial ventures are summarily removed because you personally don't like them! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Action Comics #1Edit

Article: Action Comics 1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A near-mint edition of the 1938 Action Comics #1 is auctioned for $3.2 million, the highest price paid for a single issue of a comic. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, USA Today

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Action Comics #1 is probably the world's most recognized comic as it is the introductory story of Superman. Rare case of comics making news headlines. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as long as the winning bidder actually coughs up the dough. Good suggestion, Masem. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Can't come up with any reason not to support this one. --Jayron32 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Any sale of a mint Action Comics #1 or the Gretzky T206 Honus Wagner or the British Guiana 1c magenta should be ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    just as an aside, the "Gretzky" Wagner was recently determined to have been altered in the mid-1980s (unbeknownst to later purchasers, including Wayne Gretzky) and is unlikely to be worth as much in future sales due to its controversial past. The "Jumbo" Wagner is, I believe, the highest graded Wagner known to be in existence currently. --Jayron32 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
NOT updatedonly 1 line for2014 saleLihaas (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
What else does it need to say? The article already establishes the value of any remaining comics. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that, I see ways to expand. Doing now. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Lihaas: Please check, I've now expanded the source and nature of this issue. Also I checked the blurb as some sources are making it seemingly like this is ebay's largest auction but it is not; it is still the highest paid for a single comic. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support nice article, interesting topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support A unique news item and a 'world record' as they say, does seem like apt content for ITN despite the apparant dearth of coverage in the more mainstream news Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting. I'll skip the near-mint from the blurb, I am not sure if everyone is familiar with the term. --Tone 09:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazon acquires TwitchEdit

Article: Twitch (website) (talk, history)
Blurb: Amazon aquires the streaming video website Twitch for $970 million. (Post)
News source(s): Gamasutra, WSJ (presently a bit behind)

Nominator's comments: This follows after Google was looking to buy Twitch for $1B but that deal apparently went cold. Twitch is the 4th highest consumer of broadband at peak hours, and this has significant impact on streaming video over the Internet --MASEM (t) 20:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose in the big scheme of things, this is small potatoes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amazon has my deepest sympathy, but even the shingles aren't that bad. The twitch sounds much more like a dance from Hairspray than a viral infection. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you even know what you're talking about? We're referring to the streaming platform here, not some disease Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The point of my satirical comment was that the news wasn't about something well known enough to merit a listing. My apology the humour wasn't obvious. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Twitch is a major streaming platform and an acquisition by Amazon is big IMO Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose general business news. Neither the largest or most notable of a type. Article reads like PR material. (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thai coup leader becomes PMEdit

Article: Prayuth Chan-ocha (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thai coup leader Prayuth Chan-ocha (pictured) is appointed by King Bhumibol Adulyadej as the country's new prime minister. (Post)
News source(s): The Strait Times VOA

 --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Question: We posted when there was the completion of the coup back in May [6]. How is this different? (Not trying to be a jerk here, just asking if this is truly a new news item). --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't the appointment of a country's new leader notable enough for ITN? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A change in head of state is ITNR, not head of government which is discussed on its own merits(as is going on here). 331dot (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposse This seems to merely formalise the coup process that occurred some time ago now. It is not a significant development in the story. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Insurgents capture Tripoli airportEdit

Article: 2014 Libyan conflict#Fall_of_Tripoli_Airport (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Insurgents capture Tripoli International Airport. (Post)
News source(s): New York TImes

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I humbly apologize for nominating something that isn't a sport event or a celebrity death, but hope that ITN "voters" will consider the possibility that islamists capturing a main transport hub in a mid-sized country's capital can also be considered news. If we are lucky, this can perhaps get 1/3 as many votes as on the Richard Attenborough celebrity nomination below. Thue (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I think this is a rather important development in the Libyan 'civil war', or whatever the preferred term is, and certainly is 'newsworthy'. It should be posted. Valiant Patriot (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a notable event in the conflict, though I think you've made your point about "sport event or a celebrity death". Right now we aren't exactly deluged in them, having posted a penalty against a large bank, a landslide, a chess tournament, the Fields medal, and Williams(grand total of one "celebrity death"). 331dot (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but oppose as it's a single-sentence update. More required. And please, the point is made. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The headline seems to over-emphasise the Islamic aspect. The NYT source states, "The ideological differences are blurry at best: both sides publicly profess a similar conservative but democratic vision. What is clear is that Libya is being torn apart by an escalating war among its patchwork of rival cities and tribes." So, this is just a slight shift in a faction fight. We have only recently pulled Libya from the Ongoing section and this skirmish doesn't seem enough to warrant reinstatement. Andrew (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - article update is woefully lacking, and I would also suggest noting this is after a month of fighting for control of the airport. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Only an airport is not significant enough for a conflict article. If a major city fell, then that would be significant enough.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ongoing this needs a blurb like we need a blurb that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is Still Dead. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It is notable when an elected government loses control of its nation's main airport to armed groups which declare that they won't recognize election results. Contributorzero (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • However I am not sure about "insurgents". I would say "Islamists" is backed by many reliable sources. Contributorzero (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and I recommend editing this blurb once its posted to reflect the apparnet involvement by Egypt & the UAE in retalitation bombings, after that has been confirmed. (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the blurb should mention WHO took it (Misurata brigade right?). Also the article tite as civil r of 2014 is silly...its really been like this for te last three eyars with ups and downs of conflict...thatd be like putting sryia as 2014 with the counter attack by the government recently.Lihaas (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurb, but support for Ongoing as there have been much more significant developments following the airport's seizure, such as the Egypt-UAE air raids on Tripoli which is being widely covered in the news right now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • With the capital of Libya by some accounts falling in insurgent/Islamists hands, I strongly disagree that a few third-party airstrikes are more notable. Thue (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Still, there are many different things currently happening in Libya. Benghazi (second largest city) fell to Ansar al-Sharia militants last month. The first thing I see when I search "libya" is the airstrikes, and foreign interventions are a big deal in any conflict. Furthermore, MPs of the formerly dissolved General National Congress elected their own prime minister and now the country has technically 2 governments. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The media is sometimes strange with which items are featured - my guess is that the airstrikes story is getting run more because the journalists can get confirmation from the White House, which makes the story "safe" for lazy journalists. I still think the conquests in Tripoli is objectively the bigger story. But any of the stories you mention should obviously get Libya a blurb ITN; apparently they don't because they aren't sport events or a celebrity deaths... Thue (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we get it Thue, your point has been made. Please either continue to suggest stories for posting that you feel are not "sport events or a celebrity death", or take your concerns to a more appropriate venue instead of disrupting unrelated discussions. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

August 24Edit

Mozambique CeasefireEdit

Article: RENAMO insurgency (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of Mozambique and the RENAMO rebels sign a ceasefire agreement. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Some good news and something away from the multiple ongoings. --GoldenRing (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Opposed only on article quality which is sorely lacking (need more on why the insurgency, get rid of the proseline). Suppose the news item on principle of a good resolution point in the story (the co-signing of the cease fire). --MASEM (t) 05:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the article, cleaning up the references and expanding the background section. I don't have time to do much more right now. GoldenRing (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I would focus on trying to de-proseline the Timeline section, though the information is updated. I'm sure more can be added but this is a good start. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
supportwith context since it regrew some months ago, meant to create an article on the fighting recently but never got down to it. Theres an electoral context tooLihaas (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL GoldenRing (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think a better target article is RENAMO, but the proposed article works well engough. The rebels are the armed wing of a political group that can claim ca. 30% of the popular vote in the last election. (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reading the articles, it seems this "insurgency" is rather limited. More people are involved and killed in gang warfare in a week in Chicago than this entire insurgency. Abductive (reasoning) 16:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that reasoning is apples and oranges; deaths by criminal activity versus a rebel uprising against a nation. Also, consider that Mozambique is only a little over double the population of Chicago's metro area; death counts wouldn't really be that significant. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If one reads the article, it seems that the insurgents are a very small force armed with light weapons, conducting weak-ass ambushes. It is very much like gang warfare. Abductive (reasoning) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Richard AttenboroughEdit

Posted, nothing more to discuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Richard Attenborough (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British actor and film director Richard Attenborough dies at the age of 90. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News NBC News ABC (Australia) Times of India
Nominator's comments: Could be RD, could be blurb given his historical significance (cf. R. Williams). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Clearly at or near the top of his field. RD at a minimum, but I think he merits a blurb given his honors and career. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD. A blurb would contain no more information than a RD entry. Lets not put celebrity obituaries in the news section. Thue (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deaths can be newsworthy themselves, which is what a blurb is for. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • He died of old age, presumable in non-eventful circumstances. Hundreds have died in the Tabqa air base battle news item just below, which you haven't supported. I just don't see the appeal of all this focus on celebrities. Thue (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela died of old age and got blurbs, because their deaths were news themselves. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I doubt Attenborough hits the significance of either of those two. With Attenborough, we'll likely have plenty of "he died" articles, people will be bummed, and the news will move on soon after it. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. See talk page for discussion based on Williams blurb - this is similar to Lauren Bacall, in that we'll have a bunch of obits but as death by old age, not going to be a major story. Article needs some referencing help before it can be posted though (mostly in Personal Life; the sections on filmography can run as is). --MASEM (t) 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Although I'm sure people will pick at Williams getting a blurb, it's a fairly different story in my view. They both clearly meet RD criteria, but Williams was relatively healthy and ended his life while his career was still active. Attenborough had been suffering health issues and made relatively few films in recent years compared to Williams. And if we didn't keep Bacall up, an Attenborough blurb will probably be pulled as well. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, a major figure. Although I'd give him a maximum of five days (if I could, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious RD. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD: Clearly notable, won several awards and well-known. (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 22:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both Miyagawa (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't normally do both, so I guess this translates as "support either". Formerip (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. I think the whole thing of deaths not cutting it if the person is old is a weak argument generally. On that basis, Attenborough should be posted on the basis that his career is as noteworthy as people we have posted. Arguably among the best actors of his generation, although that's just IMO. Formerip (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support either. He did die of old age, but then again he had 1585 page views a day prior to this news. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is making the front pages of the sites I have added above. Clearly a top story. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So was Bacall when she died. The question is whether they have the same level coverage tomorrow. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD I don't think he's quite at the level of Bacall or Williams. Neljack (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, such a great artist that there's no better parody than this. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Which of the various irrelevant talk page discussions are you alluding to, User:Masem? According to the 2012 RfC establishing RD. deaths of people most highly noted in their field are still eligible for a full blurb. If you thin Attenborough is important enough it doesn't matter that he died of old age and there's no need for further discussion since the rules already allow his posting. What am I missing? μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Not that I necessarily agree with the idea that old age deaths lead to an RD posting, but that seems to have been the consensus that developed. From the point of view of the readers, there is little difference--they can still find the article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion Wikipedia talk:In the news/Candidates#RD vs Blurb for deceased, which specifically came up in having a blurb for Williams (who's death was in the news for days) and Lauren Bacall (who's death covered over a day and then dropped out the news). The question is if Attenborough is that notable of a person given that death by old age is common. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the opinions of a few editors in previous discussion are binding. Death at 63 is also common (in fact, much more common than at 90), and there's no real reason why age should make a death more or less worthy for ITN purposes. There's every reason it shouldn't (systematic bias). The question is how notable Attenborough was, but it should be approached in just the same way as the question of how notable Williams was. Formerip (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not the age of death, it's death by old age vs death by an unnatural method (in Williams' case, suicide, which highlighted the story on how a comedian could be depressed enough, with no obvious signs of problems to the public, could take his life). --MASEM (t) 00:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, biologists would hold that a death by stroke at 63 is death from aging. Abductive (reasoning) 04:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Significant actor who died of old age. RD material.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral his brother yes, him, not really. Nergaal (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Since no one mentioned it, the article needs a bit of work before we can put it on the main page in any capacity. There are entire sections which are very sporadically referenced; the entire Corporate Appointments section is particularly egregious. An article needn't be perfect, and a cn tag or two shouldn't hold one up, but this article has more problems than that. --Jayron32 02:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Recent Death notice is necessary (and up for at least a week), but no ITN blurb. WP policy for this tiny box is clear. the death has to be eventful in and of itself to get a blurb. This means that death from old age, after a persons career, no matter how illustrious (his was very much so), doesnt get a blurb. death in office, suicide, murder, or otherwise in prime of career, does get one. exception would be if the aftermath was highly newsworthy (say, if gandhi had died of old age and gotten that funeral procession) However, i did have to do a lot of searching to find the policy on this. i find it very difficult to navigate the ITN/RD pages. I also reviewed some of the past selections, to see if we were abiding by policy, and we seem to be (that was hard for me, so imagine a reader wanting to participate for the first time, trying to figure out how this works). i think a nice big bold sentence, where a reader can find it, saying what our policy is on recent deaths vs news stories, would help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. The most illustrious subjects do get blurbs. Consider Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela. (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There Seems to be a whole lot of ignorancing going on. A deceased being top of his field merits him a full blurb. This should be upgraded. The man qon and was involved in a handful of Oscar-awarded works, and more than half a dozen Baftas. What living British director outranks him? Hitchcock? Spielberg? One might think this place was run by a bunch of 24 or less year olds. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, someone should just ignore the discussion above and make this a blurb because Medeis thinks it should be so. This posting was handled in exactly the right way, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for RD glad I don't drink or take hallucinogenic drugs while working on Wikipedia!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tabqa air base capturedEdit

Article: 2014_Eastern_Syria_offensive#Battle_of_Tabqa_air_base (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant take control of a government airbase in Al-Thawrah, Syria. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News

Nominator's comments: Note that this base was, according to the source above, "the last remaining stronghold" of al-Assad's government in the Raqqa province. --Jinkinson talk to me 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I tended to oppose since this is not the death of a US celebrity or a sport event, but will make a one-time exception for the capture of a key point in an important war. Thue (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want to see other events posted, please nominate them. Williams was not just a "US celebrity" either, but someone with worldwide recognition and coverage in sources around the world. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Important development. Also, there is no Syria or Iraq ongoing item yet. Abductive (reasoning) 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
óppoaw it snot widely reporte at the top of the news unlike many other wtories we don't post wit updates...but there is also other bigger strategic events in Syria.Lihaas (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In the context of the Syrian Civil War, this is very insignificant. It's just one airbase. There are currently way more important battles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Napa earthquakeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Napa earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 6.0 magnitude earthquake hits Napa, California, the largest magnitude earthquake in Northern California since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. (Post)
News source(s): LA TimesUSA TodayCNN
 --– Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No deaths reported, and 6.0 for a California earthquake is not uncommon (yes, largest in Northern CA but not statewise). Compare to the 5.5 Johannesburg quake that included 1 death but was not posted. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Masem; no significant levels of casualties, not an unusual event for California as a whole. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There was some property damage and injuries - but earthquakes are a relatively common occurrence in California. It's a bit morbid, but it would need to be a major catastrophe to be newsworthy. Challenger l (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Worldwide, there are approximately three magnitude 6 quakes per week: [7]. Given that, whether or not we post a magnitude 6 quake or not depends solely on the impact of the quake itself. This one does not appear to be having a major impact on life or property, so I don't see why we should post it. Now, that doesn't mean that every magnitude 6 earthquake is ineligible. Just that being a magnitude 6 quake is not sufficient in itself to consider it an automatically newsworthy event. This one is not. Maybe another would could be. --Jayron32 17:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per above - no deaths and rather weak earthquake in comparison to significant ones that are posted. (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Worldwide, 99% of the planet is uninhabited. This is major damage to a major metropolitan area, and the first place I'd come looking for objective information. I am curious if any of the opposes can tell us the name of the article without having looked? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting this and not the South African quake would be seen as blatant systemic bias. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Yes, it's huge in the US news, but that's because we're (the American viewing audience) obsessed with events in our own country. (Add to the fact that were a larger magnitude quake in Peru within the last hour as I write this) --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
([8] 7.0 to be exact, but no reported casualties.) --MASEM (t) 00:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no interest in seeing this ITN, but I must ask, why are casualties and destruction being used to gauge importance? An event like an earthquake can have interest without deaths or damage. Of course, I'm not saying this event has interest, but when did "having a major impact on life or property" become a criteria for news? News has value beyond immediate survival concerns. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Casualties and destruction are specific quantifiable means available to gauge the level of a disaster. Those aren't (and shouldn't) be the only criteria, but they are considered. Death and destruction, rightly or wrongly, are also things that generate the most attention in the news, which is outside our control. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment of what generates the most attention. Clearly, Wikipedia is an educational site, not an infotainment channel. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes; say if there was a 9.0 quake out in the middle of the Pacific that any possible destruction is unlikely. We'd still likely report that as a 9.0 quake is extremely rare even if it didn't have any destruction. But as quakes, generally 7.0 and under happened all over the world, we really need to focus if it caused a major impact. We'd do the same for hurricanes/tropic storms/tsunamis/tornadoes/blizzards and other natural disasters. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The blurb is quite clear on its importance: it is the largest magnitude earthquake in Northern California since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In other words, it is the strongest earthquake felt in Northern California in 25 years. Is that important enough to reach ITN? I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. But I strongly disagree with using death and destruction as a metric on a website devoted to education and knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We aren't talking about the entirety of Wikipedia here, just this little corner of it. Each event must be weighed on its own merits as Masem states; the more common an event (lower magnitude quakes) the more important specific criteria like casualties and destruction become. An earthquake in California, with strong building codes and preparation resulting in less damage and deaths, is not as notable as an earthquake in Haiti which killed tens of thousands and leveled much of the country. There must be criteria like that, or ITN would be flooded with events. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it may be the strongest since the 89 quake, it brought no loss of life, and its not the next "big one" by a long shot. its a very important local story, to be sure, but not as earthshaking as other ITN's. (yes, i did think of that word a second before realizing its literal relevance-used it anyway)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor localised issue with no long term impact. The sooner we stop being surprised by earthquakes in earthquake zones, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This nomination seems to be (as others mention above) rather 'Americentric' in nature and the earthquake itself doesn't seem terribly 'big', for want of a better word. Without significant casualties or property destruction I don't think I can support such nominations.
  • Oppose Call me back when it's Arizona Bay time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2014 Israeli drone shoot downEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: the Israeli drone shoot down happened deep inside Iran territory, near Iranian nuclear facility, while Iran is negotiating with 5+1 on its nuclear program. So, the situation is very critical --Mhhossein (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The loss of a drone is nothing big. I recognize this is an interesting (Worrisome in way) interaction between Israel and ISIS, but unless this leads to a larger response, seems to be expected given the front that ISIS is pushing. --MASEM (t) 00:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is about Israel and Iran, not Israel and IS. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My bad - too many "I" groups in the news lately that I mix up on the names. That said, while this might be the start of some incident, this is not yet any indication of larger issues. The speculation that it is "important" is just that until proven out by stronger political actions. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
How can you ignore the importance of current nuclear negotiations? Or you are denying its effect on the final result. I mean, it is not simply sending a spy drone. Mhhossein (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It's all speculation on if this will have an impact. Yes I understand that this can have impact, but unless it causes the negotiations to break down or one side to declare war on the other, it's just that. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
But that case is the upper limit and we should not wait for it, because as I said before, it is very far-fetched! The aim of ITN is not to include only such restricted war news. Although Politically, the incident is of a great importance because the Iran-Israel relations are in a very critical status and it is counted as crossing the war borders. The news of shoot down is already on many reliable sources such as BBC, Aljazeera, Reuters and New York Times. Then, what are we talking about? Mhhossein (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the drone was armed and on a mission to launch an attack, that might be noteworthy enough, but from what I can read it was just a spy drone; countries spy on each other all the time. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sending an armed drone is very far-fetched. So, we should not wait for such an incident. The fact is that, this operation has a very political importance. Mhhossein (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Countries spy on each other, But the Israeli drone shoot down happened near Iranian nuclear facility, while Iran is negotiating with 5+1 on its nuclear program. So, the situation is very critical and this incident may change the current balance. Moreover, Iran–Israel relations are not simply like many other countries. Both sides have threatened each other because of the dispute over Iran nuclear program Mhhossein (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Drones are easily armed and used often in such a capacity. If the talks break down and end because of this incident, that might be noteworthy. Otherwise it is mere speculation to post this based on what might happen. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is possible that Netanyahu is trying to distract from his failure in Gaza by ramping up tensions with Iran. Abductive (reasoning) 03:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
But this fact never decreases the importance of this incident. Whatever the goal is, the stealth radar-evasive drone is sent by Israel and shot down by Iran. Considering the current situation of the middle east, it is not a simple operation. Mhhossein (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I really can't agree. The Mossad has been assassinating people inside Iran and that is far more serious. I don't remember if the Bid Ganeh blast was posted to ITN, and that killed 17 people. Abductive (reasoning) 04:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not a 'newsworthy' event of sufficient scale to go on ITN. It seems to be just another minor development in the long running tensions between Israel and Iran.
What events are of sufficient scale to go on ITN? You are ignoring some very critical elements such as: Iran-5+1 negotiations, place of incident (Near a nuclear site), Iran-Israel threatening each other over nuclear disputes. Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We are generally looking for events that represent a firm transition from one state to another, so that we don't flood ITN with incremental updates towards that. The fact an Israeli drone flying over an Irani nuclear plant was shot down by the IS during negotiations with Iran on their nuclear program is not a firm transition. It an event, it might lead to something, but that's all speculation and crystal balling at this point. If (god forbid) the two sides turn to all out war over that, then that's a transition that we would capture at ITN. Or perhaps they reach a critical agreement, then we'd have that as the ITN. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the IS has nothing to do with this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 07:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2014 Little League World SeriesEdit

No consensus to post a sports item which is clearly considered to be not significant enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Little League World Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Little League World Series concludes with South Korea winning the series, and Japan winning the consolation game. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated
Nominator's comments: News is a sports event. Sports events haven't been in the news a lot. Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 12:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as we don't even post youth tournaments, even tournaments that are as big as professional leagues in some countries. –HTD 12:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HTD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- In the US people care about this basically on equal standing with Major League Baseball, but there is no encyclopedic reason to it. It's a youth tournament, no matter how much it gets blown out of proportion. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Same reason as the recently declined Youth Olympics--not top level competition. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 23Edit

[Posted] Picture update suggestionEdit

There's a free picture available on a newer news item. File:Cloudburst damage of Hiroshima in 2014 Yagi-3.JPG would work well for the Hiroshima landslide story. I'm quite terrible at getting the picture right (I always forget something). Can we get that picture up? --Jayron32 21:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully support. Now 12 days since the death of Robin Williams. ITN image now relates to lowest placed item? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] BárðarbungaEdit

All calm (for the moment) so we'll park this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bárðarbunga (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Icelandic volcano Bárðarbunga erupts and threatens to disrupt European aviation. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, DailyKos

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: One for the whiners, something that, if it pans out as expected, will cause billions of euros to the aviation and insurance industries. Of course, the blurb could use work, the article certainly needs some work, but if we want some reasonable turnover to start up again at ITN, this is a start.... (or at least an attempt at one...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait. Current news reports indicate the eruption is contained beneath the local ice cap. If the eruption melts its way to the surface then this could have a major effect on air traffic across Europe and the North Atlantic, but we are not to that stage yet. --Allen3 talk 18:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait per Allen3, until the eruption actually causes these problems. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment agreed that waiting is conventional, but there appears to be a groundswell to start including things that aren't that notable or things that may or may not happen, etc. Since this is being widely reported, and is notable, it seems like a good candidate to get the ball rolling on such nouveau stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We can't know this far in advance what the impact will be. The ash butt from Eyjafjallajökull in 2010 caused billions of dollars in air travel disruption, but the larger Grímsvötn 2011 eruption only disrupted about 1% as many flights. A lot depends on the composition of the ash butt, the length and size of the eruption, and the weather patterns at the time. On average, Iceland has an eruption every 4 years or so, but they are almost never as problematic as Eyjafjallajökull was. Most of the time, the impact on air travel is local and modest. I suppose one could focus on just the eruption itself as the news item, but whether or not this will actually impact air travel outside Iceland is still a matter of crystal ball gazing at this point. Dragons flight (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until actual problems occur. This may or may not be newsworthy, if and when this starts causing Eyjafjallajökull level disruption, and (much more importantly) if and when we have quality updates to the article that show the same, we should post this. --Jayron32 19:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment you don't think I know all this? The point is that we are being asked from various places and various whining types to get some actual news to the ITN section. This is making news already, impact or not. It's just a tester really to decide if we want to include news that is being widely reported but whose impact may or may not occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    You know, pretending to "cave in" to people you call "whiners" smacks of disingenuousness; you clearly don't actually think this is a good story to post, and yet you keep pushing it in the face of opposition. This smacks of the WP:POINT behavior we've all come to expect of you: because other people appear to have differing opinions, you float a strawman attempt to concede to those different opinions, and then when your bad-faith suggestion gets shot down, you feel like you were right all along. You can stop this now; it's quite alright to allow people who think differently than you to think differently, and also if decisions get made that you wouldn't have agreed with, you can also allow them to just go along uncommented on, without acting like singular decisions somehow represent a tearing down of the entire society you've come to value, leading to the melodramatic levels of despair over the destruction of some vital part of our community you seem to think every such differing opinion represents to you. Just quit it. --Jayron32 21:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Wow, you need to get back to your happy pills. This is an attempt to float an idea to appease some sections of the community that believe we don't do enough to churn ITN, we're not keeping up with news etc. Your tirade is noted, and reflects nothing other than your own repressed inadequacies I'm afraid. (P.S. I clearly do think it's a good story to post as it most likely will disrupt a forthcoming trip I'm intending to make. But hey, who needs any kind of good faith when "Jayron" is tearing someone a new hole?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Right, because it is good faith to say that people who might think differently than you are "whining". You used that word first, and said that you only nominated this to appease them. You said so, not me. I merely called you on your disingenuousness. --Jayron32 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Well where I live, the disruption already being caused (partial closure of Icelandic airspace) and the threat to European travel is all over the news. You should get out more. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hm? --Jayron32 17:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hm? Great stuff Jayron, you rock! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to Talk:Grímsvötn, its 2011 eruption was considered significant enough to be featured. Major volcanic eruptions are interesting enough in themselves, even if they don't inconvenience any airplanes, and especially when they are happening in the somewhat unusual situation of being beneath a glacier. And besides, while it hasn't been exactly a slow news week, the headlines have been dominated by long-running stories. Relatively speaking, a volcano is a cheerful break at this stage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The ITN on Grimsvotn was on May 25 2011, the eruption prior but with the call of "air traffic disruption" on May 22. So I think the same pattern makes sense here, waiting for actual air traffic to be disrupted and not just the warning it might be. As this volcano was active four years ago, this new surge I would not consider ITN, yet. But all signs trends towards a possible news story in the near future. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know why this isn't posted yet. We do know magma is on the move inside a 200 Km volcano. I caught some news in the US from a friend that the warning had gone to orange. When I came here to nominate it, I find that the warning is now red with an eruption, but are these updates on the main page, nope. The story isn't even on the back page; it's on the Talk page still. We don't have to blow it out of proportion or speculate, but we can report what is in the news. Here's my source and info.
Iceland: Magma is on the move inside Bárðarbunga, eruption is likely. Barðárbunga is over 200 kilometers long with large eruption every 250-600 years. One of its eruptions before settlers arrived was 21-30 cubic kilometers of lava. It is associated with massive amounts of toxic gas release that has previously caused extreme winter conditions, enough to freeze the Mississippi to New Orleans.
"The Icelandic Weather OfficeVeður­stofa considers it likely that there will be an eruption in Bárðarbunga and has raised the warning stage for air traffic from yellow to orange because of this (Ed: orange is the final stage before "It's currently erupting"). This was announce today on the noon news of RÚV, but scientists are still in a meeting with with the national protective services of the state law enforcement agency.
Updated 12:49: The weather office has now announced that the GPS position meters give a strong indications of magma movement inside Bárðarbunga."[9]
Alrich44 (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - and I agree with user Alrich44, this article should be posted soon.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The update at the moment is ultra-short. This needs to be fixed first. Otherwise, support posting. --Tone 10:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait There's seismic activity indicating a possible eruption is imminent, but so far there is no confirmed eruption. At the time I write this, the Iceland Met Office has a banner notice on their page: "Presently there are no signs of ongoing volcanic activity. The aviation color code for the Bárðarbunga volcano remains red as an imminent eruption can not be excluded." Thus far, the only effects from this is the red warning for aviation, which only is in place for a small area near the volcano, and a small exclusion zone around it. The link above has some conflicting information. The most recent post (24th August 2014 06:48 (Icelandic time? UTC?)) about the volcano mentions earthquakes but also "No signs of tremor, indicative of eruption, were detected during the night." From the 23rd August 2014 20:30 message: "During three hours of aerial surveillance, there were no obvious signs of volcanic activity." However, there is also talk of the possibility of a sub-glacial eruption, but they also mention that there have been no signs of a sub-glacial eruption (radar measurements of glacier surface show no changes, no change in meltwater flow at edge of glacier). Of course, all this could change in a few hours time. If and (most likely) when it erupts, the article should be updated at least 3-4 more sentences to describe the eruption (seismic activity, melting of glacier, impact) before being featured. Also the part of the blurb "and threatens to disrupt European aviation" is sensationalizing this subject too much. While I'm well aware of what the media has been discussing, there are many factors that determine whether a volcanic eruption impacts aviation over a very large area...primarily the composition of the ash that is released, which can't be determined until the volcano erupts. Volcanoes that significantly impact aviation are the exception, not the norm. It's like tropical cyclones (hurricanes/typhoons), just because one Category 5 hurricane or Supertyphoon hits a region, doesn't mean every other such storm will have the same impact! The Eyjafjallajökull volcano is fresh in everyone's mind, but that doesn't mean that this will turn out the same. A blurb can be added when it erupts stating that "The Bárðarbunga volcano erupts in Iceland". If and only if it significantly impacts aviation, should such a remark be made in the blurb. It's important to note that the North Atlantic region is also important to transatlantic flight flights as well as flights between North American and the Middle East. If the ash remains over the ocean, then "Iceland's Bárðarbunga volcano erupts, disrupting transatlantic aviation" would be more appropriate. AHeneen (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Iceland lowers volcano warning after quakes, no sign of eruption. –HTD 15:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    Good news, my trip may still be on! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I've heard of posting natural disasters, but never a blurb about how there might be a natural disaster in the future. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree! AHeneen (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 22Edit

[Posted to RD] U. R. AnanthamurthyEdit

 --Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: Very notable Indian writer of Kannada language, who won many prestigious awards. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support- Unanimously recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest Kannadiga writer of all time, so meets DC2. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support since he's clearly at the top of his field; the article needs work. Challenger l (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on notability but the article needs work. Neljack (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. RD has a poor track record documenting these sorts of notable individuals, as opposed to Hollywood celebrities. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Article needs only a small amount of work, the "Literary Works" Section needs some additional references; once that is done you can consider this my full support. However, I cannot support this until after this is done. Once it is done, there's no need to wait for me to vote again; doing it instantly changes my opinion to support. --Jayron32 19:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose articles has several paragraphs entirely unreferenced, including ones in the Career section, Literary works section, Personal life (which is written in mixed tenses) and Controversies section. As his bibliography contains no way of verifying it (e.g. links to articles, ISBN numbers etc), I'd prefer to see some references there as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The references have been updated. I think it is now fit to be shown in the recent deaths section. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It is still tagged (correctly) with a {{ref improve}} notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
How about now? Rabbabodrool (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm cool with it, there are references that need to be tidied up but it's much better than it was. So I've struck my opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Remove ongoing eventsEdit

Answers below. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several of these ongoings are much less 'in the news' than they once were and I think deserve review, particularly as another major event is dominating news coverage. I'll present three of the 4 items currently which could be considered. I think the Gaza conflict should clearly remain.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Libyan conflictEdit

Removed per consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Support removal. Hasn't received any major headlines for a while now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal Agree with Johnsemlak, haven't seen much in the way of new news recently. CaptRik (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Faded completely out of the news. Abductive (reasoning) 15:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal As others have said, this conflict hasn't been in the news for a while. Should be replaced with Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014), which is making the news almost daily...see the discussion below. AHeneen (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Removing. It makes sense to replace it with an ISIS item. --Tone 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ebola outbreakEdit

Kept per no consensus to remove. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Neutral I'm leaning support for removal. There is still some ongoing events here so I'm not sure. The US coverage has been dominated by the two doctors who came back infected with the disease who are now released. I'd like to see some other opinions on this one.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal There is still a major outbreak going on and it's only getting worse. I still see daily stories in UK news about the countries involved, ranging from deaths to security forces imposing quarantines. CaptRik (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Machine-gunning a neighborhood to enforce a quarantine is, well, rather newsworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 15:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The outbreak is continuing to get worse! This will remain an ongoing event for several more weeks (at least). AHeneen (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
To add to my comment, this is from one of the BBC's website's "Other top stories" right now: "The World Health Organization has said the speed and extent of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is 'unprecedented'...Speaking at a news conference in the Liberian capital Monrovia, Dr Fukuda said combating the disease would take 'several months of hard work'." AHeneen (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Far from being contained or under control, the documented cases in Liberia are growing at a rate of about 4.5% / day. This isn't likely to go away anytime soon. Dragons flight (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The biggest ongoing story in the world. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ukrainian unrestEdit

Kept per no consensus to remove. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Neutral. The Ukrainian conflict is still a news item but has receded in significance compared with events in Gaza and Iraq and Syria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal As there is new stories as of today (the Russian convoy has supposedly entered the Ukraine illegaly). I think there's more major news to come. CaptRik (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Battles ongoing. Abductive (reasoning) 15:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Fighting continues and the Ukrainian forces are closing in on the final rebel strongholds. While there is less in the news, this will continue to be a news-making topic as the rebels lose ground. AHeneen (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Change blurb – "Ukrainian conflict" is a much more appropriate blurb than "Ukrainian unrest". Note that the article links to Timeline of the war in Donbass. RGloucester 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- There are continuing major stories from this conflict. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal The conflict is coming to a head right now, is rightfully all over the news. Thue (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 21Edit

RD: Steven R. NagelEdit

Article: Steven R. Nagel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Daily News

Nominator's comments: Was in Air Force and later NASA, logged 13000+ hours at both institutions, was mission commander on two missions at NASA. Whether this makes him "top of his field" is less clear, though. --Jinkinson talk to me 02:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • He had a good career (four Shuttle missions), but I'm not seeing what makes him a very important astronaut. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article in a very poor state and like Bongwarrior, what made him a significant astronaut? Was he the first to do achieve something significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just being an astronaut, even mission commander on two missions, in and of itself is not significant enough to be listed. Now, those who walked on the moon, them I'd support for posting. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Do not see how he meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand the motive for posting it (I think) but he really doesn't meet the bar for RD. Challenger l (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Trees identified as a source of lethal cryptococcusEdit

Article: Cryptococcus gattii (talk, history)
Blurb: Cryptococcus gattii, a cause of cryptococcosis in the western United States, is traced to three species of trees. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The environmental source of Cryptococcus gattii, a cause of deaths from opportunistic infection in AIDS, is identified by a 13-year-old girl's science project.
Three species of trees in California are identified as a source of
Cryptococcus gattii, a cause of deaths by opportunistic infection in AIDS.
News source(s): PLOS pathogens, Eurekalert

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nearly 1 million infections with cryptococcus occur annually, most but not all in AIDS patients. Most of these are not identified to the species level, so although C. gattii is known as a potential cause it is not known how many are actually due to it, but the burden is likely to be very substantial. Identifying this source gives people with HIV an immediate action they can perform today (cutting down one of three specific kinds of tree) that could improve their quality of life or prolong life. Wikipedia should help to get the word out. --Wnt (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose due to the blurb. According to the source cited by cryptococcus gattii, the Eurekalert article, the girl's discovery was under the direction of two professional scientists, so without a more detailed source I'm reluctant to attribute a major scientific breakthrough to a teenager, however cool that idea may be. See this incident for a reason to tread cautiously when attributing credit for such things. Gamaliel (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel I'm willing to withdraw the alternate if you think it's a problem, though it appears well recognized she had a role - she is listed as an author on the paper. What do you think of non-alternate blurb? Or a mixture of the two omitting the girl? Wnt (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Support' in light of your comments and the fact that she's included as an author on the scientific paper. We can quibble about the exact wording if this gets more support, but I no longer oppose mentioning her either. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given that the fungus also occurs in Papua New Guinea, it is impossible that these three California tree species are the only reservoirs. Much more likely is that a fungus that can infect koalas and dolphins and humans can also infect many species of trees. Furthermore, consensus on ITN is to discount accomplishments of youths. I'm not trying to say that this girl didn't accomplish something cool, but that it is only cool because of her age. If she was an adult scientist her accomplishment would be completely unremarkable. Abductive (reasoning) 15:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Abductive: I looked this over, and I really don't see a claim that the three species are the only source of Cryptococcus worldwide. I could rephrase it, but I don't know if you would interpret any variation (like putting "In California,..." first in the alternate) differently. And I struck out the version mentioning the girl half a day before your comment, so it shouldn't be an issue. Wnt (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If they are not the only source, and with the age of the discoverer unimportant, how is this different from the thousands of findings published daily in scientific journals? Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Abductive: Infection with C. gattii is a known regional hazard of travel or residence in the western United States, even (rarely) for those who are not immunocompromised in any known way. Tracking down the source of the spores to certain kinds of trees allows people to understand the risk and at least partially to reduce it. The notion that trees can serve as a vector (epidemiology) for a pathogen that infects humans is unfamiliar and informative. My hope, quite frankly, is that if more people see this story, there will be somebody somewhere in California who looks twice at, say, a tree that is growing in a hospital courtyard, and ends up taking action that saves the lives of one or more AIDS or bone marrow transplant patients. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I am unconvinced that this is an interesting enough scientific result for ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't believe that news with this potential to help save lives can't compete with a now twelve day old story about a comedian dying. Are you kidding me? Wnt (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, your criticism is better directed at those responsible for reporting news. —David Levy 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@David Levy: I don't understand that statement. There's been plenty of news. ITN isn't required to mirror all the stories in the news in proportion to their appearance in any particular kind of mainstream publication, and in practice it certainly doesn't -- it just departs from the mainstream practice in the wrong direction, with even more bleeding leading than in the papers, and even less science. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This idea of the trees being in hospital courtyards or whatever and being removed to save lives is WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazing. If anybody here likes, I can delve into the recent scientific literature and find plenty of examples of findings that will save lives. Abductive (reasoning) 03:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is a Google News search for "Cryptococcus gattii" or "C. gattii". I won't bother linking to one related to Robin Williams, as I don't assert that anything approaching parity is required for us to include something in ITN. I simply disagree that "there's been plenty of news" on this subject. —David Levy 04:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose that the discovery doesn't seem super-ground breaking as described by Abductive above. However, is there anything we can say if this is the youngest published author of a peer-reviewed paper (which is the only thing that really makes this ITN worthy?) And even with that, that's hard to push pass ITN. (Additionally, does this mean M. Night was right???) --MASEM (t) 19:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Emily Rosa was 9 11, and I don't think she's the absolute youngest co-author of a peer reviewed paper. Being included as an author at 13 is remarkable, but probably not ITN worthy. Dragons flight (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: I'm sorry I ever mentioned the girl. I thought it would make a cute human-interest angle, since that's how the news sources treated it. The story is important anyway, simply because you don't think of catching an infection from a tree (see above). Wnt (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wnt: While I commend your effort to "help to get the word out", I can't support the nomination. ITN is intended to function as a gateway to Wikipedia articles related to topics "in the news". The Cryptococcus gattii story has received very little media coverage, and it isn't our place to intervene on that front. Have you considered contributing to Wikinews? —David Levy 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to meet the criteria and isn't a significantly 'newsworthy' piece of news. (This is my first time doing one of these, I hope I did it right!)

[Closed] Indonesian election: Constitutional Court judgementEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Indonesian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Constitutional Court of Indonesia rejects Prabowo Subianto's appeal against the result of July's presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A blurb regarding the presidential election was posted on 22 July. However Indonesia is a big, important country and a confirmation of an important election result is fairly big news. --LukeSurl t c 20:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Had the appeal gone through and the election results be overturned, then it might be a significant news story. But an unsuccessful appeal is not. (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 174 said it all. If the results had been rejected, that would have been news, but as it is nothing's changed. Redverton (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agreed on above points; if it was a challenge close to Gore vs Bush, where the exact count in a few selected districts decided the vote , that might be different, but this was a claim of voter fraud on a 6% margin, which to me sounds like a sore loser. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have only one addendum to Masem's comment: Prabowo is a sore loser. Hell, even his running mate's distanced himself from the former general. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Bank of America settlementEdit

Article: Bank of America (talk, history)
Blurb: Bank of America agrees to pay more than $16 billion for the sale of mortgage-backed securities before the Great Recession. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Bank of America agrees to pay more than $16 billion for the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities before the Great Recession.
News source(s): Al Jazeera America, New York Times, USA Today, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: USA Today: "the settlement [is] the largest in history between the federal government and a single company"; Al Jazeera America: "the settlement is by far the largest deal the Justice Department has reached with a bank over the 2008 mortgage meltdown"; The New York Times calls it a "landmark settlement" and "the most sweeping federal investigation into the sale of troubled mortgages by a Wall Street bank since the 2008 financial crisis" --Seattle (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support breaking news and top headline in my world, and article is decent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. This is getting good coverage and seems to be a large settlement, though BofA can write off most of it as tax deductible and use accounting tricks to reduce its impact to them. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • At present there isn't much more detail in the Bank of America article about this story that isn't contained in the one-sentence blurb. Support when this is expanded to at least a paragraph. --LukeSurl t c 20:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the section on the settlement; how's that? Seattle (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that looks good. --LukeSurl t c 12:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with update to blurb indicating its significance (i.e. the largest settlement in history). (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - major bank. Lots of money involved.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, see my slight alteration of the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb only - modified blurb is unnecessary editorialising. On a similar vein I am uncomfortable with the 2008 financial crisis being labelled "the Great Recession" based solely on past current affairs coverage. However, we seem only to have posted US fines and settlements against foreign banks in the past. That and the sheer size of this settlement make this worthy of posting. 3142 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not editorializing. The way the blurb is written, it makes it seem as if "mortgage-backed securities" are illegal. Needs an adverb. I agree that mentioning the Great Recession is discomforting. Perhaps subprime mortgage crisis would be better? Abductive (reasoning) 06:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It is making a judgement which is editorialising. How risky is risky? If I put my cash under the mattress is that risky? If I put it in a cash account at a high street bank is that risk. Neither alternative is perfectly safe so both are risky to one extent or another. Similarly the sale of even high-risk mortgage-backed securities is not in itself illegal - if the investor finds the risk profile acceptable that is perfectly OK, so based on your interpretation both blurbs are factually incorrect and as such I've marked this attention needed. BoA have not been fined for selling anything - they have been fined for misrepresentations made selling those securities or over those sales. 3142 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb. Great, somebody noticed. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb - article in good shape, major financial news. Challenger l (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

RD: Albert ReynoldsEdit

Article: Albert Reynolds (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Irish Independent

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Former Taoiseach who had a key role in advancing the Northern Ireland peace process, article needs a bit of referencing before posting --Belle (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

RD: Jean RedpathEdit

Article: Jean Redpath (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: Highly significant figure in Scottish folk music, known worldwide, 30+ year recording career. --Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose almost unreferenced article with no indication of how she meets the RD criteria besides being "known" and having a "long career". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Barely referenced, not seeing her as notable in her field at all. Challenger l (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per TRM. The article itself should give an indication how the person in question meets any of the three DC. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 07:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August 20Edit

James FoleyEdit

Article: James Foley (photojournalist) (talk, history)
Blurb: Islamic State release a video showing the beheading of photojournalist James Foley (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Top story on in all the sites I visit. The James Foley (photojournalist) article is fairly sparse, but has the central details about his death. --LukeSurl t c 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, or switch target to the ISIS issue as to prep that for going to ongoing. ISIS has killed a number of people already, yes, killing a foreigner press agent is definitely going to draw attention, signalling out the journalist alone is not good. But per the request to consider an ongoing, this might be a good blurb to have and then when it runs out, the ISIS can drop to ongoing. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and consider going for the Ongoing (as Masem has suggested). Many dozens of people have been executed on video, this isn't too different. Tragic, yes, singularly notable, no. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
came here to see it wasn't there, went to the article and then returned here. He is notable and in the news for his death, but bloomberg reported on his front page about an hour ago that the verification process is still ongoingLihaas (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, and a world news story. Definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but proceed as Masem suggests; as the person who started that article I briefly considered nominating it but I eventually came to the same position that TRM has above. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As of right now, there is no ISIS Ongoing item, and lacking that I think this event stands out in its own right well enough to warrant a blurb. Votes opposing this for the reason of an non-existent Ongoing entry should be ignored. (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose is it not covered by ongoing conflict section? Legaleagle86 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is not Ongoing item for this on the front page, no. (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The article has been improved significantly since the nomination. While Iraq may warrant an ongoing item, this article focuses on a single incident in that conflict, that has undoubtedly been headline news. Many news stories fit into ongoing events, and if we ignore all of them we risk making ITN a very slow and out-of-date entity (case in point, the most recent blurb on ITN at the moment refers to an event that ended on 14th August). The way the blurb is constructed allows the reader to click on the bold link for an article about the specific incident, and the other link for a wider perspective on IS.
At the moment, we have a decent article about a major news story that we are not presenting on the main page due to hang-ups over ITN process. --LukeSurl t c 11:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
No, this is a case of media bias. Numerous others have died , but by giving weight to a western journalist, that shows our bias. The overall ISIS issue is a story, this is a tiny element of it. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
support its clearly all over the news. the article should probably be Death of James Foley, btw
Also ITN doesn't make judgement calls about deserving of publicity it reports what is in the news not personal sympathies. (and quality of update)Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, you are right. I agree personal sympathies entered into my not-vote. But opposes are still overwhelming supports for all kinds of other reasons. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per The Rambling Man. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've edited this article, but I still don't actually understand what makes this beheading so newsworthy. I know it was the first American beheaded by "ISIL/ISIS", but as our article on that group explains, that group is simply the successor to the same folks who have been sending us thoughtful messages like this since 2003. I wish the hook could make the significance clearer. Wnt (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to ongoing] ISIS/Iraq/Syria - ongoingEdit

The ongoing line on the main page is currently "Ongoing: Ebola outbreak – Gaza conflict – Libyan conflict – Ukrainian unrest". The entry for Libya seems odd as I'm seeing a lot more coverage of ISIS and related developments in Iraq and Syria. Perhaps we should replace "Libyan conflict" with "Unrest in Iraq and Syria"? Andrew (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Care to suggest a target article which is being updated sufficiently to go on the Ongoing ticker? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The articles I linked to for Iraq and Syria were Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) and Syrian Civil War. Another possibility is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which seems involved in most of the recent coverage. Andrew (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't feature Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) as it has a maintenance tag at the top. Syrian Civil War is reasonably well updated but far too large, it needs splitting. Although not tagged, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is also far too large, but reasonably well updated. I wouldn't object to the latter pair being individually linked in preference to the Libya link. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for some sort of ITN entry regarding the SS-style atrocities of "IS" reported repeatedly by major media. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] The most logical target article would seem to be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. (Suggest that "Islamic State" should always be in quotation marks, since it is recognized as a 'state' by no other state.) Sca (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    If you feel strongly about the quotation marks, I suggest you started a move request as the article does not "quote mark" Islamic State, so neither would we, before you take it to ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. Sca (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • How about 2014 American intervention in Iraq as the target, since the reason this possibly ongoing is the escalation started by the US airstrikes? --MASEM (t) 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • But 'IS' is the perp. Sca (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Would like to see an RS saying that... GoldenRing (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess what I'm saying is that until the US got involved, what ISIS was doing was news but neither blurb or ongoing. Now that the US is involved, which has increased the ISIS insurgency, that might be a more narrower topic. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The horrors going on here are definitely ITN-worthy. GoldenRing (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Stricken in favour of updated support below.
  • Oppose and Suggestion - There is no room for every major ongoing armed conflict. Just replace the conflict items with something like "armed conflicts" and link it to List of ongoing armed conflicts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for Ongoing. While there are a number of armed conflicts at any time, I think we should be able to use our judgement about which are more or less news- and encyclopedic-worthy. The Libyan conflict is not over, but the ISIS conflict is getting more press from my vantage point. (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a major armed conflict that has expanded significantly in the past month. I believe the most precise article for the conflict that is making the news is Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014). Although short, it's not a stub, & has no problem templates.AHeneen (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This is a much better target article than my suggestion. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Actualités et événements
19 août: le journaliste américain James Foley est décapité par l'État islamique.
— French Wiki's version of ITN Sca (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL the French have the events in Missouri in their ITN. Same with the German version. LOLOLOL. –HTD 15:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, extremely funny, Howard, très amusant. Glad you're enjoying this world in which we're living. Sca (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. --Johnsemlak (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • NOTE FROM ADMIN: I'm ready to post this on the supports, but I don't have an article. What quality, well referenced, and relatively complete Wikipedia article are we highlighting here? --Jayron32 19:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that there's no one article to describe the main conflict that's dominating the news...the offensive/expansion being carried out by ISIL in both Iraq & Syria. The ISIL article is written about the group with a timeline of events (which spans a decade). Meanwhile, there are two separate articles about ISIL's recent expansion: Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) & 2014 Eastern Syria offensive. The fighting in Iraq has gotten the most attention, so if only one article could be used, then Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) is it. However, I'll throw this suggestion out to discuss: how about listing more than one article as the same item (between hyphens/dashes)?
  1. ISIL expansion (Iraq/Syria)
  2. Islamic State expansion (Iraq/Syria)
  3. Islamic State offensives in Iraq & Syria
  4. ISIL offensives in Iraq & Syria
  5. Islamic State (Iraq/Syria)
  6. Islamic State insurgency (Iraq/Syria)
There are several alternatives. Namely should the name be reduced to an acronym for brevity (as shown) and then what the name of the organization should be, which has been much-debated with no consensus. For purposes of ITN, it's ISIL (name of the page) vs IS (Islamic State, official name). ISIS can be ruled out as a former name. Any precedence for this suggestion or willingness to change the rules? I--personally--am not really interested in debating the merits of multiple links in one listing...others can go about doing that...I'm just throwing this possible compromise out there for discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 6 above.
  • Comment- There's still nothing wrong with simply Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014). That is a lot better than option 6, which is just an article about one of the involved groups, or any of the other options proposed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 07:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Option 6 reverts to Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, which by title seems the most logical target article. However, said article has grown to a grossly bloated 15,000 words — clearly not something to inform the ITN blurb reader concisely. Support instead a blurb linking to Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014).
PS: Updates
 • UN on Aug. 25 condemns 'IS' for "mass executions of prisoners that could amount to war crimes". Sca (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 • UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay says Aug. 25 "grave, horrific human rights violations are being committed daily" by 'IS' . Sca (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Per the above rough consensus, I have linked to the Northern Iraq offensive article, and provided my best attempt at a concise title for this link as "ISIL Iraq offensive" I hope this works for everyone. --Jayron32 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
At least we finally have something out there, although Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) isn't entirely current. Sca (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
By all means fix it, or suggest a more appropriate target. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Easier said.... It doesn't even mention James Foley, who reportedly was murdered in Syria, not Iraq. Sca (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
More 'IS' horrors in Syria. Sca (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Rather than post this sort of thing here (which is entirely inappropriate) try updating the article. Right now it's going to be pulled as it's not actually up to date. I have no idea why it was posted in this state. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: B. K. S. IyengarEdit

Article: B. K. S. Iyengar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yoga guru B. K. S. Iyengar passes away

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Iyengar is a yoga pioneer and very notable to have a RD blurb. He created Iyengar Yoga. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support article isn't too bad, individual is certainly notable and was definitely top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable in his field. Been described as a legend by many sources Somchai Sun (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. But it would be great to see the death section expanded to include reactions to his death. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per others above. It Is Me Here t / c 11:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support World-famous. The article looks pretty good. Challenger l (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Hiroshima landslidesEdit

Article: 2014 Hiroshima landslides (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 39 people are killed in a series of landslides in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Many still unaccounted for. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. But the article is just bare bones. Once some more meat is put on, I'll support. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that's why it says that it needs to be updated in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    I've updated with the latest statistics, but I'm struggling to find stories, written in English, that I can access from work containing more detail. CaptRik (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just reinforcing the point. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support When was the last time anything bad happened in Hiroshima? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support due to death toll and the article looks ok to me. Brandmeistertalk 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Article is a bit shorter than I would prefer, but we've got to post something. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 19Edit

Proposal: Move Robin Williams from blurb to RD with next updateEdit

Thanks to all who gave their opinions and rationales. It was an idea I had. Never claimed it was a good idea. But thanks to everyone who considered it and gave an opinion one way or the other. --Jayron32 16:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to modestly propose we move the Robin Williams blurb to RD with our next update, instead of the bottommost blurb. The rationale is thus: Most of the media attention has lessened over the last few days; I was entirely in support of having a blurb to begin with, but as the attention has died down, it seems like now would be a good time to slip this down to RD. Again, THEN it was the right decision to make this a blurb, but I think NOW is a good time for it to move to RD. --Jayron32 19:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to move it or otherwise treat it differently than a blurb about an event? We don't take off news stories that have passed. This was a news story, not just a death.331dot (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Because RD exists, and we have the mechanism to do it. --Jayron32 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It was decided that this merited a blurb, and not RD. I see no reason to treat this differently than any other event that merits a blurb. Williams is on the cover of People Magazine this week; he is still getting attention, as Taylor Trescott says below. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I oppose this. I see no good reason to not let it run its course, and there's still plenty of articles about him being published [16]. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the reduction in news coverage. Neljack (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • support or just remove as stale. It looks like all we have are him, two other blurbs, and Bacall that aren't all stale a this point. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The news over the last week has been slow and normally something like this would have been off the box due to other fresher stories coming into place. I have no problem demoting it to RD until that goes stale as well. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
We've had slow periods before; I've never known a blurb to be removed because of one. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
When it comes specifically to blurbs about the death of a famous person compared to any other type of news story, it feels odd to still have it there for more than a week. I cannot describe the feeling in words easily, but it leaves me unsettled, compare to any of the other stories. --MASEM (t) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. Are there any past examples of a blurb being removed because the event it describes is "stale"? 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove as stale. No need to prolong something beyond its effective life cycle.--WaltCip (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Except we do that with every story during a slow period. Should we remove the Turkish presidential election, now that it is over? 331dot (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No, just Robin Williams.--WaltCip (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Why? Why should that blurb be treated differently? 331dot (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because that's not how it's handled. Challenger l (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ALL of the blurbs are stale; we've gone over three days without a new one. No reason to make arbitrary new rules just for the sake of a slow news week. Teemu08 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Confused? Do the opposes oppose taking this down at all, or keeping it up at all? I think it should come down, but don't relly have a problem with it sitting in RD while the 'plot' is available. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose setting a precedent to start cherry-picking blurbs that some think are stale. Williams' blurb is no more stale than the others that were listed before his death. Better solution is to nominate new stories for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Rambling Man said it better than I could! Rhodesisland (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rambling Man.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm still seeing coverage on new unfoldings of the story. Far more than I am seeing (none) for every other blurb currently on the ticker. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even now his article is receiving over 100,000 page views a day. This far exceeds the other posted items. The news media just reported on the scattering of his ashes in San Francisco Bay. All in all, ITN is doing a good job of reflecting reader and media interest in this story. Abductive (reasoning) 15:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Ongoing: Shooting of Michael Brown/Ferguson MissouriEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Shooting of Michael Brown (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: This has been a top headline in global media for days now. It should have been made an ongoing event a while ago. I suggest dropping the 'Libya' item and replacing it with the Ferguson unrest. --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note earlier discussion of this a few days below. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Frankly, I have no idea where the situation is going - a peaceful resolution or even more violence. It is an important story when it comes to some conclusion, as a combination of racial issues and freedom of press issues flying around, but based on the previous discussion, I do have to agree that this is not really good for ongoing (it is a very American-centric story at the present time). --MASEM (t) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, obviously this is a US centric story in that it's happening in the US but a) it's getting coverage all over the world; b) it's reaching the level of a historic level of unrest that is going to have repercussions for a long time; and c) it's resulted in national protests around the US, including multiple protests in the last few day on Times Square in NY and other US cities. It's certainly not just some local news in a Missouri suburb any more. It's dominating local news coverage here in NY. A now iconic image was retweeted hundreds of thousands of times.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree that this will have some impact on American politics in relation to race, police policy, and free speech, at the end of the day, but going from when I previously nominated this, while its noted worldwide, the impact still remains highly local. In comparison to the numerous scuffles around the world where we heard of a dozen-some people dying every few days due to bombs and the like, this is nothing. And this is also being very careful of the American press heavyweight bias that lends to worldwide coverage. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for lack of Ongoing-ness. I would like to think that Ongoing is reserved for those topics that have a lot of twists and turns in them, which would otherwise generate ITN items daily. Having them in Ongoing is a way to recognize their significance while still allowing other topics to appear in ITN, and by having a single good link that directs readers to the individual pages for this or that development. Ask yourself, what ITN items would this event generate if it were not in Ongoing? "Protests and riots take place for the Xth night since Y event?" That's not an ongoing event, it's just the same even being repeated over and over. That (IIRC) we did not post the original shooting, or any of the other protests/riots, then I don't see why this topic is needed in Ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thought I'd probably oppose for ongoing, but might support a blurb about the National Guard being called in. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb of some kind; not sure about Ongoing. Maybe something to the effect of: The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri leads to extensive clashes between police and protesters? It Is Me Here t / c 16:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose being blown out of proportion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Otherwise we'll have an onging for every time things kick-off in Belfast. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the worldwide attention. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support a blurb about the National Guard being sent in(as a significant step in this event), but not ongoing. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose local issue even in the US that seems to be the subject of opportunism on all sides but no actual crime has been charged, let alone prosecuted. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
How many National Guard deployments to deal with riots are there currently in the US? 331dot (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If that's your altblurb, 331dot, post it. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – As before, minor incident in a far-off and parochial part of one country. Being blown out of proportion, compared to similar incidents in other countries that would never receive either a blurb or ongoing status. Let's keep an eye out for systemic bias, if you fellows please. RGloucester 21:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITN-worthy significance would be national or even international riots sparking as a result of this. This is silly-season stuff.--WaltCip (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Did we post something about the riots following the death of Mark Duggan in 2011? This is one of those stories that has inched its way up the news roll gradually, making it hard to point to a specific event we should post at ITN that isn't stale; events here only seem significant in retrospect. I think I'd support a blurb on this, but that the arguments against an ongoing link are persuasive at this stage. GoldenRing (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb targeted at 2014 Ferguson unrest, but not ongoing. The National Guard deployment seems a little stale, but could work (especially since current ITN material is a bit dated.) 9kat (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal of blurb More space for news coverage and Williams should still have a RD tag. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Meant for the Robin Williams item above? GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 18Edit

Luhansk refugee convoy attackEdit

Article: Luhansk refugee convoy attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An attack on a convoy of refugees fleeing the ongoing conflict in Ukraine kills at least seventeen people. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

 --Jinkinson talk to me 00:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose it's got "ongoing" in the blurb, we have this conflict in our Ongoing section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Hashim KhanEdit

Article: Hashim Khan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The greatest Khan Pakistan mourns squash legend Hashim Khan Pakistan Squash legend Hashim Khan dies of congestive heart failure in USSquash great Hashim Khan dies Monday night
  • Nominated by [[User:-- (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)|-- (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:-- (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:-- (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BHashim+Khan%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Hashim+Khan&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
  • Updated by Faizan (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: He dominated the international squash scene in the 1950s and early-1960s representing Pakistan. He won the British Open seven times between 1951 and 1958 and In 1944, he won the first All-of-India squash championship in Bombay, and successfully defended this title for the next two years -- (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, meets the bar of notability and we need more non-US representation in RD. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose not overwhelmed by winning a national championship title a few times, and article needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but as TRM said the article does need some work; it is severely lacking in citations. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle although I think the nominator means British Open Squash Championships, rather than the British Open... It seems that the British Open was not a mere "national championship", in the same way that the Open in golf is not a national championship for Brits - hence entrants from around the world. BencherliteTalk 19:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Yes it is British Open Squash Championships Men's championship-- (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Bencherlite is correct. As our article on it notes, the British Open was at that time regarded as a de facto world championship. It remains, with the more recently established World Open, one of the two most prestigious squash tournaments in the world. It is no more a "national championship" than are the British Open in golf or Wimbledon in tennis. Neljack (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Meets the bar for notability, but the article really needs work. Challenger l (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Updating. Faizan 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  Done Info regarding death updated. References added and fixed, further expanding. Faizan 15:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention and Support. It seems this has consensus to post but needed updating and better citations. Has that been achieved now? Rhodesisland (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RD: Don PardoEdit

Article: Don Pardo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times ABC News Sky News Daily Mail

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: He was the announcer for all but one season of Saturday Night Live. He is a member of the Television Hall of Fame as well. Andise1 (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose While certainly a legend, it's arguably also a very American one and, like the RD nom below, likely of little worldwide importance. (That said, the article seems in decent condition should this end up promoted). --MASEM (t) 06:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 as important in his field(television); getting some coverage outside the US. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a mess. Not convinced he is "important in his field" either. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to meet DC2. Very notable announcer and was known worldwide. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Known worldwide? You sure? As far as our article on SNL says, it's not broadcast outside the U.S. As a Brit, I know if I went around asking about Don Pardo, I'd be getting alot of blank faces. Redverton (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Just looked at the SNL article again, and it actually says it's broadcast in the Middle East and North Africa. Random. Redverton (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is in pretty sorry shape - and as with the below article, I am not sure a game show announcer meets the criteria for RD. Challenger l (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if article cleaned up sufficiently. He was known for more than just SNL ... he did a lot of game shows as well, and the local NBC News in New York. Redverton, we've run a lot of people in RD that are well-known in Britain but would generate a lot of blank stares over here, too. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The guy is unknown (or little known) outside the US. Not an "important" person in his field. Diego Grez (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Diego Grez there is no requirement that someone be internationally known, only that they meet the Recent Deaths criteria, which in this case is being important in their field. Criticism about a posting relating to a single country is strongly discouraged(see the "Please do not" section above) 331dot (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
He might be important in his field, in his country only. He hosted an internationally-known TV program, but he, as an individual, isn't internationally known and so he shouldn't be there on the main page. In my opinion. Diego Grez (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't meet the notability bar. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In what way? 331dot (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is in bad shape. Would support on notability, per the statement above noting that opposes are invalid if you "complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." He was a cultural icon in the U.S, highly recognizable voice talent who all Americans of a wide range of ages would know and recognize. But the article, as yet, is in a poor shape and does not deserve to be featured on the main page. If it were in good shape, a large enough portion of our readers would be looking for it, and ITN is designed exactly for that reason. --Jayron32 19:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose of all the voiceover artists since the beginning of radio/tv he ranks where, and has influenced whom? μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Answers: #1, and everyone since him. --Jayron32 21:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I like the guy Jayron, and if this were "Who's dead in America" it would be a shoe-in But I didn't even see him listed on the aggregators and social media sites I frequent. Best I can say for this is it wouldn't offend me and we've got the space, so I'll cross out my oppose as your early Xmas present. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems a pretty clear parallel with James Alexander Gordon below. GoldenRing (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: James Alexander GordonEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: James_Alexander_Gordon_(announcer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC NewStatesman

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Admittedly probably not well known outside of the UK, but very famous as the voice who read the football results for 30 years on a Saturday afternoon. CaptRik (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I would think that a sports announcer at the top of their field would be something comparable to Harry Caray, and I'm not seeing that type of importance in the article given. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose based on article quality. If a decent amount of work were done quickly, then maybe we could count it as a late kickoff. Formerip (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

-Weak oppose on quality grounds; the article doesn't really suggest that he meets any of the RD criteria(if he does). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article is barely longer than a stub, and I'm not sure a sport announcer would meet the criteria for RD. Challenger l (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I knew his voice when he made the football announcements but I did not know his name until death. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 13:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Admittedly probably not well known outside of the UK" - you just said it for me. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 17Edit

August 16Edit

Nanjing 2014 YOGEdit

Article: 2014 Summer Youth Olympics (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The 2014 Summer Youth Olympics open in Nanjing, China. (Post)
News source(s): NBC Sports

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Second Summer Youth Olympics. Major sport event during which the IOC intends to experiment with new disciplines (Mixed 8x100 m relay, basketball dunk contest, ...). Hektor (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. A news story with clear encyclopedic value; and the article looks good too. Oppose. Alas, 3142 has changed my mind with the "not top level competition" argument. Rhodesisland (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I'm a little puzzled about the event in question significances - I'm in China now and not seen much news about it going around. Which is surprising, for China...! It's also not on ITN/R. But, it looks newsworthy enough in its own right to me. (Well perhaps being in Sichuan as I am, and thus several hundred miles away from Nanjing, means less interest. And who can't love a dunk contest?!)-- (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)--Somchai Sun (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC) (forgot to sign in)
  • Support either blurb or ongoing. Notable international contest. Article is in good shape. Hopefully, the results will be added over the course of the event.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not top level competition, receives truly minimal level of coverage. If ITN sinks this low there isn't room for anything but minor and essentially non-notable sporting events. 3142 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You might be right, but what is the top level of competition for youths? 331dot (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's part of the point. ITN doesn't report youth sports because they aren't top level competition; this includes college level competitions. Rhodesisland (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I sort of understand not posting college sports(though some college sports are as or more notable than pros, such as March Madness) as many pro players don't go to college or at least don't finish and thus have the opportunity to play at the top level; youths generally do not have the chance to play in top level professional leagues. This event is a large international gathering and while it might not be getting the press coverage to merit posting, it would seem to be the top opportunity for youths. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I see this being similar to a youth event such as 22nd_World_Scout_Jamboree which apparently had > 40,000 attendees yet probably wouldn't get featured in ITN (although nobody nominated for discussion). This might just be pushing sports a bit too far in terms of numbers of blurbs. CaptRik (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 15Edit

RD: Jay AdamsEdit

Article: Jay Adams (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN Toronto Sun Los Angeles Times The Australian

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: According to the Wikipedia article on Jay Adams, as well as in various news articles, he is considered to be one of the greatest skateboarders of all time. Andise1 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Appears to meet DC#2 in light of the sources testifying to his impact on snowboarding. Neljack (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Decent article, well referenced, and clearly a person who is significant in their field. --Jayron32 05:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose poor article, badly referenced to personally hosted websites featured copyvios of other websites. Claims go unreferenced, e.g. "as "The Original Seed" of the sport", "Adams was inducted into the Skateboarding Hall of Fame in 2012." etc. Since there's sufficient mainstream coverage of this, I would hope that the issues with the article could be fixed up by someone who supports this before we send it to the main page. He's no Tony Hawk but one of a few dozen seminal skaters so no objection to this other than the various article inadequacies. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The sources for this look at best, dubious. Some of this looks like it might even qualify as OR. Challenger l (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nominator states a claim that is unreferenced. Adams is not, as what The Rambling Man, said no Tony Hawk and not notable outside the United States. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though the article is decent, the nomination is stale. --Diego Grez (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine attacks Russians invading UkraineEdit

Article: War in Donbass#Government_push_into_Donetsk_and_Luhansk_cities (talk, history)
Blurb: Ukrainian forces attack a convoy of Russian military vehicles which had entered Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): Globe and mail

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Russia's involvement in Ukraine seems to be getting more and more overt, and coming to a head. At the same time the rebels in Ukraine are almost routed, with several top rebel leaders such as Strelkov quitting. While there has been a steady escalation, this incident seems to take Russia's involvement to a new level. Thue (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:NPOV and WP:V. Jehochman Talk 17:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Not verifiable in the sense that Russia is denying it - but Russia has been lying about everything from the start of this conflict. Note that NATO also confirmed the column entering from Russia. As for NPOV, I don't see how, unless you think facts have an anti-Russian bias. Thue (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The Russian armed incursion was witnessed by journalists from various newspapers who reported it, so no WP:V/NPOV issue there. The issue is rather the attack against it, where the Ukrainian government is the only primary source. Narayanese (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • It's rather ho hum news that the Ukrainians shot up a few Russian trucks driven by who knows who. It's not verified that there was an invasion. That bit is propaganda. Jehochman Talk 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and above what Jehochman said, we have already got the timeline linked at Ongoing, so this should just be added to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This type of article is exactly why Ongoing exists. (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 14Edit

Ferrari 250 GTO auction recordEdit

Article: Ferrari 250 GTO (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO (pictured), one of 36 built, was sold in a Bonhams auction in Carmel, California for a record $38,115,000. (Post)
News source(s): LA Times NY Times TIME Daily Telegraph Bloomberg

Nominator's comments: The main reason is that it is one of the most desirable cars of them all and it is nothing uncommon that medias list it as one of the top 10 greatest cars of all time. Also if we had ITN for manuscript for a Bob Dylan's song, paintings, photographs and sculptures then why can't we include cars though the article might need improving. --Donnie Park (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose I can't find your quoted figure of 38,115,000 in the article. Looks like someone has added 38,100,000 to Ferrari_250_GTO#Collectibility. Also, the one above it (Oct 2013) was sold for a higher value than this one. Given the discrepancy and that it appears not to be a record, I have to oppose. I'm open to changing my view if I'm mis-understanding somehow. CaptRik (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 41st Chess OlympiadEdit

Article: 41st Chess Olympiad (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Chess Olympiad concludes with China winning the open section and Russia winning the women's section of the tournament. (Post)

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Chess has attracted millions of people in Europe, Asia, North and South America for centuries and its popularity has been rapidly growing in Africa and Oceania in the recent years. With a record number of 172 participating nations and more than 1,500 participants, including the highest rated chess players in the world playing for their national teams, this Chess Olympiad is the largest and strongest ever. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] For Ongoing: Shooting of Michael Brown/Ferguson, MissouriEdit

Withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is going to be controversial as an ITN ongoing, but it might have legs for support (and you never know unless you try). For those not aware, in the mostly African-American populated town of Ferguson, Missouri, after a police confrontation where a young African-American was shot by an unnamed officer, which has been called a highly racial incident. This led to initial peaceful protests which quickly turned violent (which side responsible is vague), to the point where many have compared the situation to what's happening in the Gaza strip. (eg [17]). There's a LOT of political garbage being thrown around here (to the point some are claiming there's censorship and restrictions on free speech going on), and there's word that the protests against this might spread to other cities. Until the situation resolves, this seems appropriate for an ongoing (yes, even considering the US bias). --MASEM (t) 03:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as the protests seem to be still only within the limits of one city and the implications from the incident are apparently not very significant. If protests spread in other cities in the United States, turn into large civil disobedience and disorder, cause major changes in the country's politics, and receive wide international attention and reactions from other countries, then this might be worth considering for inclusion (e.g. see what happens in the countries of the Arab world). For now, it's only a minor incident with the potential of evolving into something serious and similar stories occur frequently in many countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait it's barely scratching the surface of news reports here, if it escalates into something larger, we can reconsider. Article is in reasonably decent shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait. I agree that this might be worth doing if the situation escalates, but not yet. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is somewhat out of process for an ongoing - if you look at the original proposal[18] it is specifically for stories that have been put up as full blurbs and risk dropping off the section entirely while still in the news. In other words there should be a full blurb first. If you want to convert this to a blurb proposal then it'd be something to consider but I'd still be reluctant based on the level of coverage this had had outside of the US - it's still probably a bit small scale for ITN. 3142 (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportIt is quite significant, even International media is mentioning it. -- (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are tons of violent protests all over the world. None of them make the news here. This one is no different. Nathan121212 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Boring incident in a parochial and far-off part of one country. RGloucester 05:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a US propaganda journal...--Stemoc 06:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point, I would ask this be closed/withdrawn. There may be a story from the mess (but we won't know that for days) but it's not going to be ongoing as the situation has resolved itself mostly peacefully. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Comment I'm surprised that this isn't already posted. I see some comments above about it not getting international attention, but it's currently the number one story on BBC News.[19] I also see comments that it's not going to be an ongoing situation, but if there's a trial, this will be in the news for months, possibly a year or two. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that this isn't posted, but I think we should probably revisit this sometime soon and see if there's anything here worth posting. This has been a big story for a solid week, and it's a bigger story than several that are currently posted. The National Guard was sent in by the governor; perhaps that's an appropriate hook, or maybe we're still waiting for something else to happen, or maybe this is it and the story is going to start to peter out. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm hopeful that perhaps Weds, when the DOJ is expected to arrive, there will be something as to a regular ITN/C item marking an end to the immediate problems; I can understand the concerns of this for ongoing, but there's also no "major point" here that yet can be pulled into ITN/C. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August 13Edit

RD: Eduardo CamposEdit

Article: Eduardo Campos (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): National Post

Nominator's comments: If he was at the top of his field, his field was "being a politician in Brazil", having been the leader of the Brazilian Socialist Party. His death has also had a significant impact on the election, obviously, as now someone else will have to represent his party instead. However the main RD criterion he probably meets is #1, since he was "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region". Specifically, the second half of this criterion is the one that is most likely to be met here--his death has even led to the Ibovespa index dropping by about 1%. [20] --Jinkinson talk to me 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Arguably he was out of office at the time (likely preparing for candidacy) and that was only at the "state" level. That said, seeing this story go by before, can we make about the air traffic accident that includes his death? eg A private plane, carrying 7 passengers including Brazilian Socialist Party presidential candidate Eduardo Campos, crashes in the town of Santos, São Paulo, killing all aboard. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know the first thing about Brazilian politics. If this person was a serious contender for the Presidency, I'd be probably be inclined to support. If he was just some also-ran, then probably not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • RD The article should be improved. There's currently just a sentence in the lead and in a section called "Death"...this should be expanded a couple sentences to note the reaction and legacy. The BBC said he was third in the presidential polls and that the president has declared a national day of mourning. AHeneen (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support either for RD or for Masem's proposed blurb. Campos was one of Brazil's most prominent politicians and one of the three major contenders in the presidential election. He was a very popular Governor of Pernambuco (a large state), being elected and re-elected with overwhelming majorities. His administration won various international awards. Neljack (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Seems to be important in Brazilian politics and has gotten attention across Brazil. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Sufficient significance for RD. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per other commenters above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality is very poor and needs serious work on referencing before it should be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Had he been President, then a blurb would have been justified. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article needs work by someone familiar with the subject. Campos' unexpected death makes this a strong candidate, but the article has a messy lede and a section tag. Jusdafax 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait - Until article is cleaned up. -- (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - certainly notable enough. Article is in need of the attention of someone that really knows the subject, and I tagged it as such (hopefully without messing it up) Challenger l (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Tiefencastel derailmentEdit

Consensus is against posting. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Tiefencastel derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A passenger train (locomotive involved pictured) is struck by a landslide and derailed at Tiefencastel, Switzerland. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Minority topic - Switzerland. Only the fourth such accident in which a train is struck by a landslide and derailed, as opposed to running into the aftermath of a landslide and derailing. --Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Decent amount of sourced content for such a recent event. I don't think the image is needed, however, and think the female mathematician should remain. AHeneen (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No fatalities, and it's the second such incident this year after the Annot derailment (we declined to post that one, although it wasn't much of a discussion [21]). --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Typical, ain't it? Nothing for 71 years, then two come along at once! Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bongwarrior. Neljack (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Awesome but not sufficiently significant. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK material if you're quick enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man - but DYKs are dead easy to get, ITNs are much harder. Besides which, I've got a QPQ in hand, and am saving it for my forthcoming 900th new article. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Bongwarrior and Gamaliel. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 12Edit

[Pulled/Posted to RD] Lauren BacallEdit

Okay, enough now. Time to move onto the next "debate". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lauren Bacall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Golden Age star Lauren Bacall has died at the age of 89. (Post)
News source(s): Vulture, The New York Daily News, Entertainment Weekly, Digital SpyBBC Globe and Mail CBC Sydney Morning Herald TVNZ

Verdens Gang (Norwegian language newspaper) RTL (German TV) VOS (Spanish daily paper in Argentina) Hameen Sanomat (Finnish daily newspaper)
Nominator's comments: One of the leading ladies of the Golden Age of Hollywood. She received several award nominations for her work, and was awarded the Academy Honorary Award in 2009. --JuneGloom Talk 00:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, but article needs sourcing particularly in the Personal Life section (I see only 3 sources and a few floating "cn"s around). --MASEM (t) 00:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Noting there's a few outstanding claims left in the personal life section but nothing now I would consider contentious (eg years of marriage, etc.) so the article's ready to go IMO. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb Her status is obvious and to argue for it is an insult to editor's intelligences. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • We still need those "cn" issues dealt with at a bare minimum. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to deal with the CN stuff. I'd just delete the claim if it were seriously serious. If she's not up a week from now I'll wonder about it and laugh. If she's not up within the hour I will also laugh. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Once again, ITN is not here to be just a news ticker but to highlight quality articles that are being linked from the main page. Having CNs in a recently-passed away person is not quality. That said, I don't think the claims are contentious (I recall reading things to those points long ago) so there's no point in removing the lines, but they need the source. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD if more reliable sources report it. Belle (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Which they now have. Referencing needed though. Belle (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Added Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand based sources. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • RD Notable enough for RD, but I don't think a blurb is necessary. AHeneen (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A screen legend. --Pete (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as above, she's relevant all these years later; she's known enough that a theatre review a few days ago compared the actress' voice to Bacall. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD link only (no blurb). This is a perfect example of a highly notable entertainer who died under ordinary circumstances (unlike Robin Williams). —David Levy 00:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Top of her field. Key Largo rings a bell. Seattle (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - famous actress. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. She was 89 years old. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for either, but preferably blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. This is what RD was made for. Highly notable, but not Nelson Mandela notable. Death was not unexpected or unusual. She was certainly at the top of her field, but there's nothing that puts this above-and-beyond what the normal RD nominations get. --Jayron32 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Surely a more significant figure than Williams, so perhaps a blurb is in order. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD — The quintessential femme fatale of film noir. I'm neutral on the matter of a full blurb. Kurtis (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb - Starred in classics with Bogart, married him, named the 'Rat Pack' - iconic. Yes she was 89. She was also Bacall. Jusdafax 04:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support Article in very good shape - one of the very best of her field. Challenger l (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support, full blurb – If Mr Williams has been granted a blurb, I don't see how we cannot give Ms Bacall one. She was a class act, one of the most significant actresses of the Golden Age, an era that is now fading into the distant past. As one of the last representatives of that era, the death of Ms Bacall also signals the edges of our cultural memory. This itself warrants mention. RGloucester 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support, full blurb - She was an immensely iconic and influential figure in the history of film, wife of possibly the greatest golden age star to have lived and one of increasingly fewer golden age stars to still have been living in the modern day. While her death is not completely unexpected, she was 89, she is deserving of a blurb on the front page just as much as the late Robin Williams. Ramba Ral (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD as at least a temporary measure. No prejudice against another admin finding there's consensus for a full blurb, but personally I felt at this point in the discussion there was only a consensus for RD. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. I think full blurbs should be avoided for people who die of old age, unless it's someone like a major or currently serving state leader. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. Significant actress who died of old age, perfect for RD. --Johnsemlak (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb I guess you've got to kill yourself to get any recognition around here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, our list of preferred ways to die is quite extensive. You can also explode, drown, fall out of the sky, succumb to a virus...the list goes on. LB's problem is that one is quite low in terms of total fatalities, though. Formerip (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, full blurb – Very well known actress. -- Taketa (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, full blurb - The case has already been made, I see a consensus here for a full blurb and, if I may, the blurb should be posted before it becomes old news.Zero no Kamen (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. I don't agree with a blurb. 89 and a stroke is not particularly out of the ordinary. Williams committed suicide which is newsworthy. Nothing a blurb could say more than an RD listing in Bacall's case. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is suicide any less out of the ordinary than a stroke? Death is death. What matters is the notability of the person. Bacall is of paramount importance in defining a genre of film and an era of cinematic history. RGloucester 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd definitely call an 89-year-old suffering a stroke an ordinary circumstance, a man in good health committing suicide not so much. Williams killing himself is not as ordinary as a death from old age. I don't think blurbs for entertainers are usually judged on the notability of the person - theoretically if Williams had died at 95 from a stroke he probably wouldn't have gotten a blurb either. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course he would - white male popular with the Wikipedia demographic. (same demographic - Lauren Bacall - whothefuckisshe?). Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "out-of-the-ordinary" about suicide, especially if someone was suffering such health issues as depression. It is not that different from having heart disease, and then dying of a heart attack. RGloucester 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Taylor is spot on. If Williams had died 20 years later with his career behind him, rather than 10-15 years of it remaining, his death would be far less noteworthy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Johnsemlak is correct, the rationales for blurbs are death itself is notable (Williams) and top of field (Bacall). See the Aug 2012 RfC. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Giving Willams one and not Bacall makes us a laughing stock (again). Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention Needed according to the 2012 RfC that established RD, being at the top of one's field justifies a full blurb. Votes in favor of the nomination or of a blurb were to be taken as supports for a full blurb. Votes for RD or opposing a full blurb were taken to be against a blurb. We have 10 of those. This should be upgraded to a full blurb based on support of the importance of her career field. Doubters should look at the articles on Lizabeth Scott and Patricia Neal articles, who were considered the Lauren Bacall's of their respective studios. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed to claim that Bacall was not top of her field is arrant nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Top of their field" is the bare minimum for an RD, not a blurb; a blurb would require something more significant (eg the death being surprising or unusual ala Williams or Hoffman) or that the person not only was top of their field but the top of many many fields (Nelson Mandala). And going by various news timelines here, Bacall's death is far below the attention that Williams has had. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Notable figure but the death itself is not. In that eventuality RD is the appropriate level, especially since we already have one celebrity death up as a blurb. 3142 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I see consensus for a full blurb after ignoring the one celeb is up, why another comments which isn't policy based. As the article is in good shape posting. Secret account 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    If we're going to post her lets at least get a pic of her.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Did you mean to write "one celeb is up, why not another"? (I inquire because I see only one comment fitting your description as written, and it isn't a primary rationale.) —David Levy 19:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment now it's full blurb, it looks VERY odd to have the Iranian mathematician photo next to Bacall's death blurb. Suggest we replace with Bacall image immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    The Becall item was mistakenly labeled with today's date, which necessitated that it appear first. I've corrected the error and moved it below the Fields Medal blurb. The events in question occurred on the same date, so switching to a photograph of Bacall (and swapping the items' positions) is an option. (Note, however, that our shots of Bacall are quite old; apparently, no recent photographs with suitable licensing have been found.) —David Levy 19:33/19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I think you were swapping the items as I posted my concern. I don't think there are any issues with posting a classic picture of Bacall, but as you said, that's just an option. There seems to be a large swell of support for the Iranian mathmo having her photo posted. In either case I'm not too fussed, but we do now have two terrible tragic death blurbs next to one another, User:Viriditas won't like that. At all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree that a photograph of Bacall in her youth (accompanied by our standard "pictured in [year]" caption) would be fine, particularly as a means of increasing variety if no new item with a suitable image is added within a day or two. —David Levy 20:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess I'll have to be the one to point out that there is absolutely no consensus for a full blurb here. Compare this to the Williams nom, which was nearly unanimous. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to full blurb here; there is absolutely no standard it appears on what 'deserves' a full blurb and what does not (this does not imply that Bacall does not meet the threshold, it merely suggests that the criteria used to determine notability is entirely arbitrary). For me, Bacall's death is exactly what RD was intended for - a notable person who died of natural causes, in which the death itself was not a major news story. If we do not follow this standard, the utility of the RD in the future is tenuous at best Colipon+(Talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What level of importance is required for a full blurb? I was under the impression that, after RD was introduced, ignoring any highly unusual deaths, full blurbs were reserved for only the most important and influential people in the world, such as Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela. Robin Williams is somewhat understandable because of the unusual and unexpected nature of his death, but Miss Bacall is not comparable to Lady Thatcher and Mr Mandela at all. Consider Lady Thatcher and Mr Mandela's funerals: they were huge affairs with continual news coverage leading up to, during, and following the actual funeral services. Miss Bacall will not have anything remotely as large as these, yet she has still been awarded a blurb. Since the introduction of RD, which figures have been elevated to main blurbs after unremarkable deaths? Are these choices consistent? Are there other figures as unremarkable as Miss Bacall? This is a general question that I would be interested in knowing more about. (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Unremarkable as Miss Bacall"? If Ms Bacall is unremarkable, then Mr Williams is a spec of dust, and the whole thing ought be kiboshed. I do not understand the differentiation between a very ill person killing himself and an old lady dying of stroke. Both are run-of-the-mill. If one is sick, one is sick, and I fear that some people here continue the old-fashioned trend of differentiating mental illness from physical illness. However, I think all this mincing over the notability of the "death" itself is absurd. Deaths of highly notable people, such as Ms Bacall or Mr Williams, are not important because of the substance of the death itself, but because of the substance of the person that died. RGloucester 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Miss Bacall is unremarkable compared with Lady Thatcher or Mr Mandela: she will get nowhere near the news coverage leading up to and after her funeral that they did. I separated Mr Williams because other editors believed his death in itself was notable, not because it is something I agree with. In terms of the substance of the person that died, I am wholly unconvinced that Miss Bacall is comparable to people like Lady Thatcher and Mr Mandela and I am under the impression the blurbs are not intended for anyone lower than this level of importance. 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb but support RD. I don't think there was consensus to promote this from RD to a blurb. She was a obviously notable figure, but died at 89 under ordinary circumstances. 9kat (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, support RD - Unlike Williams, who is one of those rare instances of a celebrity worthy of a blurb, Becall's death at 89 wasn't out of the blue, nor was she active in film/tv at the time. Top of the field is a condition for an RD, not a blurb. Besides, even "in the news", Becall's death has been greatly overshadowed by Williams. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, support RD Miss Becall was nowhere near as significant as Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela, the kinds of people for which blurbs are intended. I asked above whether, excluding unexpected deaths, exceptions are made for people like Miss Becall, and I have received no evidence to suggest this. (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There are currently 15 opposed to a blurb, 11 in favour and 4 who have not expressed a particular preference. [This was deleted by another user making a comment.]
  • Support leaving the blurb. I think there was a reasonable degree of consensus for the blurb. Perhaps not overwhelming consensus, but enough of one, and there comes a point where rehashing posting decisions already made, in the absence of a clear problem, becomes a poor allocation of resources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that Newyorkbrad has a reputation for coming along to WP:ITNC just to push nominations for specific American actors and actresses he happens to like. There has been a lot of controversy about this in the past. User: The Rambling Man has had much unfortunate experiences with this. (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
now hang on let's AGF. If you disagree with an editor post your opinion but ADHOMINEM isn't necessary.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The assumption of bad faith there is appalling, I don't think I've seen a Bacall movie in 20 years, and I just supported RD for a Brazilian politician. (I do, quite apart from this page, I have a generalized concern that this community does not always marshal its volunteer time efficiently, which spans quite more broadly than ITN.) The fact that some of the RD's I felt strongly about last month happened to be American entertainers was quite simply a coincidence, although it is true that I'm more likely to feel strongly about mainpaging someone with whose work I am familiar than someone with whose work I am not familiar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb by the way. Formerip (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb support RD. Significant person dies of old age. This is what RD is for. It's pretty hard to argue there was ever a consensus for a blurb here. GoldenRing (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb support RD. I'm a big Bacall fan but also feel that her passing should only be posted in RD. As Jayron said, "Death was not unexpected or unusual. She was certainly at the top of her field, but there's nothing that puts this above-and-beyond what the normal RD nominations get." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talkcontribs) 04:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Due to the apparent lack of consensus to make this a blurb in the first place, and the overwhelming consensus to undo it once it was done, I have pulled this item and restored the RD link. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where else to put this comment. But is the choice really always just "RD or blurb"? Would it not be more sensible to allow "RD + limited time blurb", i.e. a specified number of days, to avoid such artificial conflicts? Bacall waa certainly very notable, perhaps just not as notable as others. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you're proposing a change to the process, so it's best suggested at WT:ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I will, thanks. A toss-up between that and poking sharp sticks into my eyes... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting that Bongwarrior, who opposed the blurb while the discussion was open, has now both plled the item and closed the discussion. The RfC Explicitly said that unless otherwise qualified, a plain support vote was a vote for a full blurb. We still have a majority of support/support full blubd to Oppose full blurb/RD only. Someone should revert Bongwarrior if he won't do it himself. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I never opposed a blurb, I just expressed my dissatisfaction that consensus apparently wasn't being followed. Whatever accounting methods you are using to determine that there is consensus for a full blurb here are, quite frankly, bizarre. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] First female fields medalistEdit

Article: Maryam Mirzakhani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mathematicians Artur Avila, Manjul Bhargava, Martin Hairer and Maryam Mirzakhani are awarded the Fields Medal, with Mirzakhani its first ever woman recipient. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Maryam Mirzakhani becomes the first woman to win Fields medal
News source(s): International Congress of Mathematicians [22]

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This is a historic international event. Drako (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, but one sentence is not enough for an update, particularly if it's only in the lead. Formerip (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I and others have updated her article (It is still ongoing, this event is so fresh, it has been announced less than an hour ago)Drako (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support , article needs a bit of TLC on referencing in proper places, needs an update. As there are other awardees, I wonder if there's a better way to highlight this without ignoring the other awardees. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not know about the limit on amount of words, they should also definitely get their due credit, but just wanted to reemphasize that she is the first woman in history to get it.Drako (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps: Maryam Mirzakhani becomes the first female to be awarded the Fields medal, alongside other awardees Artur Avila, Manjul Bhargava, and Martin Hairer. (And I just spot checked those other three, and they are reasonable to include as links, reasonably sourced, maybe at least need a line about the Fields). --MASEM (t) 18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree! I'll try to improve them too --Drako (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment a good shout for ITN but we should wait for the official announcement, and the target article should be adequately referenced before we post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for all four winners. The awarding of the Fields medal is ITNR. We would have posted all four winners if they were all male: a woman winning is no reason to ignore the other three equally deserving winners. I have improved the suggested blurb accordingly. The winners are in alphabetical order out of fairness and neutrality. (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support support support. Also suggest adding that she is the first Iranian recipient as well. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not worth adding: according to the main article, Avila is the first Brazilian winner, Bhargava is the first Canadian winner, Hairer is the first Austrian winner and Mirzakhani is the first Iranian winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I would support nothing those facts as well if their individual articles noted and cited these facts in the introduction as Mirzakhani's does. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You would support writing how all four are the first winners from their own countries on the Wikipedia home page? (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be difficult to find the space to write so much (for what is, ultimately, a summary). Even the current blurb is rather long. (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, it is not right to describe Mirzahkani as the first Iranian winner without doing the same for the other three. (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer what MASEM suggested, being the first female is significant enough to be mentioned first.--Drako (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV could be argued: We should remain neutral and report on the winners independently instead of favouring those winners that conform to arbitrary criteria that are not relevant at all to the prize itself. (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It does not violate neutrality as most resources (like Nature, New Scientist and BBC have written their titles to this fact). By the way it was a suggestion and I myself agree with what you're saying. --Drako (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, gender bias (where there's only 2 classes) is a much "bigger" thing to point out than country bias (where there are 200+ potential classes). As others have said, third-party sourcing seem to highlight her being the first female Fields. All four need to be in the blurb, but her award is the more attention-grabbing. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the main blurb in whatever order of words seems best. I have no NPOV issues with being the first female being mentioned but I think we can safely leave out the nationalities. CaptRik (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Mirzakhani being the first woman to win it should be mentioned, as it is being featured prominently in reliable sources and it significant in a male-dominated field. Neljack (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The first female to win a prize in a noteworthy field that males dominate is certainly noteworthy. Others have mentioned that the blurb shouldn't be added to the main page until the awards are given. The web page in the nomination says they will be given during the opening ceremony of the ICM conference 2014 on August 13, 2014. According to the ICM 2014 program, the opening ceremony is 9-11:30 in Seoul (it's 9am there at the time I post this). I agree with others that nationality does not need to be mentioned. Here's an alternate blurb using parentheses to highlight the notability of this:
"The Fields Medal is awarded to mathematicians Artur Avila, Manjul Bhargava, Martin Hairer and Maryam Mirzakhani (the first ever female recipient)."
And this one uses a different word order (but shorter/more concise than in the's also my preference):
"The Fields Medal is awarded to mathematicians Artur Avila, Manjul Bhargava, Martin Hairer and the first female recipient Maryam Mirzakhani." (Does proper grammar necessitate a comma or m-dash after "recipient"?)
Which wikilink should be in bold? Fields Medal? Or Maryam Mirzakhani? I think the medal, because it is the subject of this blurb but the notability is because of Mirzakhani.AHeneen (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Can we add the photo to the main page too? Drako (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
While there's the free image, with Robin Williams on the news ticker that's probably the preferable image (much more recognizable face). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is the more recognisable image preferable? If people already know what Williams looks like, then surely we are better fulfilling our informational mission by featuring a photo of someone they aren't familiar with. Neljack (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please use this photo. Someone put in a deletion request for her photo (to start an argument?). The source page clearly says that the image is copyright free. Therefore I added the photo here. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I still think we should have Williams there as long as his blurb is there, but I have made a cropped version of her photo and provided it above (and yes, the IMU website makes it clear its PD). --MASEM (t) 03:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to post this, but which one is the updated article? None of them appear to be ready, although Maryam Mirzakhani is probably the closest. I'm not sure there's enough of an update possible at Fields Medal, which would otherwise be the most logical bolded link. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much there is to update. The Fields Medal article notes the fact (as well as the other 2014 winners) in both the lead and the "Landmarks" section. Since that article doesn't go into more detail about the work or biographical details of the winners, I don't know what else should be added. This is a prestigious award in the field of mathematics and is only awarded every four years. The Maryam Mirzakhani article notes the fact, but doesn't go into much detail on why she won (much more info available here). Since the blurb also mentions the other winners, I think the Fields Medal page is the most appropriate link to be in bold. AHeneen (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting. As indicated, the Medal page is a reasonable article to bold, though there is no extensive update there. The recepients' articles are ok. Feel free to change the photo. --Tone 11:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; but, remember to add "(pictured)" if you are going to use the photo. It Is Me Here t / c 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please add the photo of Mirzakhani. I too am emotionally attached to Mr. Williams but news of his death is now past and has been superceded by this award. The deletion request is gone; the photo is PD. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think we should make too much of a deal about the photo but my two cents would be to leave William's pic there. He's the news of the day still.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 11Edit

[Posted] Robin WilliamsEdit

I don't think there will be any change regarding the posting, not much more to discuss here. --Tone 12:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Robin Williams (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Actor and comedian Robin Williams (pictured) dies at the age of 63. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Actor and comedian Robin Williams (pictured) dies of apparent suicide the age of 63.
News source(s): EW, Hollywood Reporter NBC News CNN BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: (If true) definitely a blurb, not just an RD. Article is in decent shape (it could use a bit more sourcing in his filmography part but where it is about personal life, it is well sourced, so not an issue for ITN). The details of the death, whether a suicide, will take a few days to figure out , don't expect the article to be updated with that yet. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Iff true, absolutely blurb-worthy. Cultural touchstone, legendary actor & comedian, Academy-award winner, unexpected death. --Jayron32 23:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • And, for the record, the current blurb that just says he died is fine with me. We probably shouldn't mention the suspected suicide until the investigation has concluded, but we can update when and if it becomes more firm. --Jayron32 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb cultural icon, sudden and tragic death Secret account 23:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Long list of accolades and still very active in his field. Teemu08 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Definitely due an RD, but why exactly a full blurb? I'm neutral on whether he should have a blurb, but I and others need more than just a declaration that he should have one - some reasons/reference to ITN criteria needed. Redverton (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blurbs are reserved for occasions where the death itself is newsworthy, not just the death of a notable person(which is what RD is for). 331dot (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
An apparent suicide by suffocation of a working actor is worth a blurb. I'm no huge fan, but his status and the unexpected nature warrant a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily: for example, Nelson Mandala's death from age and health was never not going to get a full blurb because of his relative importance. Not saying Williams is equated to Mandala for importance, but even if Williams died from old age, I suspect we would have still been talking about a full blurb. Obviously the suddenness elevates the case here. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)The unexpected nature of the death, the level of coverage the rest of the media is giving this, and the sort of cultural gravitas that a person like Robin Williams had all seem to lead this one towards a full blurb. --Jayron32 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The Los Angeles Times is reporting this is confirmed by the Marin County Sheriff's Department, so we can unfortunately consider this one true. I don't see why we can't go ahead and post this to RD immediately since this is an obvious inclusion there, pending a full discussion over a possible blurb. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Why must we always rush to putting something up? I too support an RD at the very least, and I'd be surprised if the consensus is anything other, but let's not try to close up one part of a discussion after a mere ~20 minutes. As is said so often, no need to rush here at Wikipedia - we're an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker tape. Redverton (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Immediate RD listing and full blurb once cause and method is confirmed. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. His apparent death seems to be top-level news as of now (even in the UK). I agree, though, that a blurb does not need to be rushed and can be discussed while posted to RD. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There are more references needed throughout the article, especially in the personal life section. Stephen 23:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The personal life section is the best sourced part of the article with at least one source per paragraph (but more at times). Yes, it can be better, but for ITN it's fine. Where sources are lacking the most is the filmography stuff but that's easily verified and can be improved on, not necessary for being an ITN item. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed, the personal life section is scrupulously referenced. I can't find a single statement, either interesting or mundane, which doesn't have a top notch source there. The only section that isn't directly referenced is the filmography, and most of that stuff is uncontroversial and easy to check up on. --Jayron32 23:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
        • "During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Williams had an addiction to cocaine." No reference. Stephen 23:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
          • That statement should be removed as a BLP violation. I would do it, but the article it fully-protected. Neljack (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Just have to point out the irony of the above situation... do you really think BLP applies anymore ;-) (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Although the subject is no longer living, WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict)@ Please read the following statement from WP:BLP: "for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. " Bold mine. If any of that is difficult to understand, I can try to explain it to you. --Jayron32 03:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Referenced by "Inside the actors studio" at end of para. Sources don't need to be at end of sentences save for quoted material. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Per Masem, the reference is right there. You're allowed to click the references already cited and check them yourself, Stephen. No one here will stop you. --Jayron32 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Where on that page does it even mention Robin Williams? Did you click on the reference and check it yourself? Stephen 01:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
                • I have. It's an episode of "Inside the Actor's Studio". If you find and watch the actual episode cited, Williams himself actually discusses it. I still don't see anyone stopping you from finding the episode and watching it. --Jayron32 01:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Total support for full blurb. Cultural icon. Diego Grez (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb May be a cultural icon in the US, but didn't have the level of global impact I would look for in a candidate for a full blurb. We should beware of systemic bias here. I don't see that there's anything about the death, as opposed to him, that makes it independently notable, so I see no justification for a blurb on that basis either. Neljack (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've posted this to RD as a temporary measure - it's obviously going to be posted there at the very least, and the article looks good enough for posting. I would expect this to end up as a blurb, but that will require some more discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - Unexpected death, internationally known, big news. Jusdafax 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb, article ranked 2192 in traffic prior to death. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb and propose suicide-mentioning altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    We can add the suicide when a more definitive statement comes out. Right now, we have one suggestion from a coroner made a few hours after the death. We probably need corroboration. Until then, a full blurb mentioning the death will suffice. --Jayron32 01:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am somewhat confused by your reference to "a suggestion by a coroner". Do you know what a coroner is? They are county officials who declare cause of death, not part of the cast of Sesame Street with blogs. This is officially a suicide by asphyxiation. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The coroner has not declared a cause of death yet. The said that the death is under investigation, and has suggested suicide as a possible cause. But they have not ruled on or declared anything as yet."Coroner Division suspects the death to be a suicide due to asphyxia, but a comprehensive investigation must be completed before a final determination is made." Until they make that final determination, we should be mum on the cause of death. --Jayron32 02:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not particularly disposed to take anything you say as serious, Jayron, given your recent pointless obscenities aimed at me, but Variety and other sources are giving suicide by asphyxiation as the presumed or tentative cause of death according to Marin County officials. When we find out next month it was just another hit by Putin in retaliation for Moscow on the Hudson we can update the archives. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb is really the only option for a highly relevant comic such as Williams. Not to mention, his manner of death was unforeseen and unpredictable because he did not die of terminal physical illness or old age. This makes me sad, he was a seminal figure of and to my youth. Blurb should mention manner of death with link to the pertinent part of the article, where the information could be found.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention Needed this is at worst 8-1 in favor of a full blurb, can we get one please? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Thirty-five career, numerous awards, household name. Lots of media coverage of this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted as a blurb, consensus seems fairly clear. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 100% support full blurb — I have no words for this. Honestly, seeing it in my Facebook feed shortly after the story broke was a complete bolt from the blue. I feel as if a part of my childhood has died along with him. He will be missed.
    He has more than enough cultural significance to justify a full blurb. Kurtis (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Facepalm Another American entertainer dies, another full blurb posted three hours after nomination. Shouldn't be surprised, I guess. Mandela, Thatcher and Williams: If you want a full blurb, that's the bar. GoldenRing (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
In case it's not utterly clear, that's a pull blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Recent Deaths never eliminated the possibility of blurbs for people when their death itself is newsworthy(and not just the death of a notable person). This is top level news, and not just in the US (on the front of Times of India, The Hindu, Irish Times, Australia Broadcasting, and Le Monde) 331dot (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Every time this happens, someone pops up saying that this death is newsworthy. Well, I've got some news for you; every death that goes on RD is newsworthy; that's why it's called In The News. Who do you think we post to RD? Nobodies that no-one cares about? GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between a newsworthy death and the death of a notable person. RD is intended for the latter(say, a notable person dying because they were old or ill) and blurbs are for the former(a notable person dying suddenly and unexpectedly or due to a crime). 331dot (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. The death itself is newsworthy here, since he died quite unexpectedly. It Is Me Here t / c 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support RD. Significant person in his field, but his death has no real ramifications (beyond him not making any more films). Does not reach the threshold for a blurb, but certainly should be in RD. Also, I'm disappointed to see that the discussion and posting happened in a few short hours while America was awake but Europe was asleep, biasing the responses. Modest Genius talk 10:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There has never been a requirement that users from a certain number of time zones must participate in a discussion before posting. There is also no requirement that a death have ramifications to get a blurb, only that it be in the news, which this is around the world, largely on front pages. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, but there is supposed to be some effort going on to counter our systemic bias. If you can't see that posting a story that is particularly relevant to US culture after a discussion of a couple of hours when most of the English-speaking world is asleep is systemic bias in action, well, I don't know what better example I could give. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said, this is not just news in the US, but around the world(and not just in English-speaking countries), which would seem to suggest that he has some level of worldwide appeal and is not just an example of "US culture". I've also seen plenty of non-US stories posted without time for comment from the US. Until there is a requirement for comment from many areas around the world, I don't know what else can be done. There are better ways to counter bias than simply restricting the posting of US stories; we need to see more stories from elsewhere nominated- which we've done not too bad a job with recently. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Aiyee' anothjer one bites the dust...if RW is depressed, then what will happen to the rest that looked to him to laugh ;(Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. I had my doubts about this, and I think perhaps waiting longer would have been beneficial, perhaps until his suicide could be confirmed. This is getting very broad coverage in the English language media around the globe. The Guardian (not the US version), the Sydney Morning Herald, the Mail and Guardian, and Globe and Mail all have photos of Robin Williams at the top of their pages with multiple articles. I think a full blurb was inevitable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb, in case some U.S.-haters here get itchy fingers and try to pull this. Williams was a comedic giant enormously popular and well-known worldwide, and his death was completely unexpected. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb updateEdit

The Marin County Sheriff's Office has made a preliminary finding that Williams died by hanging [23]; I don't know if that's definitive enough to update the blurb to state it was a suicide? 331dot (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Given they've carefully had time to come to this conclusion (and the question now being if there were any substances/mediciation involved through toxicology analysis), I feel this is fair to update, stressing the impact of this story. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The spokesperson carefully avoided saying that this was suicide. He said that the death was caused by "asphyxia due to hanging", but said nothing about it being self-inflicted. Despite the strong inference from the circumstances recounted by the spokesperson, we cannot read things into his statement that he didn't say. So this is not sufficient for us to say that Williams committed suicide. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
They didn't say it was a murder, either- and there was no struggle or signs of a physical altercation [24]; reports state that he "Committed Suicide by Hanging Himself"(NBC, linked above), "apparently hanged himself" (CNN), "Coroner: Robin Williams hanged himself with belt, had cuts on wrist" (Fox), "Robin Williams death: Police confirm suicide" (BBC), "Robin Williams died by suicide, coroner confirms" (Irish Times). I'm not really sure what more we are waiting for. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I would think if there was any doubt this might not have been self-inflicted, they wouldn't have used the word "suicide" given that that can be shocking and disrespectful if there was a good chance it wasn't, and the fact he very likely committed suicide is why this is huge in the news. I see no reason to hide this fact any longer based on this latest report. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like there's been time for a proper investigation, and the reliable sources seem to all be agreeing this is confirmed. -Jayron32 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is still a only preliminary investigation. The spokesperson emphasised that the investigation was ongoing and they were seeking more evidence before reaching their conclusions. Neljack (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Then you REALLY need to write a letter to the BBC and ask them to file a retraction. Because, while yesterday, reliable sources were hedging, and not willing to outright call this a suicide, today those same reliable sources are stating clearly that the police are confirming this as a suicide. Where reliable sources hedge, we wait. Where reliable sources consistently agree and speak firmly, we should too. --Jayron32 03:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
But the sources are not all saying the same thing. For instance, the CNN article linked above says that he "apparently hanged himself" - quite different from pronouncing it a suicide. Neljack (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't normally include a cause of death in a blurb, what's the rationale for doing so here? Stephen 03:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Because the manner of death is the reason for the blurb. The reason RD was created was to avoid having blurbs that only said "So-and-so died" and that's it. In the cases of normal deaths of really old people for the reason of being really old, we don't normally post a blurb, because we'd say "So-and-so died" and that's it. However, the news here is not the death of a really old, infirm, retired actor. It's the death of a middle-aged, healthy, and active celebrity who was still active in his field, and the news story is the manner of the death, in this case likely self-inflicted. That's why we mention it, because it's the reason it's a blurb in the first place. The posting of the blurb was an expedient, waiting on more firm reports from the official sources as to the cause of death. We have those reports now. If we never planned to discuss the nature of his death in the blurb, we'd've never made it a blurb in the first place. --Jayron32 03:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
So why didn't we mention cause of death for Hoffman or Monteith? Stephen 04:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
For Hoffman, the cause of death was not obvious but to not post in a timely manner so it was posted with "found dead" statement. Montheith wasn't a blurb. I would say that we naturally default that if "so and so dies..." , that was a death by natural causes/medical conditions/old age and thus implicit. But with Williams and Hoffman, the death was clearly not natural and the fact that it wasn't natural a factor picked up in many news stories (in the current situation, for Williams, it is highlighting how people should NOT deal with depression), making it appropriate to mention. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with altering the blurb, I just don't want to be the one to do so because I've already posted this twice. I'd suggest just adding "of an apparent suicide" to the end. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What full blurb? how could you post it? its clearly not in the news ;)...Holy shit!Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that article is seeing some crazy (maybe unprecedented) pageview stats. The day it happened, the article had to be fully protected for a short while. Not because of problematic editing or anything, but rather as a precaution because some devs were worried that the volume of edits there might break Wikipedia. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding cause. There is now no doubt that Williams took his own life, but we don't usually post cause of death and we shouldn't make an exception in the case nor a precedent. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] MonstrationEdit

No consensus to post this "event". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Monstration (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Monstration is creating a media blackout in Siberia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC [25] Itar-Tass [26]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is an international event. USchick (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Meh --Jayron32 03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
"Please do not... ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." Andise1 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really an event. It might be a prelude to something but this is hardly an actionable news story. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
A social media prank launched a government media blackout and an official investigation. If it happened in the US, would it be news? USchick (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's not news but it's not a point in the event that we would have ITN coverage of it; it's a vague point of the story. Also not thrilled with the target of the article, being a bio and the event the person organized. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. What if Monstration was broken out into a separate article? The event is scheduled for Aug 17, so it's still developing. USchick (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really, at least as I'm reading it. If it were the case that, perhaps, Artyom Loskutov was arrested and charged by the Russian gov't for inciting something, that could be news, but media blackouts isn't really a serious event. If the event was transplanted to the US, with the US Gov't doing the same thing, I still don't think it would be news because it hasn't hit a "critical" point of the event; it's at a vague state that doesn't make for good ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, he hasn't been arrested yet. USchick (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Is this really in the news? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I was able to find only one (unattributed) semi-news report, in News from Elsewhere... reports from around the world, found by BBC Monitoring. So far the 'monstration' seems to be a cyber-media happening that hasn't happened ... yet. Sca (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 10Edit

2014 PGA ChampionshipEdit

Articles: Rory McIlroy (talk, history) and 2014 PGA Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Rory McIlroy wins the 96th PGA Championship. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN

Article updated

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This is an ITN/R sporting event. Andise1 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It is ITNR, but the article has almost no prose. Until we have a relatively complete prose synopsis of the tournament, I cannot support putting this on the main page. --Jayron32 01:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Jayron is right, of course. Also, fixed that this was the 96th PGA, not the 98th. Courcelles 14:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That plus it's not an obscure tournament or else it would have already been up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. The article on this year's Championship looks to be in about the same condition as last year's and slightly better referenced. So my question is, did we post the results of last year's Championship based on that article? If so, then this nom and article should be good to go. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Final round prose section is entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Turkish presidential election, 2014Edit

Articles: Turkish presidential election, 2014 (talk, history) and Recep Tayyip Erdogan (talk, history)
Blurb: Recep Tayyip Erdogan wins Turkey's first direct presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 --Jinkinson talk to me 21:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Historical milestone, main article seems to be in a good condition. Brandmeistertalk 22:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One of the important elections in 2014, it should be included in the main article. Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not yet fully updated. The final results should be given and some discussion/reactions is also usual. Additionally, the lead needs expansion. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Conditionally Once the issues with the article are fixed, this is definitely notable news. Challenger l (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Sepahan Airlines Flight 5915Edit

Article: Sepahan Airlines Flight 5915 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​48 people were killed when a passengers plane crashed near an airport in the Iranian capital Tehran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Sepahan Airlines Flight 5915 crashes near Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, Iran, killing at least 38 people.
News source(s): BBC CNN

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Please post news sources in the "sources" line of the template demonstrating that this event is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This might be notable, but we should wait for a definite casualty figure to come out; it ranges from 15-48 dead. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - when more is known about deaths magnitude of the accident etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yet another air crash. Significant death so far. Nathan121212 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don’t think aircrashes should authomatically be featured ITN as I think we often get an overemphasis on crashes and clashes compared to other news. This is not of the biggest planecrashed; no indication or wider societal implications or significance than the 40-50 tragic deaths. Iselilja (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of now, article is unqualified stub. μηδείς (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the number of fatalities. The article seems to me to be large enough - the guidance is at least three paragraphs, which is obviously met here. Neljack (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Commercial civilian airline accident, article seems to be better based on above comments about initial quality? --MASEM (t) 03:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

August 9Edit

August 8Edit

RD: Menahem GolanEdit

Article: Menahem Golan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times

  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD as nominator.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Article in good shape, well above the bar for notability. Challenger l (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Should be posted quickly before this goes stale. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What makes this person a very important figure in their field? The article mentions the Israel Prize. Then what? Directed a string of shoddy low-budget films? Once tried to make a Spiderman movie? I don't see anything in the article that makes him stand out as a particularly notable producer/director. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The Golan-Globus studios are extremely well known for campy but fun films - not that this reduces their importance. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Bongwarrior; unless Challenger or Taylor Trescott can persuade me to change my vote by telling me just how Golan was "well above the bar for notability". Rhodesisland (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Iselle makes landfall on HawaiiEdit

Article: Hurricane Iselle (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Iselle becomes the first tropical storm to make landfall in Hawaii since Hurricane Iniki in 1992. (Post)
News source(s): [27]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Also the first tropical storm in recorded history to cross the Big Island. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait. We'll undoubtedly post this if there is significant loss of life or, given that it's in the US, if it knocks over a few plant pots. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not sure when we last posted a US hurricane that knocked over "a few plant pots", but hurricanes in Hawaii are somewhat rare(this was the first to hit them in 22 years). [28] That said, damage was relatively minimal(they even held an election despite the storm) so I don't think this warrants posting. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, unless there is large damage/impact in the future. SpencerT♦C 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest closing. Minor damage, no fatalities, and a minimal number of displaced. Since the storm has passed days ago and without devastating results, I suggest that we close this nom. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

U.S. aerial support against ISISEdit

Articles: Battle of Sinjar (talk, history) and 2014 Northern Iraq offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): AP, BBC, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Obama just went on TV and said he is launching airstrikes on ISIS. Should that be on the In the news? Or should we just add "Iraq conflict" in with Gaza and Ukraine and Libya. ----Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment if you'd like this as a blurb, please suggest one, including a suitable target article, indicate some reliable sources and tell us whether the article(s) in question have been updated. We can't possibly support or oppose beforehand. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
2014 Northern Iraq offensive is being used as a target by Portal:Current events but this article is presently written to focus on the events of June. Starting a new article may be preferable to reworking that one. Erbil and Mount Sinjar will also need small updates.    C M B J   07:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
AP, BBC, Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added the template, possible target articles and Sca's sources because I'm a good guy. I left the blurb for someone else because I'm lazy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as ongoing, not as a blurb. This is another chapter in the conflict, with the U.S. engaging in military retaliation (albeit in the form of surgical strikes). More news will be sure to follow as the conflict continues to escalate.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I would be happier posting more Syria-Iraqi blurbs. E.g. the Taiwan item currently ITN with 30 would be a quiet friday in Iraq. Thue (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it is weird that there is no Iraq ongoing item. Abductive (reasoning) 16:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The target article probably should be Battle of Sinjar, as the Iraqi offensive article is about the Islamic State's operations in June. Hello32020 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Foreign intervention in the conflict is a significant development that warrants a blurb. It can be transferred to "Ongoing" afterwards, but an "Ongoing" listing at the moment would not communicate this important development to our readers. Neljack (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb — Per Neljack. Sca (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - New article about the overall conflict this year has been made at 2014 Iraq conflict, although Battle of Sinjar has more of the recent details. Hello32020 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - But the main news story is not just the US intervention, but also the humanitarian crisis that Yazidi refugees are facing on Mount Sinjar (which is what has prompted the US...and possibly other Western nations intervene). ISIS is as extreme if not more extreme in its fundamentalist Islamic views than the Taliban and have been killing hundreds of non-Muslims when they take control of areas (most have been fleeing ahead of fighting because of how notorious ISIS is). ISIS targeted the town on Sinjar because it was home to a large population of Yazidi peoples (non-Muslims) and when fighting broke out, the town's population fled to the nearby mountains, where upwards of 50-100 thousand Yazidis were without food/water and surrounded by ISIS, which was threatening to execute all of them (ISIS has followed through with their promises, this isn't an empty threat). The US intervention was to prevent a large amount of executions (which could have amounted to genocide) by attacking ISIS to give the refugees a way to escape. Proposed blurb:
"The threatened genocide of Yazidi refugees by ISIS prompts US military intervention in northern Iraq."
The term "threatened genocide" is strong, but it's also the term used by the US president and secretary of state as the reason for intervention and has widely been used in the media. AHeneen (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Have another look at the news sources given in the box: The Americans bombed IS/ISIS to defend Erbil, not to help refugees (those only got supplies, not military aid). Narayanese (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ALT blurb - foreign intervention against ISIS is significant enough. Proposing ALT blurb: starship.paint ~ regal 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
"The United States launches a military offensive against ISIS in response to alleged "threatened genocide" of Yazidi refugees."
Comment on ALT blurb...the US is providing some air support to Iraqi government forces & Kurdish militias, it's certainly not on a large enough scale to call it a "military offensive". AHeneen (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Events on the ground may have overtaken this discussion. Reuters quotes Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, Iraq's human rights minister, as saying IS has "killed ... 500 Yazidis after seizing Sinjar," burying some victims alive, and has taken some 300 Yazidi women captive. I haven't seen another source, but if confirmed this would now be the No. 1, sadly most horrific, story in the world. Sca (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle a blurb related to US invention and Yazidi situation as the situation is of great importance. But the articles need to be improved, better co-ordinated and fact-checked. The articles are also a Manuel of Style nightmare as Islamic State, IS, ISIL, ISIS and other variants are used very inconsistently in the articles. Iselilja (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Events reported by Reuters, quoting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (a Britain-based monitoring organization), include crucifixions and beheadings perpetrated by IS in eastern Syria. Sca (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ongoing conflict not a blurb. EllenCT (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As of now, it's not clear if the intervention will make much of an impact.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Add to ongoing There's enough stuff going on. [29] This conflict is as notable as the others in Ongoing. 9kat (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

August 7Edit

Russia foodfightEdit

Article: International sanctions during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk, history)
Blurb: Russia announces an embargo on agricultural imports from the U.S., E.U., Canada, Norway and Australia. (Post)
News source(s): [30]

Article updated

 Formerip (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My support would be purely hypothetical based on the fact that this is a top news item right now, but I don't see any target article we are, or should be, highlighting as yet. If we can get a good Wikipedia article updated on the topic sufficiently, I'd be all for putting this up, but we've got nothing yet... --Jayron32 12:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support these sanctions are actually bigger than those by the West. Nergaal (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The economic consequences looks to be large. Thue (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've expanded and updated the article so that it is something approaching postable. Further help would be appreciated. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – Meanwhile, could someone please change the "ongoing" blurb to match the article it links to? The ongoing conflict is the War in Donbass, and the ongoing blurb links to Timeline of the War in Donbass, but the blurb says "Ukrainian unrest", which seems like a euphemism. I recommend changing the "unrest" to "War in Donbass", or something similar, to match the article. RGloucester 15:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    FWIW, the phrase "War in Donbass" gets 34,000 ghits, while "War in Ukraine" gets 6,180,000 ghits. Donbass, Ukraine. Media seems to broadly agree that the conflict is named for Ukraine and not Donbass... --Jayron32 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    And if we do want to improve specificity, "War in Eastern Ukraine" gets 270,000 ghits. --Jayron32 18:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You can use "War in Ukraine" for ITN purposes, but it fails all of our article title criteria. Do you know how many wars there have been in Ukraine? There is no war in Lviv, either, if you've not noticed. It is limited to the Donbass region. We've just closed a long RM to get to War in Donbass, and there are good reasons for its placement there. We don't use journalistic shorthand. We adopted a WP:NDESC title. Regardless, for ITN purposes, "War in Ukraine" would work, since it doesn't have to stand up to the tests of time. RGloucester 19:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No, absolutely. The use of a name for an article title is (and should be) distinct (as needed) than the words used in a piped link on the main page. The purpose of the title should be to reflect both accuracy and verifiability, whereas the purpose of an Ongoing link is to direct readers to articles about topics they would recognize from the news. The "Donbass" name serves its purpose well as an article title, but would have poor recognition for people coming here to find out more about a subject they are reading about in the news. Since the news is using the word "Ukraine" or "Eastern Ukraine" to describe the conflict to an overwhelming degree, our link should be piped with that wording, though the article title is clearly appropriate as Donbass... --Jayron32 04:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning to oppose. With respect to Canada and Russia, at least, this is merely an incremental update as the two nations have been playing tit for tat for months now. I suspect it is similar with other nations. Resolute 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- A lot bigger than any of the sanctions being imposed the other way, so worthy of its own blurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we might as well have posted that over 100,000 Americans petitioned the White House to deport Justin Bieber. But if we do post this, a shirtless picture of Putin will be necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for my first good chuckle of the day. GoldenRing (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wasn't there some talk that this may not come to pass? Abductive (reasoning) 16:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it went into effect on thursday. Just search for it on Google News, e.g. [31]. Thue (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Conflict, not "unrest" for an item which our main articles and timeline refer to as a "war." EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Khmer Rouge Leaders GuiltyEdit

Article: Khmer Rouge Tribunal (talk, history)
Blurb: Khmer Rouge leaders Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan are found guilty, by a UN-backed tribunal, of crimes against humanity. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan are found guilty, of crimes against humanity, by the Khmer Rouge Tribunal
News source(s): [32]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant notable conclusion of this tribunal. Apologies if I've made a mistake with the article in the template (first time!). CaptRik (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for spotting that, I've added an altblurb for review. CaptRik (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb over alt-blurb. The articles on the convicted men actually has a better update IMHO, and it's easier to follow the recent news in those articles than in the Tribunal article. None of the articles is bad, but the original blurb highlights the articles which cover this item in better detail. --Jayron32 11:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Jayfron and supports the original blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Agree that their names should be bolded, as the updates are are better there. Also, would it be possible to incorporate the fact that they were sentenced to life imprisonment into the blurb without making it unacceptably long? That seems a rather significant aspect of the story. Neljack (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Per Jayron, Neljack. Here's another source. Sca (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very notable, Samphan is the former head of state of Cambodia. As such, I support bolding the names. Maybe there can be a compromise by wikilinking "a UN-backed tribunal" to Khmer Rouge Tribunal in the first blurb? --Pudeo' 14:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither man's article is adequately referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And they don't need to be if we bold Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see that both personal articles are inadequately referenced. There was only one unreferenced section in Nuon Chea, which I fixed with 2 citations. Khieu Samphan has a long history section that is unreferenced, but the relevant arrest and trial is well-referenced. --Pudeo' 18:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite what other's may think, we look for citations where appropriate, not just in the section of interest to the story. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I added further 11 citation marks to Khieu Samphan's article (and removed some sentences). Both articles should be acceptable now, although everyone should feel free to improve. --Pudeo' 00:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've Frankensteined a blurb together that I hope works for everyone, although I didn't see a good way to add the life sentences without making it a little too wordy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It was when I originally posted it; after some consideration, I unlinked it because the blurb had too many links and that one was the most obvious candidate to be removed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

August 6Edit

Sweden wildfireEdit

Article: 2014 Västmanland wildfire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Approximately 1,200 peoples has been forced to evacuate their homes and one person has died after the largest wildfire in modern Swedish history breaks out in Västmanland. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Approximately 1,200 peoples has been forced to evacuate their homes after the largest wildfire in modern Swedish history breaks out in Västmanland.
News source(s): Euronews, Wall street journal

Nominator's comments: Largest wildfire in Swedish history, death confirmed. International attention by media, and also help from other countries sent. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Significant fire that is news worthy!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no sign of this being widely reported, i.e. not "in the news". Article is weak stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I agree with TRM that this doesn't seen to be widely reported. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "largest wildfire in modern Swedish history" is quite the exaggeration considering multiple sources[33][34][35] say "largest forest fire in more than 40 years" instead. WinterWall (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Norwegian newspapers report it as the biggest in scandinavia in 200 years. [36]. Which is consisten with largest in modern history. I have not found any swedish newspapers that compare it with historic wildfires. (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a newsworthy wildfire IMO and it is the first of its kind. Adjö! Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 09:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 5Edit

[Closed] Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness WarsiEdit

No consensus to post, so closing before we all get dragged before arbcom for discussing the importance and relevance of this individual's actions to an international audience. Stephen 00:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi (talk, history)
Blurb: Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi resigns her post as the United Kingdom's first Minister of Faith and Communities over the UK's policy on the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi resigns her post as the United Kingdom's Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs over the UK's policy on the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict.
News source(s): Time Magazine
 --Jinkinson talk to me 19:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor politician tries to make a point. And fails. Pointless act of throwing toys, would have been better to stay and do something. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the UK had tried to engineer a peace deal, and the Foreign Minister had failed and resigned, with the Prime Minister teetering, it would be a big deal. As it is, this is a political stunt, and I remain opposed to playing into the hands of those looking to make a small story into a big one. Is there an article for this with lots of fascinating detail to make it worthwhile for a reader to click through? --Pete (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minister of what? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this story does not reach the threshold for ITN, but this is not a forum for disparaging the article subject, or any article subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't see it that way. The ministry is not relevant to the issue. That's a disconnect right there. It's like the Pensions Minister resigning over the World Series. Though that might make for a better story. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • C'mon Brad, there's a poor article on an RD for a US subject – you should be pushing it to the main page. Be consistent, if nothing else. In the meantime, don't lecture us on having and expressing opinions. Save it for the few who remain that respect Arbcom etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose since we rarely post ministerial resignations (except perhaps Prime Ministers). But I agree with Brad's comment. This is not a forum for discussing the merits of Lady Warsi's decision, and per BLP people should certainly not be describing her conduct in disparaging terms. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
oppose per the position. but ;support as in the news. its all over the place. walked into the gym and this rubbish was highlighted for, well as long as I was there (and that's long enough...except im not sure when I was in the pool)Lihaas (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too low level a position. I'm sure they also had little role in setting any Israel policy in the UK. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per all the other opposes. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Baroness Warsi held two positions. One was Faith and Communities, but the other was Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the second highest position in the Foreign Office, and she was in charge of all Foreign Offices matters (including Israel) in the House of Lords. She most definitely did have considerable influence on British foreign policy Smurrayinchester 07:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • But her resignation is hardly ITN-worthy. Even if the actual Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had resigned, it wouldn't be ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Politician resigns from a non-cabinet position doesn't cut it in terms of importance for me. I can't find any encyclopaedic content on exactly what the UK's foreign policy on the Gaza Conflict actually is. CaptRik (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose With very rare exceptions, the resignations of government ministers is not ITN-worthy. I fail to see what would make this one of those exceptions. Redverton (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Rosetta rendevous with a cometEdit

Article: Rosetta (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ESA's spacecraft Rosetta becomes the first manmade object to orbit a comet. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The ESA spacecraft Rosetta reaches 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, becoming the first manmade object to orbit a comet.
News source(s): Telegraph
Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: On August 6 the spacecraft will undergo orbital insertion maneuvers. Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support significant first. And post again when (if) it lands (in November). Thue (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: science, especially space exploration, is an underrepresented topic on In The News. It being the first is noteworthy. The article needs to be updated, however. (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant, also agree that I hope we post it again if the rendezvous happens. CaptRik (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Decent article and I'd be happy to see it posted, but not twice for what is, essentially, one story. If we post now, we shouldn't post later. If we would rather post later, let's not post now. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, this one is a no-brainer. Formerip makes a good observation, but since the landing won't happen for a few months, I'd be in favor of posting this twice. Interesting as hell and far from routine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Easy call. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The article needs updating and refers to the August events in the future tense. Stephen 04:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'd be happy with having this twice, since it's not technically Rosetta landing in November. Rosetta will remain in orbit around 67/P, but will release a separate lander spacecraft, Philae. I've suggested an altblurb with the name of the comet included. Smurrayinchester 05:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until confirmed. According to [37], confirmation should be at 10:35 BST (09:35 UTC) this morning. It's still possible that something may go wrong.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    Confirmation has arrived. Smurrayinchester 09:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. What is the mission here? To orbit or rendezvous with? I would like to see it posted when the mission has achieved its goal. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    There are two parts to the mission, which involve two separate spacecraft. Rosetta's goal is to orbit 67/P and examine it from space, Philae's goal is to land on 67/P and investigate its geology. It's comparable to the Cassini-Huygens mission - Cassini orbited Saturn, Huygens landed on Titan. Smurrayinchester 07:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and the altblurb is way too long. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's not exactly rocket science. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Article updated and Posted. Smurrayinchester 10:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Are ESA images free like NASA's? There is a great image here. Also you could change the blurb with "67P/C–P" to make it less daunting. Nergaal (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Just for the record. It is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
How about this ESA image (on BBC)? Sca (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That is the image I was thinking also. I've uploaded a cropped version at File:Comet 67P-Churyumov-Gerasimenko.png but hopefully someone can figure out a way to put this impressive image on the main page. Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Per this and this with ESA images, one "may freely use the images you find on our site, as long as it is not for commercial use. You may not modify the images. If you intend to use any of the images on a website, please acknowledge that it originates from ESA." The file is hosted on commons (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 3 August 2014.png) so I think it can/should be used on the main page. Nergaal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Johannesburg earthquakeEdit

Article: 2014 Orkney earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 5.5 magnitude earthquake near Johannesburg kills at least 1 and injures 34 others. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A 5.5 magnitude earthquake occurs in Orkney, South Africa killing one and injuring 34, as well as being felt throughout Southern Africa.
News source(s): BBC Huffington Post FOX USA Today

 --Nathan121212 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I wouldn't describe it as a Johannesburg earthquake per se, the epicentre was in Orkney, North West. It has also been covered in List of earthquakes in South Africa. HelenOnline 13:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Adding Altblurb. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I know that this is not uncommon in China, but is this that notable for South Africa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talkcontribs) 14:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it is dominating the news here. We have earth tremors more regularly, this one is abnormal. HelenOnline 14:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Epicenter near a major population center which rarely sees activity of this nature. For comparison, I think the 2011 Virginia earthquake was featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed it was, and that just resulted in damage, no deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Rare event for South Africa that will likely see the death toll rise as the story is updated. I added some more references to the article, seeing as though it's getting a lot of news coverage. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Not as much for it being a tragic disaster but more as a shocking event with some cultural impact, along the lines of the 2011 Virginia Earthquake as previously mentioned. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is much too short to post. Abductive (reasoning) 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - earthquakes of this size in this region are rare. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment per Abductive, this is barely a stub. It has consensus to post should the article reach the minimum required standard (or should the standards be overlooked). Would be good if someone could fix it up.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only one death; damage significant, but not huge. I don't think that's sufficiently significant to warrant posting. Nor do I see that frequency of earthquakes in the area as being very relevant to assessing its significance, but in any case significant earthquakes are not that rare in the area - a similar quake in the same region killed two people in 2005.[38] Neljack (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. According to Richter magnitude scale, 5.3 represents a "moderate" earthquake, of which there are 1,000-1,500 each year. Formerip (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 5.3 is a tremor, nothing more. There's been a death but really, you'd have to place that squarely on shoddy building rather than the quake. 3142 (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
oppose per above, not notable in its effects Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As pointed out earlier, the 2011 Virginia earthquake was featured. Was it simply more important because America? Nathan121212 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the precedent has been set, but this isn't the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    • We do not operate a system of precedent here. I would have opposed that one too. Just because we once made a questionable decision, it does not mean that we have to keep making such decisions if we think they are wrong. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, as I said, this didn't happen in the US so it won't be posted, unlike the Virginia quake which was posted by .... an American admin despite questionable consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems to me that according to the South African earthquake chart, there have been several quakes/tremors of at least 4.0 since 2013. So it's not really that rare after all, is it? Rhodesisland (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • But this is rare as the magnitude has exceeded 5.0. Nathan121212 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - rare and notable event for the region.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment interesting how many opposes are based purely on the Richter scale rating, entirely ignoring the context of the quake. Now a quick glance at, say, the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake which registered 6.3, killed 184 people, yet the June 2011 Christchurch earthquake which registered 6.4 killed just one person. Just claiming that a 5.3 is a mild wobble is all very well, but if that mild wobble has taken place in a location which is hardly ever wobbled and which has killed someone, it's worth taking the context into account. But yes, it's not the US, so it's probably not in most people's "context sphere" in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    Whatever people's judgement in previous earthquakes I think most users are applying reasonable standards here--The Richter scale, combined with the death toll, and the news coverage in international sources. The BBC has this as a minor headline in the Africa section, for example. Currently as I view J-berg's Mail and Guardian, the entire front page does not mention the word 'earthquake' (it's the seocnd headline in the 'national' section'.)--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, but most oppose just reference the Richter scale, at least you have the courtesy to back it up with contextual evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
But the earthquake dominates the front page of News24 Nathan121212 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Nathan it is difficult from so far away to get a local perspective on how significant of an event this is in S Africa. Most of us rely upon international news sources like the BBC. I've checked the News24 site twice in the last 24 hours and there's very little coverage of the earthquake at all--no major headlines related. Perhaps it's because I'm viewing outside of South Africa. I imagine the coverage was more substantial a couple of days ago.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of the earthquakes here are situated near fault zones: Turkey, Indonesia, Japan, Oceania region. According to the list there are no fault zones in Southern Africa, which makes this earthquake highly unexpected. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite. These examples are missing the point entirely. The point of context. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I can assure you I most certainly was considering the context of this event when reaching my oppose. A parallel that immediately comes to mind was a minor quake here in the UK a few years ago - 5.1 or 5.2, one death caused by a falling chimney stack if memory serves. Again, well away from any major fault zone. That was traced to a fault under the city of Hull: look at a worldwide map of the major fault lines and you won't see any such fault marked.
That absence is what makes my point: high school level geography describes a relatively small number of continent-sized plates and all the action occurring between those plates. However, that is a greatly simplified abstraction: in reality each plate is itself composed of hundreds of sub-plates that have a general tendency to move as one, but minor shuffling between the plates triggers small tremors such as this well away from the major fault zones, and at a vastly greater frequency than the major quakes. This is a common occurrence: it is not unusual, nor unexpected, nor is it notable. Presenting this as some kind of freak event ignores the true complexity of the field. 3142 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: on the basis of article quality. The argument that the 2011 Virginia earthquake was posted because of U.S.-centrism is seriously flawed; rather, the Virginia earthquake article was more developed at the time of posting compared to the current South African earthquake article and likely the reason for posting - to highlight quality articles on Wikipedia. When the admin posted the story to Template:In the news [39], the article was already well-developed [40], and the article is now considered a good article. On the other hand, this article (2014 Orkney earthquake) is still a stub and will likely never reach the breadth of the Virginia earthquake article because of a lack of sources comparatively. (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    This.^^^^^^^ Article quality should be the primary arbiter here. I could not have said it better myself. --Jayron32 00:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is no longer a stub and meets the minimum quality requirements to be posted, so opposition based on article quality is no longer valid. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    While meeting the minimum quality requirements might warrant posting for stronger magnitude earthquakes, in this case for the 2014 Orkney earthquake, meeting the minimum quality requirements just doesn't cut it. The rationale for posting the 2011 Virginia earthquake was much more compelling because the article was already well-developed at the time of posting which pushed it over the top. We want to highlight significant stories but also quality articles at the same time. (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I would support the posting of this story if the article was more developed like the 2011 Virginia earthquake was at the time of posting. (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
    It either meets the minimum requirements or it doesn't. It does. Nothing more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've posted several reasons above, but refrained from a !vote until now. The bottom line is this earthquake is pretty unremarkable by the main statistical measures (richter scale or death count). As far as I'm aware the death count hasn't risen has as predicted. I simply haven't seen the evidence of the substantial impact of the earthquake to warrant a posting. The only good reason so far was that another earthquake in the US was posted 3 years ago, and that isn't nearly good enough. As I have mentioned before, there have been many earthquakes nominated to ITN over the last few years--some posted and some not. We shouldn't' be dictated here by a single precedent, perhaps an outlier. I'd consider supporting if I saw substantial evidence of the impact in South Africa (damage to homes, people forced to move, etc). But I haven't seen that evidence yet.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Virginia earthquake had a lot of opposition, there's no reason to make the same mistake again for a relatively minor earthquake in terms of size and impact. SpencerT♦C 01:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 4Edit

[Posted] Centenary of the outbreak of World War IEdit

 Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - We don't usually post anniversaries - nor should we - but this one has received decent news coverage, it's a highly significant event in human history, and I think that the centennial is worthy of a very rare exception. Theoretically, I would also support posting the end of WWI, the beginning and end of WWII, possibly the first lunar landing, and absolutely nothing else that I can think of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I see that this has been revived with more and better sources and a better target article. My original nomination was done in a hurry at the time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

United States–Africa Leaders SummitEdit

Article: United States–Africa Leaders Summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first US–Africa Leaders Summit is held in Washington, D.C. (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first summit of its kind to be hosted by the US. Invitations have been extended to fifty African leaders. I believe this is a notable event in the current global business environment given the resurgence of other emerging world economies who are also competing for influence within this great continent. You may suggest an altblurb. --Ali Fazal (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. From the article, it looks like this is basically the US's response to the large amount of Chinese economic investment in Africa: they invite leaders to Washington and try to increase trade. Not as much of a substantive summit in terms of many countries working together, it's just the US and individual nations (just all at the same time), from what it looks like. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to let me know, I'm willing to reconsider my argument as well; this is just based on the article right now. SpencerT♦C 18:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with some of the points that you've raised; the fact that almost all the African leaders will be gathering in D.C. at the same time is unprecedented (unlike New York). Plus, this summit has notable exclusions and the civil society and human rights organisatons are expected to pressure the leaders to do more for human rights in Africa. Ali Fazal (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if something important happens because of this (human rights agreement?) I may support after the conference, but for now, still opposed. SpencerT♦C 19:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tempted to support for the reason of Spencer's oppose. Why is the fact this is in US interest a reason to oppose? The US evul, or sumpin? μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Being the first one, it is hard to judge its notability and significance for ITN; if this becomes an annual or otherwise regular event, it may be easier. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment: – I've re-listed this as ITNR as per the policy. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Nno, it required discussion to place it there. As a new and meaningless summit with a handful of the 50+ African states its unlikely to get ethereLihaas (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression that all major(?) economic summits are covered; my bad! Meaningless? lol. There are media reports that more than 45 leaders will attend. If the HOSs can't make it, they will definitely send a representative. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
np. if that's the case then our article didn't indicate it as suchLihaas (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment: 2 – If the article needs to be updated in order to meet your (personal) standard(s) so as to be notable, then I request you to please enhance it. I strived to compile it under WP:NPOV. I don't know if this helps, but I'd like to present the following statistics:
  • The article has received more than 11,000 hits since its creation, with about 1200 only yesterday
  • When one searches for the four key words: "us africa leaders summit"; you'll find its on the top 10 [Google].
  • I assure you the major world media houses will be covering this summit. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question and conditional support. Has the summit actually begun? All the press I read say, will be held/will attend/etc. I will support this once the summit has actually begun. I think it has encyclopedic interest because it is the first and as such has "notability and significance". Perhaps, the subsequent summits might not carry such importance but certainly the first one does. But again, all I see is "will occur" notifications in the news right now. Let's wait until it actually occurs. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
So, to answer my own question; I find that the summit is to begin on 8/4. That's today here, but still tomorrow for most of the world. I say we re-word the blurb to show that the summit has begun, once it has, and then update the article. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support wholeheartedly. An international effort to do something positive is extremely newsworthy. The outcome can be published as another news story of its own. Currently "In The News" section has too many stories of death and destruction, this story will be a positive story and a breath of fresh air. Wikipedia does not need to read like the 10 o'clock news full of horror and sensationalism. Just because that's what we're used to seeing on TV, doesn't mean that's news. Evening news has to sell advertising space, so that's why they do it. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard on Wikipedia. (Getting off the soapbox now.) USchick (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose' at this point. The sources I have seen do not claim this is the first of a recurring series, the claim that this is the "first" seems to be based more on the fact it has never happened before. It also differs from the summits usually covered in that it is essentially bilateral in nature - i.e. the US on one hand and the African countries collectively on the other. It's possible that this might produce something significant but it is equally possible this is simply a goodwill exercise or simple politicking - being seen to do something. Possibly worth evaluating again at end of summit if there have been some concrete developments of real importance, but the current significance of this seems more imagined or hoped for than real and present. 3142 (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The significance of this summit is that someone recognized that at least some new roads in Africa need to benefit Africans, not just building new roads from the mines to the sea port. Whether or not they follow up on this idea is a different story. Just the fact that someone had this realization is revolutionary. USchick (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If this was article space that'd right for tag bombing. Who is someone? How does building better sea links not benefit the local economy? What is "this idea"? How is an unstated "realization" revolutionary? Do you have anything to back up your argument beyond feel good sentiment? 3142 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the article? Obama (who used to live in Africa) made a statement that foreign development should also benefit local Africans. Roads built by foreigners have traditionally went from the mines to the sea port, and any financial benefit went straight out of the country. The idea that foreign investment should also make a contribution to the local economy in Africa, and not just benefit foreign interest is a REVOLUTIONARY idea. There's a conference to discuss it. I don't care if it ever happens again. The fact that it happened once is extremely newsworthy because I'm not aware of this ever happening before and I doubt it will ever happen again. USchick (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
When did Obama live in Africa? Our article on his early life only lists him as living in the USA and Indonesia. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess Indonesia is in Africa for some folks.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
he was born in a Africa!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha ha, I think I just completely discredited myself! He does understand what's going on in Africa, and he's hosting it in the US to bring attention to the problem (and for security reasons). The summit was on Charlie Rose last night, so it's a big deal. USchick (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Obama never lived in Africa but he went on pretty significant family visits that are more substantial than your average tourist safari. He has numerous relatives there. A substantial amount of his memoirs is devoted to his time in Africa. But no he never lived there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- This started already so I moved it to August 4th from the really early day it was listed on. This has actually been a pretty big deal now that it started, so I have decided to support. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The importance of this meeting is that it is the first-ever, whether or not there is another one, this one has built in significance. Since it is underway and reported widely in the media, if the article is deemed worthy we should post it. 11:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talkcontribs)
  • Support. 37 actual heads of state meeting together is a pretty significant international meeting. There's no question this is a move by Obama to promote US interests. That doesn't make it unnotable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs attention. I would like to ask that someone check the linked article's quality (hey, The Rambling Man! Could you look at it?) I think it looks good and if it is this should be marked as ready. (and hopefully posted soon.) Rhodesisland (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside whether or not this has consensus for posting (probably a mild one, and I would certainly like to) I don't think the article is quite ready. Referencing doesn't appear to be a major problem, but I'm not a big fan of the quality and quantity of solid information being presented. A few concerns that I have are the "Agenda" section, which is still written in future tense, and the "U.S.-Africa Business Forum" section (and one or two others like it) that are dry, barely-readable lists of information compressed into chunks of "prose". In my opinion, the article currently does a poor job of demonstrating any real-world significance or impact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it Bongwarrior! Rhodesisland (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] WWI commemorationsEdit

SNOW per comments. Lihaas (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: WWI (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ceremony at Liege to commemorate the invasion of Belgium by Germany 100 years ago (Post)
News source(s): BBC
 Count Iblis (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While there are numerous news articles dealing with the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, this seems to be more a SA/OTD topic than a subject suitable for ITN. --Allen3 talk 21:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe this item was stale about 100 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • SNOW- take this to OTD. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we posted this, we would need to post every WWI battle commemoration until the anniversary of the end of the war. That's what OTD is for. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an anniversary, not news. The proposed blurb is at least something that happened today but the case for this event over and above any other hasn't been made. 3142 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: James BradyEdit

Article: James Brady (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Straights Times

Nominator's comments: The face of gun control advocacy in the United States for over three decades. A notable political figure and namesake of numerous gun control advocacy organizations and measures. The most notable figure in one of the US's continually contentious political issues. --Gamaliel (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - Brady is indeed a notable political figure and is indeed notable for a RD tag on the Main Page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support with some expansion. Meets DC #1 for his impact through the Brady Campaign. Believe it or not, we made progress in gun control in the United States 20 years ago, thanks in part to Brady. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Good RD candidate and the article appears presentable at first glance. Jusdafax 20:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets DC1. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support article could use some referencing but could be worse. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Meets the criteria, but it's not a brilliant article considering he is quite a significant figure in US politics. Quite short, orange tag and the "Handgun control advocate" section is incredibly brief. I think the article needs improvement to push it over the bar. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment article needs improvement before we should post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable political figure.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - unique circumstance where unintended target becomes more famous for the crime than the intended target, long lasting political effects. μηδείς (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 3Edit

[Closed] Glasgow curtains - CWGEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Commonwealth Games closing ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Commonwealth Games comes to a close in Glasgow (Post)

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: the 2nd greatest games on earth for our great nation ;) the greatest are just over a month away...
its ITNR anyhoo ----Lihaas (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • actually, as I read it anyway, only the opening ceremony is ITNR. Am I wrong? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That is correct; only the opening is ITNR. Can still be debated for posting, but it isn't ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. IMO, mention of the opening is sufficient; no need to mention the closing. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
We didn't post the opening, though. Formerip (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Support - Most Commonwealth nations have had a steady diet of Games coverage with occasional medals. It's been a Big Thing here. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- It's listed at ongoing. If we didn't post the opening which actually is ITN/R, no way we post the closing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose.This event has gotten plenty of space at ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub article which hasn't been updated for nearly twelve hours, and not significant in the bigger scheme of the Games. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2014 Ludian earthquakeEdit

Article: 2014 Ludian County earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: A 6.1-magnitude earthquake in Yunnan, China, kills at least 175 people and injures more than 1,000 others. (Post)
News source(s): [41]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article is currently a stub, but the effects seem plenty notable. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong support- Death toll now up to 367 with 1,800 injuries, and 12,000 (mostly brick) homes were destroyed.[42] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Already large, growing death toll. Somchai Sun (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- Article is not a stub anymore, plenty good enough for ITN I think. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The article needs more information but that will be added as it becomes available. A tragic disaster. Jusdafax 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted article in decent condition and significant story with thousands affected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC reports toll above 600. [43], would suggest a blurb update. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The article would have to be updated first - it still says 410. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2Edit

[Posted] Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict escalationEdit

Article: 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Twelve Azerbaijani soldiers die in three days of clashes with ethnic Armenian forces in the ongoing Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Up to 15 soldiers die in clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An escalation in tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the last few days with a high number of deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

DAMN! beat me to it. I JUST came here to nominate this. Its certainly being read as a SHARP escalation, the most since the war. Likewise international reactions ][44]Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - an escalation of violence indeed. Per Lihaas. -- (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment A total of 13 deaths are reported so far: 2014 Armenian–Azerbaijani line of contact clashes. Brandmeistertalk 19:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - being one of the biggest and bloodiest escalations since the war was frozen, this article deserves attention. Best regards, (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Border clashes are much more notable than deaths from random accidents and catastrophes, because of the political context and potential for escalation. Thue (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. I personally would like to see the linked article built up a bit and a few more references added, particularly in the lead and second para. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready, Support alt blurb The article has only 4 references. No need to rush, the clashes have been going on for some time now. I'll try to work on it a little. --Երևանցի talk 01:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Update is based on support and th eminimum level of update, which this article clearly meets and is more than some other postingsLihaas (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Brandmeistertalk 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: It seems important for main article. (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the significance but the article is one half intro, one third reaction and one sixth detail on what happened. Could use some expansion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Article seems expanded and ready for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Post please. Also 13 dates accounted for officially on the pageLihaas (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. I have edited the blurb to state 'at least 15' in view of subsequent casualties. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the posting, but the one source in the infobox has no clarification per the prose. the actualy content accounts for only 13Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Super Rugby FinalEdit