Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2012

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.


December 31Edit

Hillary Clinton hospitalizedEdit

Speedy (?) close as unanimously opposed (and without precedence this will get posted).Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Hillary Rodham Clinton (talk, history)
Blurb: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is being treated for a blood clot near her brain that was found during a follow-up examination after a head injury she experienced in December.
Alternative blurb: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is progressing well under treatment for a blood clot near her brain that was found during a follow-up for a head injury she experienced in December.
News source(s): Washington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Secretary of State Clinton is one of the highest-profile and most influential members of the U.S. government and is widely believed to be a likely candidate for president in the next election. The medical condition for which she is now being treated is potentially very serious, in that it may lead to stroke in some cases, although her doctors say she is doing very well and expected to recover fully. --Dezastru (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I'm moving this entry to the day it was nominated. Also opposing on the grounds that little information is known about her actual condition, and I see no reason why this case of hospitalization should be listed and not Mandela, Thatcher or George Bush. -- Hazhk Talk to me 03:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The instructions in the "How to nominate" section at the top of the page say "find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." I'm new to the ITN section, and I apologize for misinterpreting that instruction. Clinton is a sitting Secretary of State, which places here fourth in the line of succession to the presidency. By contrast, Mandela, Thatcher, and George Bush all retired long ago and play no active roles in government policy today. Besides, they (Mandela 95, Thatcher 88, Bush 87) are all much older than Clinton, who is a very vigorous 65 and, as noted in the nomination, is widely expected to stand for the presidency in the next election. Hospital admissions for the very elderly are less notable than for those who are younger, particularly in cases (such as those of Mandela, Thatcher, and Bush) in which the very elderly have previousy been hospitalized. Additionally, in Clinton's case, a number of political commentators have speculated in recent weeks that she was feigning an illness in order to avoid having to testify before Congress concerning the State Department's role in events associated with an attack on a U.S. consultate in Libya that led to the deaths of several Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya; so the news confirming the seriousness of her condition is very timely. Dezastru (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
You didn't do anything wrong, and Hazhk's edit should have been reversed by an admin, but a more recent date is in your favor, so no harm, silly foul. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That information has been included in the article's update. (And the alternative blurb does emphasize that doctors say she is doing well.) That early prognosis, however, does not diminish the seriousness of her condition. Dezastru (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree, this really does sound serious and I'm quite concern about her future actions after suffering from a head injury, which resulted in something that almost sounds like a stroke. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but what is going on with moving this out of temporal sequence? μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pretty minor stuff, even the ever-pessimistic Irish News had this as being all cleared up with no actual damage. GRAPPLE X 04:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oh well, how sad, never mind. Not the kind of story we would ever put on the front page, and with good reason doktorb wordsdeeds 09:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even assuming she is going to run for POTUS (which is by no means certain and she says she isn't) she isn't running yet; we don't generally post the medical conditions of lower government officials. She's also headed for a recovery it seems so this news is minor at best. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fiscal CliffEdit

Article: United States fiscal cliff (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the USA, the effects of the "Fiscal Cliff" come into force.
Alternative blurb: ​U.S. lawmakers agree a deal to avoid the "Fiscal Cliff"

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This has been all around the news for a while, even outside of the US (as "when America sneezes, the world catches a cold" etc.). Pretty important, especially if the US goes over the cliff. I'm not particuarly attached to either of the blurbs I've written, so please do modify them. --LukeSurl t c 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support This has been big news for a while. Although it's possible the parties will reach a deal, I doubt it.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pending support Even if they reach a deal, this will be big. But it could be the case that they don't reach it today but are able to band-aid it in one or two days more. Definitely wait to see what happens today from Congress. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is no 'cold', nothing really scary or dangerous. More hype than substance to it. Ворот93 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"Nothing really scary or dangerous"? This thing can wreck the U.S. economy.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Market traders may panic but apart from that nothing great will happen. Again, it is all about the hype. Ворот93 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Since the stock market is forward-looking (by about six months, they say), this non-event is already priced in. There will be no crash. Abductive (reasoning) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Gotta agree with FT - this is rather serious and top-news in the UK where I am. (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It can wreck the economy, but maybe it won't. It can't do anything until the markets re-open after the New Year. Formerip (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain how my family having 400 dollars less a month to spend won't hurt the economy? If anything, it'll hurt american families big time. gwickwiretalkedits 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Because the next Congress can make a deal retroactive, that's why. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Technically, yes. Practically, no. Give me one tax bill that has been made retroactive in the past 4 years. You can't. Because this Congress does nothing. I'm sitting here watching C-SPAN and some Senator is talking about school busses, not fiscal cliff. If they make a bi-partisan retroactive bill that passes both houses and the president, I'll be really surprised. gwickwiretalkedits 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hence my opposition to posting; consensus here at ITN/C is not to post stories of nothing happening. Abductive (reasoning) 20:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until there are some actual effects to report. Formerip (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for entry at the time New Year reaches the US, since there will inevitably be effects. If a substantial amount of effects are extended to a later time, I'd go for changing "the effects" to "effects" in the blurb, or choosing the alternative one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if the Fiscal Cliff comes into force

    Oppose if there is a deal. At this late stage deal to postpone the fiscal cliff would mark a transition from normal business with a bit of brinksmanship, to normal business with a bit of finger-pointing as to why certain elements of the deal were included. A failure to agree a deal would without question be major economic news with effects far beyond the US. There is a possibility that a deal could be significant enough to post, but it looks far more likely that any agreement will be a temporary reprieve in order to buy time to negotiate a proper package in the coming months. —WFCFL wishlist 16:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

    Oh, and kudos to Luke for nominating this early. I may disagree with the suggestion that a deal should be posted, but starting the discussion early was certainly a good idea. Happy New Year everyone! —WFCFL wishlist 16:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Either way this is In the News, and worthy of a blurb. I also wish everyone a Happy New Year! Jusdafax 16:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bill was passed in 2011. That it will actually take effect is not news, just political drama. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A deal was reached this morning.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Not true. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think but I'm open to better informed voices. Just as the measures could be headed off at the eleventh hour, can they not be rescinded at the first hour? If a tax increase is only in place for a very brief time, if departments are able to resume spending at the previous level before any real impact is felt, then this is a cliff below which a trampoline can be pulled out at any time. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly, that they can be repealed or amended at any time is the essence of it. There is no fact of nature involved here. The only real exigency is that withholding for the different tax rates must begin, and might be changed on very short notice. But "possible accounting chaos headache" is not really an ITN-worthy subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting if no deal is reached by 12:00 AM EST tonight. Otherwise, support a blurb on the deal reached. gwickwiretalkedits 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if nothing happens, Neutral if a deal is reached. I feel that this story is overblown, since a deal struck when the new Congress convenes can be made retroactive. Presently, even if a deal is reached by midnight, it is too late to avoid some aspects of the "cliff", such as mailings that have already been printed. Also, this story is confined to a single nation. I would not be the least troubled if it was never posted to ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The House of Representatives has basically wrapped any chance of a vote they have today, so we will technically go over the "fiscal cliff". gwickwiretalkedits 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • And as this article says, they can vote that retroactively reverses that, and given that there are talks to a deal being close, I would not rush to post this. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I wasn't suggesting a rush. As I said above, at 12:00 post it. And if anyone can provide any proof Congress will actually work together (gasps from around the world) to do anything, much less agree on how to retroactively do something, then please tell me. From the office of the Clerk of the House: "1:37:58 P.M. - The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair." and representatives have been leaving. Even if the Senate sends something to the House today or (not) tomorrow, it's highly unlikely there will be a Quorum to conduct business, and therefore we are pretty much going over it for the time being. It's called ITN, not "wait until we know facts before posting". If there's a retroactive deal (or any deal) struck, we can always update it later. gwickwiretalkedits 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Some people here happen to be under the strange impression that "something is going to happen" if Congress doesn't "prevent" it. But what is going to happen is exactly what Congress voted for, various spending cuts and tax increases. How it can be viewed as some sort of natural disaster if the laws Congress passed are enacted is beyond me. Every law works this way--it goes into effect unless repealed or amended. Why aren't we talking about the 'Obamacare Infection' as well as a 'Fiscal Cliff'? Many parts of that law will also go into effect generating new regulations and tax increases unless it is repealed. This 'the sky is falling' hysteria is the press and politicians at there worst, and a neutral international encyclopedia shouldn't be trumpetting it. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
          • These aren't laws being enacted, this is related to the expiration of laws. Ryan Vesey 22:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
            • One, that's technical nitpicking--Congress chose the dates the tax cuts would expire--and two, there are spending cuts that will come into effect, not just tax increases. What will happen is the will of Congress alone. One might as well panic that the alarm clock will go off at the time for which you set it. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
              • No, it's not nitpicking, it's correct. Congress chose those dates a long time ago. They knew they'd have to revisit it now. They aren't revisiting it. By the way, the issue of the fiscal cliff isn't just the Bush taxes.. It also includes items such as other taxes, and other economical news (such as our lack of a true, required by law, budget the passt 3 FYs). This is newsworthy. gwickwiretalkedits 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose They're still talking about a deal occurring after today and being retroactive. We can post once an agreement is or is not made. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this is exactly the same as the austerity bills we rightly posted for Greece (and Italy and Spain? I dont remember), so it ought to be posted as well. --IP98 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yet another comment for all: This is (and may have been for a while) in today (yesterday UTC)'s current events portal as something along the lines of "the US goes over the fiscal cliff after the House said it would hold no vote Monday". See above for more. gwickwiretalkedits 02:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing happened - the story of the 112th United States Congress. Plus, this is really more of a "curb" than a "cliff", as these matters can still be addressed in early January with minimal impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, it's 2013 now (eastern time). Are we gonna add this or what? A temporary deal has been reached [1]. Is this worth mentioning?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment A deal has been reached (CNN). On that note, Oppose I think the whole thing is really overblown, as others have said above. If the deal hadn't been reached, will re really be talking about this months from now? -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 05:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A temporary deal has been reached by about 3-5 people. The Senate has not (as had been promised by Obama and Biden earlier) voted on it yet, and Biden has been skeptical that it will even pass the democratically controlled Senate. Much less the House. So, no a deal has NOT been reached yet, as it has to pass both houses still, and then Obama. Technically, we're over the cliff right now. Regardless of any bill, we went over the cliff. That's like saying "I'm a lifeguard, a kid's drowning, I saved him after he started drowning, so he wasn't ever drowning." No. We're over the cliff. Due to failure of government, this happened. It shouldn't matter that a deal is "in the works" or "agreed upon" or "up for a vote" or anything else, regardless of all that we are still over the cliff. gwickwiretalkedits 05:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
If there was absolutely no progress on the deal such that all the events of the fiscal cliff would have been in full force for a week or so, that's one thing that would definitely be notable. However, all signs point to a deal happening, with retroactive terms, as soon as both houses are back in session (Weds). This would make any news element on the cliff seem out of place. I would argue - lets see what the headlines say tomorrow because as I'm reading stories now, while the impact of the cliff technically go into force, it's going to be fixed so fast that the reports are going as doom-and-gloom as they were before. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
And to follow up, I just saw on the news that the Senate passed their part of the bill, the House is expected to vote on that tomorrow at noon EST. So yes, while technically the cliff happened, it's being resolved quickly, making this much less a story. I still think we should ITN it, but wait until we're sure that passage has happened to avert it. --MASEM (t) 07:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not we have plunged off the cliff into a bunch of big & pointy spires at the bottom, is this really something that we will talk about in the future? Yes, this is crystal-balling, but most of these political topics in the US end up being forgotten about weeks later. The media needs headlines to sell papers, and they've rode this story harder than Lindsay Lohan at a coke-party. Remember this? That was the same story, all kinds of hype about whether or not a last-minute deal would be reached, then a deal was struck, then it went quiet. I don't see this being any different. Most people are already completely in the dark as to what the fiscal cliff is in the first place, other than the fact that they see it in the news and people say it's important (funny example (yes, a joke)). -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 07:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Large, stable, developed federal state agrees budget". --RA (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

December 30Edit

Beijing Subway now the world's longestEdit

Article: Beijing Subway (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Beijing Subway expands to 442km with the opening of Line 6, making it the longest Metro network in the World.
News source(s): Railway Gazette, Businessweek.

Nominator's comments: I know this would make for two rail-related Chinese superlatives in the current ITN box, but in previous years we have posted such expansions of the Shanghai and Beijing Metro networks, and infrastructure is a topic that is under-covered in ITN. --Colipon+(Talk) 19:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Because New York City has the awesome four tracks per line (two express, two local) over much of the system, for an average of 3.14, while most subways in the world have only two. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
That would still make NY the longest, though (?). Formerip (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Only by length of track and number of stations. Not by length of lines. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll set a reminder on my phone. Formerip (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose then. It appears to be a legalistic interpretation of "longest" which many readers will object to. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not legalistic. New York City has more tracks per se, but Beijing covers more ground. You could create a one-line, two-stop subway with hundreds of sets of tracks lined up and beat out New York. If you were to beat Beijing's record, however, you would actually have to cover 450 km, one way, one track. Big difference there. I'll support this, by the way. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The significance of records like these involves the infrastructure required to break the record. Since the New York subway system still exceeds Beijing's by 614 km, there is no significance. Ryan Vesey 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If you're comparing infrastructure to infrastructure, surely Beijing has at least two tracks per line so you should give it 884km, almost as much as NY. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yawning oppose China gets another infrastructure record which is really a minor deal these days. Plus, this record could be taken back by NY if then add another station somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nominator's Note: When Beijing Subway added a large chunk of tracks back in 2010 with the opening of the Fangshan Line, Yizhuang Line etc, it was posted without much hesitation here on ITN. I am not so bent on highlighting the record as much as I am nominating this item for the sake of the opening of Line 6 and the extension of two other lines - all of which amount to a similar degree of network expansion as the ITN item in 2010. So in other words, alternative could be "Beijing Subway expands to 442km with the opening of Line 6 and the expansion of two other lines." Colipon+(Talk) 15:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we could add it to ITNR? Formerip (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't imagine why that was posted without hesitation. There's nothing ITN significant about a subway expanding. There's nothing new involved, nothing special involved. Ryan Vesey 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose that Beijing's system is now slightly longer than Shanghai's seems not that interesting really - we're not talking a brand new system but rather an expansion of a previous one. And, as the comments above bring out, it's pretty technical what counts as "longest" diluting the significance of setting the record. LukeSurl t c 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - As the Beijing Subway has the longest total route length, it's assumed that it covers a larger area or covers an area more comprehensively than the NYC subway system, in my opinion, that's more of a milestone than track length (think about how much time it takes to plot the stations and plan the route, survey the geography of the area, lay out the electrical grid, with track length, you're just simply laying out more tracks). YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's something of the "best of three......five.......eleven......" about this story and given all things involved in this nomination, I just can't see any justification for including it on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Death of Rita Levi-MontalciniEdit

Article: Rita Levi-Montalcini (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Italian neurologist and Nobel Prize laureate Rita Levi-Montalcini dies at the age of 103.
News source(s): Bloomberg

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for ticker; death of a leading and prize-winning specialist in her field. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose There are at least five Nobel prize winners per year, thus we'd expect about the same number Nobel prize winners to die per year. Prior to the ticker I think we generally agreed a Nobel prize (and the general academic distinction that is associated with that) is not, in itself, sufficient for a posting. I'm not really sure where the bar exists for the RD ticker, but I think this must be somewhere towards the low end. --LukeSurl t c 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support we post more than 5 Hollywood actors in a month, but we very rarely post scientists that don't have Nobels. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You are aware that if you post something like that, you can only expect to be challenged on it. Would you care to name the last three months in which we have posted more than five actors (I won't even restrict you to Hollywood). Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Luke: more like 10 laureates per year, and so this has repeatedly been rejected as an automatic pass to ITN. We are repeatedly told that the threshold for inclusion is no lower in the RD era. It would need considerable greater impact for me to be able to support. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (Weak) for RD I am opposed to listing Nobel Laureates just because they are Nobel Laureates, but she seems to have been unique on several accounts, and this is making news outside Italy when many laureates die without significant mention in the press. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That's possibly because it's December 30th and the news is fairly slow. LukeSurl t c 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: she is the first Nobel laureate to live to 100. Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, in addition to be one of the Nobel Laureates she has other unique characteristics such as having significant scientific contributions, being a female scientist, her age and her ethnicity.Egeymi (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Every Nobel laureate will have made significant contributions to science (or economics or peace). Re: ethnicity, a little bit of trivia: 20% of Nobel laureates are Jewish. --LukeSurl t c 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • If you eliminate these two points, then focus on other two and the other points that she uniquely had, but I failed to state. It is hard to understand why she is not qualified to be posted for RD.Egeymi (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • But Luke, how many Jewish Nobel Laureates are female Italian centenarians senators-for-life who die on slow news days? μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Heh, as I stated above, my opposition is only weak. I reckon if this passes you'd be able to put together a similar argument for posting most Laureates to the ticker, though (in my opinion at least) that probably wouldn't be such a bad thing. LukeSurl t c 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
            • My weak support cancels your weak oppose. I am basically going by the fact that she's got a blurb on the front page of Fox News online, and that she's mildly interesting otherwise. Fox News doesn't list just every old female Italian centenarian senator-for-life Nobel Laureate who passes. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker. Female Nobel laureate in the sciences. Topped various online news sites for a short while. Abductive (reasoning) 22:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Very interesting background story, and she was still politically active as recently as 2008. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's only one sentence in the article about Levi-Montalcini's work that led to her Nobel Prize. Being one of her most important accomplishments, there should be more in the article about that than just one sentence. SpencerT♦C 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker at least: Notable for being a Nobel laureate, and a woman at that (+ 100 years old, which is a novelty). I think the article has been expanded enough too. -- Hazhk Talk to me 00:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker, oppose blurb Nobel laureates are important enough to note, but not necessarily enough for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Has this been updated? μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for both There's nothing I can see permitting Nobel Laureates a free-pass to the front page. From what I can gather, there's nothing about this person or their nomination which would ordinarily get support for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker Nobel laureate, and thus quite notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --Jayron32 03:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

December 29Edit

Central African Republic rebellionEdit

Article: 2012 Central African Republic rebellion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of the Central African Republic and a rebel coalition agree to hold talks after weeks of unrest.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Olegwiki (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait - Until a peace deal is made (or if one is not and the rebels take over the capital). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until the conclusion of this conflict, as FutureTrillionaire says. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] RD William Rees-MoggEdit

Article: William Rees-Mogg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: An elder statesman of British journalism: infinitely better known than Quinlan from the same field who made RD. 14 year editor of The Times, former vice chair of BBC, chair of Arts Council; still having articles published this month at age 84. Much higher in running order on BBC bulletins and on readers in BBC web site "most read" section than Greig below. --Kevin McE (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support A man of well regarded repute over generations, a high ranking person in many British establishments which have a large world-wide reputation. He's exactly the figure whose place in history is right for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Nice to see that he was still active. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Eric. – Connormah (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Kevin's nomination. Notable and for good reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Are there no admin's out there? Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notability gets you an article, not an ITN listing. I'll happily change my vote if someone shows where he was considered at the top of his field, rather than just a long-time executive in journalism and broadcast. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted by User:Stephen. SpencerT♦C 23:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Collapsing unnecessary side discussion. SpencerT♦C 03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • I was wondering who was to blame for this. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you counting your eleven invisible friends as oppose votes again, or do you simply object to the principle of consensus being acted upon? Kevin McE (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Stop being an asshole Kevin it serves no purpose. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
That's it: attack individuals rather than justifying your objection to consensus being acted upon. Perhaps you would like to explain what purpose is served by claiming that anyone is to blame for acting on consensus. As soon as you publish a full apology for your reprehensible attempt to misrepresent the "!vote count, I will cease mentioning your eleven invisible friends. Until then, don't be surprised to find reference to them in response to any unjustified argument you present here. Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Death of Tony GreigEdit

Article: Tony Greig (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: English test cricketer and commentator, Tony Greig, dies at the age of 66.
Alternative blurb: England test captain and broadcaster, Tony Greig, dies at the age of 66.
News source(s): TOI, SMH, BBC, The Daily Telegraph, Stuff, NZFox Sports
Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Regards, theTigerKing  07:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment:Updated. Notable English Test Cricketer and Commentator.Regards, theTigerKing  07:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: for RD list, not full blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, oppose full blurb, this is a person with fantastic achievements in the past, but a death secondary to lung cancer is not extraordinary, and I don't find the impact of the death in itself to be notable enough for the initial list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Prominent both as a player and a commentator. He was a controversial figure and played a major role in the World Series Cricket breakaway, which had a significant impact on cricket. But I don't think his death is a sufficiently big story for a blurb. Suggest also a slight rewording of the blurb to read "Former England cricket captain and commentator Tony Greig dies aged 66." I think the fact he was captain is worth noting, and he wasn't just a test cricketer - he was also a highly successful one-day cricketer, as his key role with World Series Cricket would suggest. Neljack (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for recent deaths, oppose full blurb. Significant figure in world cricket, as a player, administrator, and commentator. IgnorantArmies – 09:24, Saturday December 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Either full blurb or RD ticker. Anyone who opposes, I intend to make them grovel... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
A threatening attitude is not the way to build consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
D'oh! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well of course. How incredibly ignorant for a generalist reader not to recognise an obscure event specuific quote from 36 years ago. Kevin McE (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
How incredibly ignorant of you not to even bother looking at the article you're commenting on. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
How incredibly stupid this bickering is... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD: proposed text not interesting enough to warrant a full blurb. Note that there is no notability difference between RD and a full blurb, so if a good blurb were proposed I might reconsider. —WFCFL wishlist 11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Could you please point out your justification for "no notability difference between RD and a full blurb", because you've said it twice now and I must have missed the memo. And everyone else must have as well. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Read the archives. There was explicit consensus that the introduction of RD should not lower the notability threshold at ITN; that it was simply there to streamline dull blurbs on people that clearly should be posted. If the blurb is eye-catching, we post a blurb. If it's [Name] [job] [died], we don't. I believe the French term is sens commun. —WFCFL wishlist 13:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • It clearly wasn't common sense, because everyone here is trying to promote bare links to blurbs. I had no idea that there were no more death blurbs. In fact you're the first person to actually mention this in RD nominations, so anyone who had not read the discussion would have no clue what that norm for RD submissions was. This should probably be highlighted at WP:ITN – where there is absolutely no mention of the ticker or procedure relating to it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support for RD only: very strong oppose to any suggestion of full blurb. Can we please have a proper discussion on the threshold between the two, which should have taken place before RD was implemented, and which has been attempted but hijacked by abolitionists. Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Updated nomination for RD.Regards, theTigerKing  15:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you were doing with that last edit: you have changed your request to RD inclusion, but added a second blurb. If you are making a RD nomination, you need to put yes in the recent deaths field, and delete or leave empty the blurb fields. Kevin McE (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Note that at present the article currently has 4 orange-level maintenance tags which rules it out under the standard ITN criteria - Dumelow (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Top of his field? This guy seems to have been a character, but what indicates he was even near the top of his field? One source says "He was diminished, too, by his indifferent on-field performances in World Series Cricket, where he seemed to cast himself as pantomime villain." [2] μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In what way was Charles Durning at the top of his field? Or that bloke who played Quincy? Medeis follows one rule for American celebrities, another for the rest of the world... (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Well regarded individual both in his sport and outside of it, established person of merit in his field doktorb wordsdeeds 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are multiple references-needed tags for several unreferenced sections that need to be addressed in the article before possible posting. SpencerT♦C 19:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting Many references were added and all but one of the references needed tags was resolved. Consensus was clear so there's no need to hold this up any longer. SpencerT♦C 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Protest This should not have been posted with the tag unresolved. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This has now been resolved. SpencerT♦C 07:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

[Blurb updated] Delhi gang-rape victim's deathEdit

Article: 2012 Delhi gang rape case (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The girl whose gang-rape sparked widespread protests throughout India, dies in a hospital in Singapore.
Alternative blurb: ​The Delhi gang-rape victim dies in a hospital in Singapore.
News source(s): BBC TOI WSJ Time Reuters Telegraph UK CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The girl was very widely covered by national and international media. Her death has already become huge news within a few minutes. Deserves a fresh ITN hook. If approved, suggest removing the hook on demonstrations against the rape. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since this story is already featured, we should update the entry (and not promote it chronologically), perhaps by adding "and murder". BTW, the victim was not a girl. (ETA: I guess they weren't protesting against a murder, so some other way of updating instead....) Formerip (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure she is a girl, as is stated multiple times in the article. See below for my take gwickwiretalkedits 01:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As is stated multiple times in the article ??!?? It's on Wikipedia FFS. She was 23. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support chronological promotion and updating. The death means we cannot really use the previous blurb, or location in the time frame of ITN. Definitally worth updating, as having it non-updated is wrong. gwickwiretalkedits 01:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose how does her death have a wide impact? We should wait for actual protests or something before REposting this. 01:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talkcontribs)
This blurb is not about the protests. Its more about the death of the girl, which seems to be very much big news. Check the number of sources to verify that.(8 hours after the death now) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify: updating is fine, but I oppose bumping! Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Updating blurb. Death means charges may now be murder, not only rape. - 220 of Borg 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just update the blurb we already have.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update existing blurb, do not bump it or add a new one. Modest Genius talk 03:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update existing blurb. MikeLynch (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
To all those with update !votes, please specify whether your !vote is to update without chronological promotion or with. IMO it is useless to update the blurb without promoting it chronologically, as it makes no sense to have such a highly important news as the fourth hook. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • How about "The victim of a gang rape in Delhi, which sparked widespread demonstrations across India, dies as a result of her injuries." I'm uncomfortable with adding "murder". It might be chargeable that way in the United States, but I don't know enough about Indian law to post anything that implies specific criminal charges against living people. Support updating and bumping.--Chaser (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update existing blurb without chronological promotion Alternate blurb: The victim of a gang-rape in Delhi, which sparked widespread demonstrations across India, dies in Singapore.Regards, theTigerKing  07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update existing blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to adequately update the blurb without bumping it. Either we speak about the protests alone, in which case we cannot speak about the death; or we speak about the death; in which case we cannot make the sneaky update. ITN does not change the order of blurbs (from what I gathered in a nom after the Sandy Hook shooting where adding the hook in the second place was not allowed). And this death either deserves a separate blurb or none at all. I think its better if I withdraw the ITN nomination if its about the latter. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated - There is clear consensus here to update the existing blurb without bumping it to the top. I am not aware of any rule that prevents this and it certainly used to be commonplace when I used to edit ITN more regularly - Dumelow (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I don't get it. If the blurb is now about her death (which, in its current phrasing, is the case), and not about the protests, then why isn't it bumped to fit chronological order? I don't see the big deal anyway. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It does seem logical that the blurb should be promoted now that the subject has been changed from the protests to the death. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It should not be beyond our collective wit to compose a blurb that retains the focus of the blurb (thus not requiring bumping) while recording the death: A fatal gang rape in Delhi sparks widespread demonstrations across India. or (given that fatality was an unknown at the time of the demonstrations) ''A gang rape in Delhi, in which the victim received fatal injuries, sparks widespread demonstrations across India. Kevin McE (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Something like that would also be my preference, but it seems like we've chosen the other door. Formerip (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment about promotion of blurb The brutal assault and rape of the woman was not a notable event. What was notable was the protests that followed, lockdown of the capital which resulted the incident to be covered by foreign media. The unfortunate death of the girl and the silent protests that followed, was hence, covered by the media around the world. Has India and the world changed (till the time of posting this comment) after her death? The answer is NO! The blurb reflects the same.Regards, theTigerKing  03:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the blurb patently does not reflect the lack of change in India and the world. I think you are expressing a preference for a blurb that focuses on the protests, and yet you have not commented in favour of the proposal that does so. Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tu-204 crash at Vnukovo airportEdit

Article: Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Red Wings Airlines Tu-204 with 8 people aboard crashes near Vnukovo airport in Moscow, Russia killing 4 of its crew and injuring 4 others.
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: Very notable air crash. Breaking news on every Russian TV channel. --Ворот93 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose in what way is this "very notable" other than the fact a dodgy airline has crashed at a dodgy airport killing (sadly) a handful of people? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    An international airport of the second largest city of Europe is "dodgy"? Ворот93 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mercifully few deaths, although each is sad. Although it is in the headlines today, this is very much a tomorrow's chip paper story: it will not lead to nationwide mourning, major reviews of plane safety, or anything else. Our 2012 Aviation accidents records 17 deadlier incidents, the majority of which were not posted. Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    Disagree on (almost) all counts. The crash occurred near the capital so it will not go off so easily. Also, this crash is going to kick off systemic re-examination of Tu-204 wheel brakes (as stated in TV reports). Ворот93 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the statements given by my honourable friends above. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough for ITN. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

December 28Edit

Fontella Bass for RDEdit

  • American R&B soul singer dies at age of 72. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose for all Not important enough for either blurb or ticker doktorb wordsdeeds 10:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a leader in the R&B field. SpencerT♦C 13:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not quite a one hit wonder, but not much more. Kevin McE (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for blurb and ticker. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Jiroemon Kimura, oldest male in historyEdit

Article: Jiroemon Kimura (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japanese supercentenarian Jiroemon Kimura, born April 19, 1897, becomes the world's longest-lived verified male in history.
News source(s): Bloomberg, The Telegraph (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally I support this, though recent precedents seem to suggest consensus is this sort of item isn't noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on the grounds that I would prefer to give him a full blurb when he dies, such as "Jiroemon Kimura, the longest-lived verified male in history, dies at the age of one-hundred-and-something." —WFCFL wishlist 10:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with WFC on this. There's not a lot of substance to the story, in any case, so let's wait until he dies. In fact, let's try to decide sooner rather than later if we're more likely to support an age-story on death or on confirmation of holding a record, because I don't think we can have both doktorb wordsdeeds 11:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    The advantage of posting at death is that we can actually post the new record, rather than simply the point at which the previous record was overtaken. Besides, if we were to post now, people would cite this posting as a reason not to post his death. —WFCFL wishlist 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    Not a great assumption; especially if Kimura lives to be much older than this. Let's not WP:CRYSTAL this nom. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    Congratulations on one of the silliest quotations of CRYSTAL in the history of Wikipedia. Regardless, given that this nomination is not going to succeed, if you were to successfully undermine my point, you would simply be undermining the consensus that we should post a full blurb when he dies. —WFCFL wishlist 07:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    Either you edited your comment or I misread it, but I replied to that because I thought you said that the longer the man lives, the more notable he gets, which is why I quoted CRYSTAL. My bad if that wasn't the case. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WFC. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WFC. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because merely remaining alive is not noteworthy. Will also oppose anything more than RD when he dies, because his life will have made no more impact on others than that of any other elderly gent. Lots of people who have been record breakers in one respect or another die every year, and will not be posted. Might rethink if there is major news coverage (far beyond mere mention in bulletins and obituaries) when the time comes, but I doubt that will occur. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain why being the longest lived human being (to be documented) is not noteworthy? I can accept that simply noting anyone who reaches 110 or what have you isn't, but I don't understand that reasoning applied to the person who has lived longer than all other human beings before them. If it was you, I think you would want it to be noted here. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, he will not be the longest lived human being ever reliably recorded until September 2019, should he live that long. He is merely the longest living of his half of the species.
There are thousands of achievements that are attested as records: many are totally superficial, many (including this) are only records by restricted criteria, and some are the result of historically notable and relevant endeavour. Whether the holder of a record would like to see that recorded on ITN is possibly the weakest argument I have ever read: David Rudisha might have liked to see his 800m WR recorded here in the summer, but that was not a consideration.
Longevity is not the result of historically relevant achievement on the part of the record holder, and is not automatically more worthy of mention than any other record. Nor is it treated as such by the media.
Mere survival is not the pinnacle of human achievement. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If the criteria to be listed here is that something be the "pinnacle of human achievement", we might as well get rid of ITN, because not too many things posted there would meet that standard. We're here to point out significant and interesting information, not just notable achievements for humanity(and humanity figuring out how to live that long is certainly notable). Survival is not just about a record; it's about surviving all events and random chance that could stop such longevity. Not too many people do that and the odds of doing so are fantastically small. We're not talking about who can eat the most hot dogs or kiss the most people in an hour. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I've already acknowledged that many records are totally superficial: don't try to undermine my argument by raising issues that I have made it very clear that it does not rely upon. More to the point, this is not earning most Academy Awards, gaining multiple Nobel prizes, being the composed/author who has sold most works, or numerous military decorations. Doing those things would be outstanding in a field of expertise: being kept alive largely through the efforts of others, while spending most of one's time in bed, is not a field of expertise. His "achievement" is only a record by virtue of elimination of the majority of the human race from the reckoning: a Venn intersection between reaching 115 years, 253 days and having a Y chromosome. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
An RD would be idiotic. He is far better known as the oldest man in history than as Jiroemon Kimura. Surely in such cases we either post a blurb, or not bother at all. For the record, when he dies, I will be arguing Blurb or nothing for the reasons I gave when the previous oldest person in the world died. —WFCFL wishlist 11:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The argument for reduced blurb in RDs has been presented and has not gained consensus. Very few people are more known for their name than for their "achievements". Those few that are (Mandela, Pope, QEII) are probably precisely those for whom a blurb will be appropriate on their death. As I've already said, if global news coverage at the time of his death is enormous, my mind could be changed, but that seems unlikely. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Has not convinced you, and has not gained consensus, are (thankfully) two distinctly different things. I would suggest you read the multitide of comments above, entirely in agreement with my rationale, as well as the comments that go further than mine and actually want a blurb now. —WFCFL wishlist 07:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears that you have misunderstood. Had "the argument for reduced blurb in RDs" gained consensus, then the RD line would currently read something like Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. (US general) – Gerry Anderson (British animator and TV producer) – Charles Durning (US actor). That has nothing to do with anything that I have, or have not, been convinced of. In the case of the current proposal, we are agreed on opposing it: I am disturbed that the above reads rather like an attempt to tell me that I would not have a right to argue for RD when this man's death occurs. Perhaps I will be in a minority when that comes about: that does not preclude my right to present a dissenting opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Futile Support - I think these sorts of record-based stories are inherently encylopeadic and are useful adverts for Wikipedia's content. LukeSurl t c 20:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support for reasons I gave at the discussion 331dot linked to. Becoming the world's oldest male, ever to exist, is an impressive feat to be recognised, and I wonder why the opposers believe that his death is more noteworthy than the record itself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    He will be older tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and so on, for as long as he lives. By posting the record at his death, we are posting the new record that he has set, as well as recognising his passing. If we post now, there is zero chance of us getting consensus for the latter. —WFCFL wishlist 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    But he has set the record already. The record is that he lived longer than any known male, which he set yesterday. That's the news. There is nothing notable about him dying because it's inevitable and, according to you ITN editors, "predictable and not notable". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    But when he dies, it'll be "world's oldest man dies". At the moment it's "man becomes oldest man by virtue of the previous record holder dying." We post hereditary monarchies on that basis because there's some vestige of power and responsibility when one is replaced by another. But in this case, there's nothing of any importance being passed from one person to another, it's more of a fluke of nature than most monarchies are. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    I don't understand your point. We can look at the 100 m dash record the exact same way: "man become fastest sprinter by virtue of the previous record holder not being able to run faster". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    Not quite, it is "man becomes oldest man by virtue of passing age at which previous (gender specific) record holder died." But still as much a fluke. Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Death of Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.Edit

Article: Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Retired General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.. commander of the combined coalition forces during the Gulf War, passes away at 78.
News source(s): AP via WashPost

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major figure during Desert Storm. Recommending for listed blurb. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for full blurb, one of the most successful military commanders of the last 40 years. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for full blurb but only because he was the coalition leader in the Gulf War. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a RD ticker. Oppose a full blurb. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD ticker only. Significant figure, but not enough for a full blurb IMO. Also, don't use the euphemism 'passes away' in the blurb - 'dies' is much better (see WP:EUPHEMISM). Modest Genius talk 02:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD ticker only - Here comes another fight over a full blurb vs RD ticker. RD ticker is the place for most all deaths. Just say no to full blurb. Agree that wording of blurb should be 'dies.' Jusdafax 02:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for either, just post it already. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for full blurb, many notable figures been dying lately so RD has a backlog, and he's probably the most historically significant and notable for the blurb because of his involvement in the Gulf War. Undoubtedly one of the most significant military commanders of the late 20th century, article is in poor shape though. Secret account 03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment How about an update? -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
When this was posted, the news was out for about 30 minutes, and only a perfunctory morgue-style obit was available. I'll get to it tomorrow if nobody else does, but I'll be opening presents with the kids, so don't expect that soon. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only RD. He was briefly extremely notable but didn't gave long term notability like Colin Powell, David Petreaus, or Wesley Clark. He died of old age in retirement. Not huge news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one way or the other, but please, no "passing away". Lampman (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD per arguments above. --Tone 08:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for full blurb Mtking 12:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose promotion to full blurb: RD was brought in to avoid blurbs that did no more than record the fact of a death. There is nothing about the nature of his death or the response to it that is newsworthy, it is simply the occasion for publishing the obits. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as RD' as per Kevin. Not at the level of news that warrents a full blurb. LukeSurl t c 20:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Promote to full blurb. "Schwarzkopf was involved in rescuing men of his battalion from a minefield [in Vietnam]". "Commander of the 1st Brigade of the 9th Infantry Division". "Named Deputy Commander of the Joint Task Force [during the Invasion of Grenada]". "Promoted to General and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command ... responsible at the time for operations in the Horn of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia." "Prepared a detailed plan for the defense of the oil fields of the Persian Gulf ... which was as the basis for Operation Desert Shield". "General Schwarzkopf's offensive operational plan ... was the "left hook" strategy that went into Iraq ... and was widely credited with bringing the ground war to a close in just four days." "Offered the position of Chief of Staff of the United States Army". Sorry, but all of this is pretty big to not merit full blurb status. Highly decorated, highly accomplished. Don't let the Death Ticker force our standards too high. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Had absolutely no idea we banished death blurbs as the norm. This should have been made clear here or on the main WP:ITN page when the ticker was introduced. Clearly a lot of people here and on other discussions didn't get that memo either. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ticker only. Death will have no major ramifications, article has orange tag, would contribute to systematic bias. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Opposed to full blurb per Kevin. On notability grounds there is no difference between RD and a full blurb: anyone on RD is notable enough for a full blurb. But Eric's post above demonstrates just how difficult it would be to retain neutrality with anything other than the tried and detested [Nationality] [name] [why he was famous] [dies at the age of whatever-it-is]. —WFCFL wishlist 11:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Then why do we even bother with deaths in the first place then? And "tried and detested"?[citation needed] What other way is there to present a death? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Upgrade--if Eric is in favor of a full blurb that means this nomination should be upgraded according to the proposed criteria when RD was instituted. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Could you please show me where this discussion is? Because WFC is saying this and you're saying that and I don't see any discussion – because ITN is so secretive with its discussion. (In fact I only noticed the WT:ITN page a week ago...) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Go to the talk page and search the archives back in August for various discussions under recent deaths. I am having keyboard trouble and am using a family member's computer or I would find the link for you. If you have trouble, CI will see if I can do it later. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
In the Meantime more than two thirds of the votes here are in favor of a full listing, only one third are opposed. The listing should be upgraded. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That is an appalling misrepresentation of facts. I count eight definite rejections of a full blurb (Future Trillionaire, Modest Genius, Judasfax, Johnsemlak, Kevin McE, LukeSurl, FormerIP, WFC), which means you will have to find at least seventeen !votes that specifically specify preference for a full blurb: I can find six (Mesem, Mdeis, Presidentman, Secret, Mtking and EricLeb). Two (Abductive and Lampman) have stated that they are indifferent as to which type of posting, while wanting it brought to the mainpage. I'm intrigued as to where you will find the other eleven full blurb preferences that must be found for your comment to have any semblance of truth. I would suggest that retraction and apology is the only honourable course. Kevin McE (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact is that this nomination was for a full blurb, and the vast majority of votes here support a full blurb. People who opposed a full blurb nomination voted that way explicitly, and they count as 1/3 of the votes. Per the discussion when ITN/RD was set up, when the majority of votes supported a full blurb, a full blurb would be posted. That is the case here. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

" the vast majority of votes here support a full blurb" - nonsense. I count at least eight people explicitly opposed to making it a full blurb. Please demonstrate how you came to your conclusion of "the vast majority" supporting a full blurb. Shouldn't be too hard should it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to be right, Rambling. I was apparently double counting supports somehow. Nothing to do with eggnog though, it's only 3pm. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That's it? No apology for presenting false data, no withdrawal of your claim? You respond to RM saying that there are eight, but ignored for several hours my specific naming of those eight, even when I had specifically challenged you in user talk space to address the issue when you were online several hours earlier? Kevin McE (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Eric, full blurbs have not been banished, they can still be nominated and are supposed to be for heads of state, exceptional artists, unexpected deaths, etc. Given Schwartzkopf was commander in chief of the largest and most successful international coalition since WWII, it seemed to some of us he deserved a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I said "banished ... as the norm". I assume that we would reserve the blurbs for high-profile deaths, or deaths of high-profile people though. And I don't think his meets that. Not quite, anyway. I'm Neutral on a promotion based on that line of reasoning. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

December 27Edit

Death of Dennis O'DriscollEdit

Article: Dennis O'Driscoll (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Independent President's tribute Times
Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
RTÉ says the 26th and someone on the talk page says the 25th so there is some confusion. The only thing certain is he died recently. -- (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone suggest one of his better poems? μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
"Better" depends what you like I guess. Here is one. -- (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I prefer poems with strict form, but I liked his imagery a lot, and loved the comparisons with Australia. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed how Medeis treats non-American noms? It's hilariously bias. He never gives a support/oppose on noms that are not American yet are clearly going to pass, he treats non-American sources as if they are not reliable - take a look down below when he quoted one American source for an American nom, then went all "Questionable" about a non-American source for a non-American "Oooo, looks like we're going to need more sources for that!" and called the only people who would want such a story posted "fanboys" - ITN/C is treated like some kind of different universe to the rest of Wikipedia. This is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame that poetry is so neglected. Oh well. -- (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is another one I found interesting but, again, these things are entirely subjective. -- (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Death of Richard Rodney Bennett (for RD)Edit

Article: Richard Rodney Bennett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted English composer for many works. Knighted for his contributions to English film/music. (BAFTA award and 3 Oscar noms). Not significant for full blurb but sufficient for ticker. And yes, the article is lacking updates. --MASEM (t) 06:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Neutral comment This is not an oppose as such, but if he's not significant enough for a full blurb, surely he shouldn't be posted? When the ticker was introduced, the argument was very clear – that the ticker was primarily there to prevent ITN from becoming an obituary, as well as to filter out blurbs of the form "[Nationality] [occupation] [name] [dies at the age of] [age]". It was made equally clear that the ticker would not and must not lower notability requirements. Has something changed that I've missed (it might well have, I'm not particularly active nowadays)? —WFCFL wishlist 07:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In making the nomination, I knew I wasn't going to fight for a full blurb, but one could easily be made for this, eg "Sir Richard Rodney Bennett, composer for film and television works, dies at XX". However, given all the other recent tickers that have been posted in the last few days, this seems to be at the same level of importance/notability as the other entertainment-related deaths. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all Not notable enough for either blurb or ticker. As WFC says, the ticker was not designed to be an obituary service. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
ITN itself was not designed to be an obituary service, but it's beginning to look that way. Why, given that Wikipedia already has a Recent deaths page, does ITN/C have to be clogged up with obit nominations (and the toxic arguments they engender)? (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I did not in any way, shape or form suggest that we post too many deaths (or too few). I simply said that the death ticker was introduced to ensure that a flood of significant deaths would not alter our standards for inclusion. In the same way that an election ticker has been considered from time-to-time to ensure that a flood of significant elections would not, in itself, prevent some from being posted. —WFCFL wishlist 12:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not at all bothered by this nomination. Why should this thread be the venue for complaints about other nominations or that we even list dead people? The man was a three-time academy award nominee. Voting opposed is always an option. We don't need to discourage good faith nominations. As for "toxic arguments" in other threads, the talk page is the place for that--or you could simply refrain from making them. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ITN/DC #2. Short resume, three oscar noms, not exactly standing out as "widely regarded as important in his/her field". --IP98 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not a lead story on the BBC or elsewhere. Please stop nominating everybody who has an article when they die. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with a lot of nominations. We're here to find (diverse) stories to post on the section, not to restrict it to a select few extremely high-profile cases. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 26Edit

[Posted to RD] Gerry Anderson RDEdit

Article: Gerry Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Thunderbirds and other iconic animated programme creator --Kevin McE (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support pending update. I was actually about to nominate this myself. Popular entertainer who created some extremely popular programmes. The article is fairly extensive but poorly referenced; it needs a prose update of some form. Modest Genius talk 18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly regarded person in his field, with a significant back catalogue to his name. Culturally important too. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as I was e/c'd when trying to nominate it myself. A legend in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • FYI For those to whom it's not clear, Gerry Anderson was the producer of Thunderbirds (the puppet sci-fi series parodied in South Park's Team America: World Police) and Space 1999, which parodied itself. Some sources and support outside British fanboys and the BBC talking about how the man was a titan in his field would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, Kevin actually already mentioned this in his nomination comment. Please, calm down. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Um, drop the personal comments. Um, he did not mention the series probably most known to Americans, or that his works were the subject of parodies and usually considered flops. Um, I suggest you focus on supporting the nom, not attacking me. Um.μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Now then, no personal attack, just asking you to calm down with your tone (e.g. "British fanboys"!) and re-read the nomination which already included the information you deemed so important you needed to repeat it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Your personal opinion of the man's shows doesn't count as a reason to support this nom--i.e., fanboy OR is OR. Find some sources, and more than just the BBC, calling the man the top of his field. You are wasting your time addressing me. 19:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't we all know that!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as creator of programs having had worldwide impact, such as Thunderbirds and Space 1999, capturing the wonderment and faith in technical progress of the 60s and early 70s. Hektor (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Several of Anderson's shows—Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and Stingray—have had decades of enduring appeal on this side of the Atlantic, and the man is credited with pioneering an entire animation style. I'd say that's more than enough to be considered "top of his field". GRAPPLE X 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    And i am a fan of Space 1999, but do we have sources saying Anderson was at the top of his field? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Medeis, you are being deliberately obtuse doktorb wordsdeeds 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Times are all superlative in their obituaries. Have you any basis for your dismissal of the BBC, one of the world's most respectable news sources? GRAPPLE X 19:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    It seems to be a personal gripe and can be easily dismissed doktorb wordsdeeds 19:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this nomination, but calling me obtuse is acting the fool. There's no point in people giving their personal opinions as fans of his work without providing the refs, none of which had been done until afterwards, and provided reluctantly, as if it were some sort of burden. I still don't see a source outside the UK, or any quotes about him being at the top of his field--and if the field was children's animation, he wasn't. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. New York Times, too. Better? GRAPPLE X 20:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep your (Fart--oops.) bodily functions to yourself please. Still not seeing anything superlative even in the NYT Europe section. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing superlative mentioned in any of the three British periodicals mentioned above (although I am not going to pay to get behind the Times' paywall); just that he entertained a generation of kids. Some quotes would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He created some of the most well respected and groundbreaking shows on television. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Where were the quotes for Jack Klugman? He went straight up without you objecting, Medeis – in fact, you acted like a cheerleader. And now you appear to be rejecting Anderson on the grounds of nationality, a tactic you object to very strongly if anyone uses it to discount your two-bit American TV celebrities and forgotten senators. (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, notabl and well-known in the field of science fiction and puppetry. Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Probably the world's most recognized puppet film creator. As sources obviously demonstrate, "[t]he deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." --hydrox (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker, reasonably good demonstration of importance in sci fi TV. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, from what I see he seems to be well-known and recognized in his field to be posted here. The drama here I feel is unnecessary ad tiresome. – Connormah (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some article sections could use references and/or cleanup to remove some of the inline tags, such as Gerry_Anderson#Sylvia_Anderson.27s_increased_role, Gerry_Anderson#Live_action, Gerry_Anderson#Unfilmed_James_Bond_script and Gerry_Anderson#2000s. SpencerT♦C 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – without question at the top of his field. I would prefer a full blurb though – as I consistently argue for in comparable nominations – because his field was not front-of-house (musician, actor, athlete, head of state etc). —WFCFL wishlist 05:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --Jayron32 18:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Question I am not going to pull the posting without consensus here and I was not around for the recent deaths ticker discussions so I may have missed something. But the article seems below par to me (certainly below the standard we consider for full ITN postings). The sole update to this article in relation to Anderson's death was "Gerry Anderson died on 26 December 2012 at the age of 83 after his diagnosis of dementia", no further details or reaction on why this was significant. It seems woefully under-referenced with only 14 of the articles current 58 paragraphs having a single reference - there are no references at all between the 7th and 25th paragraphs. It certainly doesn't meet the five sentence update ITN guidance and would fail for having an orange/red-level tag on it (someone would be hard pressed to argue against a {{refimprove}} tag - though I hate the things). Whilst I concur with the suitability of the subject for an RD place I do not think that the state of the article merits it, unless we do not expect RD posts to comply with the general ITN rules? - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion from earlier this month. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure there was consensus to do away with the update rule, was there? I support a requirement of five sentences but think it should be an article-wide update, not strictly limited to the death itself. The problem is fixed easy enough, give me an hour and I will make sure it is updated. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC) It looks like Footballgy has already updated the article in spades [3]. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That update isn't fantastic by any account. Fully 60% of the character count is direct quotes, the remainder being introductions to those quotes. The single non-quote sentence "... is survived by his widow Mary and son Jamie as well as three children from former marriages — Joy, Linda and Gerry Jnr." is lifted word for word from the Metro article. I have removed it from the article. But that is besides the point, we are talking about expected standards at the point of posting.
Personally I would be happy with a lower standard of update for deaths, to require 5 sentences of filler when the only real news is "x dies of y at age z" is a bit over the top, any elaboration can be added when further details emerge later. The ticker surely exists solely to direct people to articles they are looking for already (otherwise people have no idea who the deceased are as there is no description), whereas the main blurbs actually convey information so it is reasonable to assume a certain standard of backing information in the article. All I ask is that if this is the case we formalise this in some way, otherwise it is unfair on the posting admin who has to act without any guidance/back up from the rules - Dumelow (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the old rules are still in place. I had my obvious problems above with the terribly sloppy way this nom was handled, with people giving their OR opinions as support that he was the "top" of the puppet sci-fi animation field (how about Ray Harryhausen or Jim Henson of The Muppets and Farscape, both of whom far outrank him in regard and success?) and then facing paranoid accusation that my wanting support from sources was some nefarious anti-British campaign based on a personal gripe! But at this point, regardless of the quality of the update, there is no technical reason for a pull, and I don't think anyone opposes the nomination. I would probably add some quotes from obituaries in papers of record about his pioneering status. But someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can handle that if they like. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely - leave it up. But if this to be the standard we expect of RD noms (which I have no objections to, as stated above) we need to rewrite the rules - Dumelow (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No we don't. Trying to change the rules because Medeis is at his most passive aggressive isn't consensus building. If we're to have the ticker - and Lord knows I've never liked the idea - we can't keep falling over ourselves to redefine what those rules mean. My preference, and I'm not alone, is to ditch the ticker. Ideally, I'd ditch all death nominations from ITN completely, it's the only way we're going to get any peace doktorb wordsdeeds 22:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that Jim Henson doesn't qualify for the recent part of recent deaths, and Ray Harryhausen doesn't qualify for the deaths part. --Jayron32 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding what Dumelow is stating with regard to the deaths-related update, I'm disappointed that this was posted given the quality of the rest of the article (not that I'm advocating a pull). My understanding is that RD's don't need to have as great of the deaths-related update, but the article as a whole should be of very good quality. And it seems as though my comment above was ignored and the article was posted even though there were clear referencing issues, which lessens the quality of the article as a whole. I don't support pulling, but I feel this sets a dangerous precedent if we are going to accept the "lower standard of update for deaths" and not at the same time require that articles be of very good posting quality. SpencerT♦C 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Worlds longest high speed rail line openedEdit

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks like a world record to me, and the article looks up-to-date. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending clarification. The article doesn't make the statement worlds lognest high speed rail line, and it looks like several sections still aren't complete. --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that IP98's former wiki identities include StopChinaNow and TheSinophobe, and that he has a position against any story involving China. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not exactly a secret, given that I list those users on my current users user page. --IP98 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's not bring ad hominems into this.--WaltCip (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm opposed to a fascist empire bent on world domination. I'm also opposed to posting engineering stories before the project is finished. The two valid and factual objections, overlooked by WaltCip, remain unaddressed. --IP98 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You would appreciate the fact that my admonishment was directed towards Kevin, not towards you.--WaltCip (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Walt, I do, I'm sorry. --IP98 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you think that drawing attention to a clear bias in an editor's attitude, dissimulated by a change in name, is worthy of admonishment. It is not an ad hominem attack (You know nothing of my opinion of the Chinese government), it is declaration of COI. Kevin McE (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yo, Kevin, no dissimulation intended here. I would still be calling myself "StopChinaNow" but I was banned for an offensive name. I proudly list them on my user page. You've not uncovered any sockpuppetry, I'm not hiding a thing. Yes, I'm opposed to a fascist band of sadistic baby butchers. I don't hide that either. I'm also a good faith contributor who has been here for a long time, who has looked at the article and nomination, and made a considered objection. You've elected to ignore those objections, and derail any hope for consideration with your hateful remarks. Yes, I oppose the fascist "government" of imperial China, but this is WP:ITN, not the UN commission on human rights. Drop it please. --IP98 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies in as much as COI was clearly not an appropriate phrase to be throwing around. Kevin McE (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Whilst other countries talk, China builds, and this seems to be another highly significant news development. Also would be good for us to get something
  • Support. Notable event. NickSt (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but with a shorter blurb. Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment since my original oppose was hijacked with unfounded claims of a COI. Mercury Tower was rejected because even though it was tall, it wasn't finished. Shard London Bridge was posted because it was finished. I see no reason not to wait until 2015 when the entire line is done from one end to the other. --IP98 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This a pretty big deal, and not just for China, but internationally. In particular, in the U.S. high speed rail is a hot and controversial current political topic, and this event will certainly have an affect (now, and not just in 2015 or at some artificial future date) on the political debate surrounding it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It's notable, a record, and ITN-worthy. Marking as ready per consensus. Jusdafax 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The blurb could be better, but the event is worth putting on ITN. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article looks good and I'm willing to post, but can I get a cite in the article for this being "the world's longest high-speed rail route"? Or link me to where it says that in the article? SpencerT♦C 01:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      Done I think. I added the world record info to the lede. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Furthermore, I'm a bit confused by some of the information. All of the news reports suggest that the Beijing-Guangzhou portion constitutes the longest high-speed rail line, but the article notes a (complete) continuation to Shenzhen and a further (inexplicably incomplete) continuation to Hong Kong. So... is the Guangzhou-Hong Kong portion a separate line, as the Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link article suggests? And, either way, why does the BBC and the Washington Post (via the AP) say the line from Beijing to Guangzhou is 2,298 km when our article says the length of the entire line, including the incomplete segment to Hong Kong, is 2,230 km? That table in the article isn't sourced. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    2,298 km is the "rate-making distance", that is the distance the Ministry of Railways want to used to work out the ticket price. Price of Chinese train is fixed, defined by a set of formula based on the distance. I can't find public references of the 2,230 km Beijing to Hong Kong claim at this moment. But anyway it cannot be 2,298 km Beijing to Guangzhou + some 200 km Guangzhou to Hong Kong (over 10% difference) as the public news articles suggested. However, the real distance can be easily independently verified from satellite image. OpenStreetMap also has a rather accurate route ready for this verification at Python eggs (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    To answer Tariq's question: the 'full line' stretches from Beijing to Hong Kong, but the opened revenue segments currently only constitute the portion between Beijing and Guangzhou. This portion of the line itself has been constructed in segments, with the Beijing-Shijiazhuang and Zhengzhou-Wuhan segments opening on December 26 for full service, but the Shijiazhuang-Zhengzhou and Wuhan-Guangzhou portions of the line having already been operational since earlier this year and two years ago, respectively. Technically this is one large railway line that consists of several "sub-lines". It is the longest operational high speed rail in the world insofar as Beijing-Guangzhou is the world's longest continuous and contiguous high speed service. I hope that clarifies. Colipon+(Talk) 23:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    It doesn't clarify. Our article says the Guangzhou-Shenzhen segment was completed a year ago. So if Beijing-Hong Kong is one continuous line, at the very least you'd expect news reports to be talking about the Beijing-Shenzhen segment being the world's longest. Is that last segment just completed, and not actually open for business as revenue track? Look, I'm not trying to hold this nomination up, but I think some alignment with the sources is in order. Python eggs said "I can't find public references of the 2,230 km Beijing to Hong Kong claim at this moment", and yet that unsourced claim is still in the article, alongside another set of unsourced figures (that are slightly discrepant). When considering how to write the blurb, I thought it would make sense to say something like "The [X]-km Beijing-[Y] line opens as the world's longest high-speed railway"... but I don't know what X and Y are. And even if "X-km" is omitted, should Y = Guangzhou, or should we say "a part of the Beijing-Hong Kong line"? -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    Your confusion about the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong section is understandable. Currently, to my knowledge, the longest-running train only goes from Beijing to Guangzhou. To get from Beijing to Shenzhen, one remains on the same line, but must transfer trains. But in any case, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail is part of the larger Beijing-Guangzhou-Hong Kong high speed rail. Presumably, when the Hong Kong section of the line is completed by 2015, there will be revenue service between Beijing and Hong Kong, which would make that service defeat the current record held by Beijing-Guangzhou. Colipon+(Talk) 23:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    Ok. I don't think that information is in the article, but ok. I'm not comfortable posting this myself, but I wouldn't object to anyone else doing so. -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
As a note, 766 km of these 2000+ km opened in one day (12/26/12), over one third of the final route if it's 2230km. And why squabble about it not being finished? Shenzhen North is in the metropolitan area of the planned end (Hong Kong). Only 24 more miles of route are left to be built (39 km). the distance in comparison (center to edge), (US), proof of distance Nearly this entire distance is 217 mile an hour/350 kph trains which is quite an achievement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. The article and the rail line are long enough. --Tone 08:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 25Edit

2012–2013 named winter stormsEdit

No updated article, no consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:08, 29 December 2012 (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: No article specified
Blurb: ​Winter Storms Draco, and Euclid, each kill several people in the northern United States whtithin a single week.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotten134 (talkcontribs)
  • Comment. Needs nomination template. The "named winter storms" are named by The Weather Channel and not a government agency(as hurricanes are) for purposes of promoting its coverage. I'm not sure that's enough of a reason for us to refer to the storms in such a manner. 331dot (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not significant enough of a storm. If it gets worse, then maybe. No article either. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 04:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no specific storm and no specified number of casualties. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not important, notable or destructive enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 10:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:55, 28 December 2012 (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.

Man rams schoolchildren with carEdit

WP:SNOW close, no article, no consensus. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 04:06, 27 December 2012 (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: 2012 Hebei schoolchildren car ramming incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 13 casualties are reported after a man rams his car into a group of schoolchildren in Hebei.
News source(s): BBC The New York Times South China Morning Post RTHK
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:30, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Impartial note: Without stating whether or not this meets ITN standards, there is currently no article to link to. --Jayron32 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this isn't the place to suggest the creation of an article. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not for the front page, for one thing. This isn't the place to go for requesting new articles, either. We're not a news ticker, after all. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The nomination below this started with a red link too. -- (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Quite sure it did. This one will end with a redlink unless and until someone who cares fixes that. --Jayron32 04:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed- the only comment made in support of this nomination is "someone needs to start the article"; until they do, we cannot evaluate the merits of putting this event in ITN. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Hardly ITN-worthy, article or no. Jusdafax 04:39, 26 December 2012 (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] Kazahi plane crashEdit

Article: 2012 Kazakhstan Antonov An-72 crash (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Twenty-seven people are killed in a plane crash in Kazakhstan.
News source(s): [4]
Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

BBC. Nergaal (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - per nominator, many deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Article now exists (created a redirect from your red-link). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support significant story from a part of the world we don't cover all that often. The update is fine – ideally I would like the article to be a little bit longer, but I am certain that it will have been expanded by the time there is consensus to post. —WFCFL wishlist 18:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral Decent start of an article, and the death of the acting leader of the border patrol adds some significance. At the same time, a rickety old soviet era plane crashed with 27 people on board. It's pretty mundane, in a tragic sense. I don't know when this aircraft was built, but the AN-72 article lists it as "low level production" so I'm guessing this wasn't shiny and new). I mean, an A340 slamming into the runway at Mumbai would be easier to support. Anyway, we seem to be quick to post all aircraft crashes, but with so many planes in the air around the world, is it really that big of a deal? --IP98 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article currently too short for a stand-alone article; needs expansion. SpencerT♦C 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't think the level of casualties is enough to warrant posting it as an ITN item. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Question - 28 casualties in a shooting is enough, but 27 in a crash isnt? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Answer - Yes. There is a difference between an accident which kills 27 people at once, and an individual who chooses to murder 28 people. Just like shooting one or two people isn't enough (I live in Miami, it's almost daily), but an A330 crashing into the ocean is enough. --IP98 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes; as IP98 said, there is a difference between deliberate murder of (mostly) children and an accident. If the number of deaths in this incident is high enough to list in ITN purely based on the number, I have to wonder what would be the floor for the number of deaths in order to be listed. 5? 10? 20? 331dot (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say 20 would be a good number to start with, as long as you do not get other aggravating or (un)aggravating situations. Any number that high to be killed at once, and its bad enough to warrant being here.
And do note that had the number been somewhere aroung 200, there would have been no doubt on whether to include it or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I raised "what is the minimum deaths" once on WT:ITN and no one would touch it with a 10 foot (3 m) pole. --IP98 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Terrible crash. NickSt (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's getting good coverage around the world, and I was surprised to find it as a headline at CBC. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The news has recieved quite a good coverage throughout the world, and needs to be added. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article still requires considerable expansion before posting. It is barely 1100 characters at present - Dumelow (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, notable event. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

December 24Edit

[Posted to RD] Death of Charles DurningEdit

Article: Charles Durning (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times NYTHuffPo Telegraph NPR

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  • Support. Feted stage actor; Tony and Drama Desk awards seal it for me (though to note, he didn't actually win an Oscar for his screen work). GRAPPLE X 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Grapple. Suggest removing the "same day as Jack Klugman" bit from his article though. It doesn't really add anything. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The Huffington Post has called Klugman and Durning the "Titans of Character Acting". Here is not the place to make the bad suggestion that we remove what notable sources say from articles. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker As someone who hates the death ticker, I always hesitate before supporting nominations, but in this case I'm convinced by the notability and suitability for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 01:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even with the ticker, we must resist the temptation to post every actor who dies. Almost by definition, a character actor will usually be a lower-tier celebrity, and that seems to be the case here. I have a hunch that although many moviegoers would recognize the actor, few would be able to say, "Oh yeah, that's Charles Durning." He has had a nice career, but not an exceptional one. I frankly wouldn't have posted Klugman either, although I enjoyed the work of both actors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
What temptation? Whether we list someone or not is not about "resisting temptation". ITN/RD was designed for exactly this situation, when more than one notable person dies in a week. Durning certainly qualifies as notable, as his "King of the Character Actors" and "Titan" description in the media attests. As for the recognizability argument, who in the world would recognize Dina Manfredini other than her townspeople? The point of listing in cases like this is to connect the people to the article, not to show our skill at temptation-resisting dieting as editors. If I didn't know who Durning was, but loved him as Pappy O'Daniel in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, I'd be particularly thankful for the editors of Wikipedia for helping me make that connection. To suggest we need to resist that is contrary to the very mission of the project. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Being notable isn't enough, and the function of the ticker isn't to post every notable death. It still has to meet the death criteria, and I don't think this one does. Was he a good actor, with many roles? Sure. Was he "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? I honestly don't think so, unless you sufficiently narrow his field to "character acting". This is basically a nomination for that guy who was in that thing, and I would hope our standards haven't relaxed that much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per bongwarrior. We can't put up every b-list Hollywood actor, and that seems to be what he was for the most part. The theater work is perhaps more compelling but at the end of the day actors in the US are considered great for their work on screen.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Sources NYT: "Extraordinary Actors Ennobling the Ordinary" "an astonishing 207 acting credits" "household-name status" HuffPo "Character Actor Titans" " storied careers" "Klugman and Durning reign supreme" Telegraph "World War Two hero who became one of Hollywood's top character actors" NPR "king of the character actors". How this doesn't amount to top of one's field beats me. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the ITN candidates need only be lead role actors to avail a RD after their deaths. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Academy nominated, 9 emmy nominations, 3 golden globe nominations and one golden globe winning performance, and 1 tony award. B-list is not exactly what I would call him. Definitely a candidate for RD ticker. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready? The article is updated, there's 3-1 support for this nom, with opposes being based not on the nom itself but on opposition to posting actors. Can an admin comment if there is some other impediment to posting this? Otherwise I think it is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no opposition to posting actors. I oppose this particular actor because I don't think he is notable enough for ITN. I thought I had made that clear enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, Bongwarrior. Consensus at this point, however, is to post and the sources are unequivocal, so i am wondering if there is some other reason this hasn't been marked ready. Given I have listed myself as an updater I don't want to do so, but I do believe it is ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant in his field. I'll mark it ready, so we can post it. Jusdafax 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is the type of person the death ticker is meant for, at least to me. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Death of Arthur QuinlanEdit

Article: Arthur Quinlan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]
Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  • Neutral yes, prolific. Could probably meet ITN/DC #2, but the article doesn't support it. --IP98 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose user below has shown me that Quinlan does not pass ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Might I ask in what way? -- (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support plenty of firsts and notable accomplishments in his article, there will be plenty of reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Which would those be? "He would simply start up his 1939 Morris 8 and head for the airport."? Any awards won? Special recognition from his peers? --IP98 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Honorary member of the NUJ as it seems you hadn't noticed it in his article. Also being recognised and referred to by the name of your city/location of birth is pretty significant. Or would you prefer actual trophies and medals? This is journalism, not sport, not music, not film. -- (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The NUJ bit is deadlinked, and it's a trade union. Looks like they gave an 80 year old member "member of honour" status. For the awards, Pulitzer Prize is a start, off the top of my head. I mean, the whole article reads like the story of a cooky old man who trundled off in his 39 Morris to interview people at the airport. Am I missing something? --IP98 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. only award. Your objection is that he failed to win an award he was ineligible for? And the type of car he drove even comes into it? I doubt very much he was a "cooky old man" all through the 20th century. Or maybe the reason he was so successful was because he was a "cooky old man", that is if he was one? -- (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The Pulitzer Prize is a U.S. only award. Your objection is that he failed to win an award he was ineligible for? Nope, and didn't say that. You stated that This is journalism, not sport, not music, not film. I was merely pointing out that there are awards for journalism. And the type of car he drove even comes into it? Nope. Type of car is totally irrelevant. The question remains, totally unanswered, did he do anything in his long career other than interview celebrities at the airport? --IP98 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There's more to his biography than him driving to an airport and the politicians and royalty mentioned are not minor celebrities. I don't know what else you expect journalists to do. He did his job. He didn't win an Olympic medal, he didn't make pop music, he didn't kill anyone. But he did his job. -- (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Politicians, popes, kings, movie stars, all celebrities in different categories for different reasons. He did his job, sure did. That's 100% correct, but simply doing ones job does not make that person "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". As such, this item fails ITN/DC #2, and if ITN/DC matters at all anymore, this should be vigorously opposed. --IP98 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There are no high profile awards for Irish journalism, so asking whether he won one or not is entirely useless; he never won the Superbowl either. GRAPPLE X 18:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope, IP 86, you see how frustrating it is to have a valid nomination met with ridiculously piddling and contrarian opposition. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You're accusing me of "ridiculously piddling and contrarian opposition"? --IP98 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, very influential journalist Secret account 17:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker And I say this as someone who hates the ticker. Significant enough for a mention on the front page and the article seems to be in a largely good state doktorb wordsdeeds 18:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
he has had a unique opportunity to meet and interview countless world leaders and stars as they passed through the airport. and He would simply start up his 1939 Morris 8 and head for the airport. should probably be rewritten. Doesn't seem to fit with the WP:MOS. --IP98 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Only a televised special behind David Frost in terms of notability; even then his actual work is arguably more important. GRAPPLE X 18:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment what work is important? Interviewing people at the airport? What? --IP98 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
      • If you maybe want to drop that bone and stop badgering, you'd notice that Quinlan was the sole Westerner able to interview Che Guevara, one of the century's defining figures, which is slightly more notable and important than being privy to a glorified press conference by Richard Nixon. There's also the matter of being a neutral interviewer of Cold War leaders from both sides (Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Gromyko, Castro...) along with a key religious leader. But no, it's ok, he did all that from the back of a Morris so fuck him. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The Morris has nothing to do with it. So he interviewed famous and important people: thats what journalists do. We can't post the death of every old newspaper reporter. Any major stories? Investigative journalism? The NUJ is 100 years old with 38000 members, does it not have any recognition other than "honoured old man"? --IP98 (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready? This article definitely seems technically updated and ready. But since I cannot judge the praise heaped on Quinlan from the Limerick Leader I'll leave it to someone else to add the [Ready] tag. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker only. Doesn't quite cut it for a full blurb. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The article seems a bit hagiographic. What's this line about the first Irishman to get a jet across the Atlantic about? Overall I don't think the article is very good. Neutral otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --Jayron32 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Death of Jack KlugmanEdit

Article: Jack Klugman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Odd Couple and Quincy, M.E. actor --Kevin McE (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for Recent deaths, noted actor through the decades. Jusdafax 12:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Here we go again... (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry, ticker or not, I see no reason to abandon ITN/DC. The deceased was (1) not in a high ranking office of power, (3) the death has not impacted current events, and (2) I see no evidence from the article that the deceased was widely regarded as important in their field. Beloved sure, for a time, but important, no. The death ticker was conceived and implemented to deal with the unmanageable flood of recent deaths which met the ITN/DC requirement. This does not. --IP98 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker. Lead actor in two long-running hit series, notable roles from 12 Angry Men til his death. There will be quite a bit of reader interest, similar to the recent posting of the TV astronomer and certainly more justified than Dina Manfredini. Checkviews shows a long-running average of over a 1000 hits a day [6] well before news of his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Those wrongs don't make this right. There was no consensus to abandon ITN/DC when the ticker was implemented. --IP98 (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the posting of the astronomer. Quincy is even airing right now in Australia. Hardly an unknown figure. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
On what, the "40 year old reruns network"? It's a really simple test: Was Klugman "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." or not? --IP98 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Let me make sure I understand. Your complaint is his 40 year old reruns are being rerun on a rerun network? Rather than where? He's a classic. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Patrick Moore was presenter of the world's longest-running television series with the same original presenter; Manfredini was the world's oldest living person, the oldest recorded Italian-born person, the 10th oldest person ever recorded, and the longest-living immigrant. What did this guy do to match those two in terms of encyclopedic newsworthiness? From the details presented here, absolutely nothing. -- (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a really simple test: Was Klugman "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." or not? --IP98 (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Assuming good faith on your part in asking that question, yes, he was an iconic lead on two TV hit shows, one a Drama that foreshadowed all the modern day forensic dramas, and the other a comedy, as well as being recognized for his film roles, his overcoming throat cancer and the loss of his voice to return to acting, and his legal battles over actor's compensation. Plus see the over 1,000 hits a day for his article linked to above predating his death. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Does that make him a very important figure in his field? Your first statement is a nice piece of WP:OR, if he was that groundbreaking, find a WP:RS that says it and add it to his article. Throat cancer == nothing to do with being important in his field. Suing NBC and settling out of court somehow makes him battling for actors compensation?? Lastly, if checkviews had any importance whatsoever then you would have been tripping over us to heap support upon gangnam style. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs a bit of TLC: There is a section with a refimprove tag, and the Filmography section needs cleanup. SpencerT♦C 17:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the unreferenced bits of the talk show section. I see the cleanup tag with the filmography section, but am not sure what's the matter. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This is what that section looked like before. I'm not sure if removing all of the problem areas out of the article is the best solution, but the article is in better shape now. SpencerT♦C 18:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the tag is asking for more than just a bullet-pointed list. in an ideal world something like this could be put together, but for what we're asking I'd say the filmography is fine as is. Could remove the tag safely or just overlook it for a posting as it's not a vital concern (like {{cn}} or {{refimprove section}} would be). GRAPPLE X 18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support He was Quincy! Seriously though, please don't bring back that recent death ticker. Total chocolate fireguard. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
But this is a "recent deaths" nomination. You surely aren't suggesting that this guy be given the full honors!? -- (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I am. And don't call me Shirley. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything like this since the Anita Bryant concert. -- (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker. While not unexpected, this has been covered by quite a few news outlets on both sides of the bitter ITN divide. GRAPPLE X 18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready I have removed the cleanup tag, as the red links and strange formatting have been removed. I have added another few sentences on the death itself to buck-up the update requirement. There seems to be only token opposition versus widespread support and all the technical barriers have been removed, so I am marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)7
  • Support for ticker only. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD ticker --Jayron32 23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

December 23Edit

[Posted] Egyptian constitutional referendumEdit

Article: Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Egyptian voters approve a new constitution.
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera

Nominator's comments: While we don't include all referenda, this is an important development in the Egyptian story. --LukeSurl t c 13:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Major Egyptian development. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, dito. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news for Egypt, despite some opposition leaders calling the referendum fraud. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I added more about what the Amendment itself proposed in the article, but the item blurb could also perhaps be more descriptive, saying what the amendment was about? In addition, preferably the article should have some mention of the results to the referendum if possible. Otherwise, the article is in good shape. SpencerT♦C 19:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Slightly more insistent comment. This really should not be posted until the article contains details of the results of the referendum. Formerip (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Pile-on insistence. Wait for the results, which are supposed to come in tomorrow. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but could the blurb provide a little more detail? Any sort of structure approved that's worth mentioning? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the main story is that the constituation is generally considered quite Islamist-friendly, but it's difficult to discuss this in a blurb without heading into POV territory. LukeSurl t c 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
There will probably be some sort of reaction to the result and that could potentially be mentioned in the blurb. Formerip (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, it is ITN material but I agree that waiting 'till Monday is a good idea. It's just a day away. Jusdafax 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Official results will be delayed till tomorrow [7]. Anyone going to be around here on Christmas day? --LukeSurl t c 19:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but I agree with Muboshgu that the current blurb needs more details. I'd like to see the election numbers, once they're released.--xanchester (t) 08:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's official [8] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just need some responses to the result and it's good to go. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, a major development. Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. I've added Egyptian_constitutional_referendum,_2012#Reactions. I can't say I'm thrilled with the current wording, but I can't think of anything better and I'm sure someone will come up with something better at WP:ERRORS. SpencerT♦C 04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar retires from One Day InternationalsEdit

Article: Sachin Tendulkar (talk, history)
Blurb: Sachin Tendulkar retires from One Day International cricket.
News source(s): [9], [10]

 Vensatry (Ping me) 09:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support; while I know little of the world of cricket, this person seems to be regarded as one of the greatest players ever, so his retirement is notable. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as he's still playing Test cricket. If it had been a retirement for all forms of the game (at the highest level), then I'd support the Little Master. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Although I agree that Test cricket is considered to be the superior form of cricket, the fact that the greatest player in a particular format has retired is definitely noteworthy. If we look at his personal achievements, Test records are not so impressive as ODIs. One can say that he was the best ODI batsman ever, but not Tests/First-class cricket. Vensatry (Ping me) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a fantastic cricket player, but the feat of retiring is not in itself extraordinary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very weak support. Because we really should post something about something at some point. Formerip (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the first time he has left a particular format only to return at a later date. Maybe when he retires from all forms of the game. Leaky Caldron 11:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm also not supporting this story being posted (see below), but could you please tell me when Sachin has "left a particular format only to return at a later date"? I've been following cricket, especially Indian cricket, since 1992. I cant seem to recollect this at all. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
No idea, but according to respected cricket journalist Ed Smith (cricketer), he has opted out in the past - at 1:04:20 in this broadcast this morning [11]. Leaky Caldron 14:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose When he retires from the first-class game completely, yes. Now, no. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm very much of the view that he deserves a place on the front page, as highly regarded and notable that he is. But as has been said, he needs to retire from everything before we nominate him 'properly'. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait for full retirement: I'm a huge Tendulkar fan, but lets wait for his retirement from all forms of international cricket. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If the greatest cricketer retires from a very popular format of the game, it is surely a big news (although a sad one). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose now, oppose when he fully retires, support recent deaths. Cricket might be very popular in a few countries, and no doubt Tendulkar is a very accomplished player, but we can't go posting the retirement of every star athlete in every sport. -- (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • According the ever reliable BBC, basketball is the 2nd most popular sport. On that website you cited, it says baseball is more popular than basketball, which is a load of bull lol
  • Anyway, while football (soccer) is the most popular sport in the world without a doubt, the second most popular sport is a lot murkier. –HTD 15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Bog snorkling? Formerip (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the above comment about "we can't go posting the retirement of every star athlete in every sport" is correct on its face, I think that the retirement of one of a sport's legends would merit a note. However, Tendulkar is not retiring from Cricket. He's basically just removed himself from consideration for the Indian national team. Resolute 16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strong support: Some editors here have told they'd support after his retirement from Test cricket! But, note after his retirement from One Day cricket, everyone knows and expects he'll retire from Test Cricket too sooner later.. and count IPL, and Ranji, and state level etc. Everyone knows these are going to happen.
    For example, retirement of Sourav Ganguly or Rahul Dravid their first retirement decision got most attention and coverages. For next one or two years they kept on retiring from different forms of the game. And finally Ganguly's retirement from IPL or state level got almost no media attention (or far less attention than what he got at first)!
    I don't think we should wait for Tendulkar's Test retirement, since even after retiring from Tests he may continue playing IPL or State level cricket (as Warne, Gilchrist etc have done)! Then what you'll say? Wait for Tendukar's IPL retirement or wait for his Ranji retirement? So, unless it is a complete retirement from all types of the game in a single day (which is not very uncommon too), it is better to highlight it first. So, Now. I don't recommend to keep this event for future ITN, since it'll be a "news of a retirement who had already retired"!  
    Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL and if the player's name is Sachin Tendulkar anyone can not predict anything. Can anyone predict here that even after retiring from One Day Sachin is not going to play in Test Cricket for another 2 or 3 years? Hm? So, please NOW --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
On this basis of this muddled rationale I would be tempted to say never. Leaky Caldron 16:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I know (think) he will get official farewell, highest civilian honours and some comments from most powerful and reputed people of the nation after his Test retirement, but 1) we don't know when he is going to retire from Test Cricket 2) if he is continuing to play IPL, Ranji, State cricket even after his Test retirement! So, Wait for full retirement (as said above) does not sound logical! I don't want to say "Never", so I am tempted to say "now" --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Retiring from proper International cricket (not IPL) is a recognisable milestone not too far away. While he still swings his bat for India he has not retired and could even make a comeback at one day level. Would that be yet another ITN followed by another when he finally retires? There's no rush. Leaky Caldron 17:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point! After his retirement from Test Cricket, we may need another ITN (specially if he is given Bharat Ratna or something similar like President of India attending his last test). But, you have said not too far away, I am not sure! I personally think he is going to play at least one more year in Test Crickets! Of course, my opinion has no value. I'll keep an eye on experts' opinions on Sachin's Test retirement! Yet, I don't think he is going to retire soon! He is Tendukar after all! :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since when do we post athletes retiring? Big news in its sport, yes. Big news to the world? Come on. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although he's definitely one of the greatest batsmen ever, he's only retiring from ODIs. It would be a bit of a borderline case even if he was retiring from all forms of cricket, but he isn't. (oh and regardless of what the IPL fans might say, Test cricket is still the ultimate form of the game, and Tendulkar is still playing Tests) Modest Genius talk 23:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

December 22Edit

[Posted] December 2012 Delhi protestsEdit

Article: 2012 Delhi gang rape case (talk, history)
Blurb: Hundreds in Delhi protest near the Indian Parliament and the Rashtrapati Bhavan against a recent gang rape in a running bus in the capital.
Alternative blurb: ​A gang rape in Delhi sparks widespread demonstrations.
News source(s): The Hindu Reuters NY Times CNN Al Jazeera BBC BBC2

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The protests have gained extensive coverage, both nationally and internationally; and thousands of protesters are present. There have also been several lathicharges and firing of tear gas on them. --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Nationwide protests, being covered by international news media and n news agencies too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think these protests are about one particular case, but in relation to the general safety situation in the city; the protests may have been set off by this case. MikeLynch (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
These protests are primarily about that one particular case only. The reason they have drawn so many is because of the general safety situation. Though I agree that there isnt a significant difference between whether they are for one case, or in general. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. This incident might have been the tipping point, but the protests are surely not just about this case. I feel the blurb should be reworded to reflect it. At any rate, wording like "in a running bus" is unnecessary detail. MikeLynch (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree. It's not just about the incident. It's sorta about police incompetence/corruption in general. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
3 times edit conflicts, last attempt to post: I also don't think these protests are about one particular case, but this particular case (which was very brutal one) seems to be the reason of these protests! (after edit conflict, Lynch's post) as MikeLynch has said tipping point. Lynch, those running bus etc is needed for identifier since you'll get a rape news from Delhi every 1/2 week(s) --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
And five more eve teasers were lynched by a mob in Jharkhand. [13]

Important development - Indian police say the anti-rape protests have been "hijacked" by hooligans and political activists. [14]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support re notability, though the article 2012 Delhi gang rape case focusses primarily on the case. Would need more content, in this article or in a seperate one, on the riots themselves. LukeSurl t c 15:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support But the hook needs some work. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Yet this article [15] refers to the case of an actress Momoko as well. A broader scope to the blurb than the one case might help. We also don't need such a big blurb including the locations and that the rape was done in a bus. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Do suggest an alternate blurb then. Being new to this process, I am not exactly sure how the proper changes could be reflected on the blurb TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Altblurb I would suggest something like "After deadly protests against a gang rape and other crimes, India bans gatherings of more than five people." I have only read the one report, someone with mare familiarity might suggest better piped links. Yours is not a bad blurb in any case. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Nay, that ban on unlawful gatherings has been applied too frequently for it to merit an ITN spot. I was thinking something like "Following a a gang rape in Delhi, protesters gather near the Indian Parliament to protest against the safety situation of women in the city". Maybe it's too long? MikeLynch (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The ban on gatherings is not the news item the blurb is hung on, the deadly riots are, the ban being a reaction. We don't need to say protesters protest, and that it's against the gang rape and other crimes makes it obvious the concern is with women's safety, so we don't need to say they protest against gang rape and for women's safety. Ideally if we use a blurb like mine we could link other crimes to Rape in India, or another relevant article crime/women's safety in india. We can also replace the ban on gatherings with some more important reaction, if there is one. The uproar seems to be widespread, so I am not sure there is any need to mention near the Indian Parliament. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Linking to Rape in India is a good idea; I agree with your wording for the blurb. The reaction seems to be limited to police action like tear gas, water cannons and baton charge though. MikeLynch (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've written an altblurb above that is at the brevity end of the spectrum, Please edit as you see fit. LukeSurl t c 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - lead world news story--top on NYT, second-highest on Al Jazeera. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - the Altblurb is fine like this. Wiki-uk (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted the alt-blurb. SpencerT♦C 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Well done. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this is good. MikeLynch (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. A lot better blurb than any other possible candidates. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

December 21Edit

Mario Monti resignsEdit

Article: Mario Monti (talk, history)
Blurb: Mario Monti resigns as Prime Minister of Italy.
News source(s): [16]

Article needs updating

 Formerip (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. From what I can read, it seems like this resignation was planned ahead of time(he said he would do so after the budget passed) and not precipitated by a scandal or alleged illegal activities. That knocks it down a little on the notability scale for me. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait We're gonna post the results of the election per ITN/R, so I don't see why this needs to be posted twice. It's the new government that will be newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This resignation was planned, so not particularly news-worthy. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait. This is a procedural part of the election process. Wait for the election results. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a part of the election process. Formerip (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Really? Then I misunderstood this Guardian report, which is where I first read the news. Modest Genius talk 13:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the BBC article "President Napolitano accepted the resignation and called on Mr Monti to remain as head of an interim administration until the elections, which analysts say will most probably be held on 24 February." Unless I'm reading that wrong, he's still prime minister, at least in everything but name. Hot Stop (Talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hot Soup. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Of all the misspellings of my name, that's my favorite so far. Hot Stop (Talk) 00:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style reaches one billion viewsEdit

Consensus seems clear not to post. SpencerT♦C 05:25, 23 December 2012 (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: Gangnam Style (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The music video for "Gangnam Style" by South Korean musician PSY becomes the first internet video to reach one billion views.
News source(s): [17], [18]
Nominator's comments: A bit silly perhaps, but one billion is a pretty big milestone (achieved in a relatively short period of time) and Gangnam Style is a good article. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I would love to support more light-hearted ITN's like these, but I know that one really can only oppose currently. (And I would have used the point where it surpassed the highest-view video that was about 2 months ago as the key factor, since I'm sure there were people page-spamming to trip the counter) --MASEM (t) 19:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Realistically, oppose. But, support per IAR - 1 billion is a pretty major milestone. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just... oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lighthearted, yes, but not really news. It's an internet phenomenon (we've already known this) being an internet phenomenon. DYK if there's an eligible article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a world record. Definitely deserves mention. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Exceeding a milestone of one billion visits is a remarkable achievement, but not a world record of a very big importance as mentioned above. There are plenty of such consuming records that happen every day in different industries, while this one has never been considered something so special in music. Yet, it's even hard to classify it being a news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "A bit silly, perhaps". Yes, quite. It's very easy to press F5, and for that matter programme a computer to do so, making the 1 billion figure (or 1 thousand million in the UK ;)) is just an arbitrary mark without any real hard evidence. On top of all that, it's just no important enough for the front page. We always, rightly, reject this sort of tech buzz and I can't see why this is any different. Utter candyfloss. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Google does a very good job of user tracking and avoiding robots. -- (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Seems newsworthy to me. We post sports records all the time: most football goals in a season and batting 100 centuries to name a few (the latter being totally arbitrary). This video went ultra-viral, and that's a major achievement these days, I think everyone here recognizes that. If there is room for a blurb about a million year old sitar player, there is room for Gangnam Style. -- (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That sitar player was a pioneer and a groundbreaking talent. This video is a quirky cartoon. I think we all know your point is invalid. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
How many views would be enough? -- (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
For ITN? There is no figure for me to be okay with. Maybe we can bung this to DYK, it's trivial enough for them. We're Wikipedia, not BuzzFeed doktorb wordsdeeds 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral:It's fairly significant, but not along the lines of what we'd normally post. Ryan Vesey 22:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It might be notable, but ITN is not the "world records set" feed. Putting this would set a negative precedent to have all sorts of world records in ITN. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not news: it is a contrived statistic. Kevin McE (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. Since a billion is beyond the realms of human comprehension, has this particular t'interweb virus now become quite meaningless? Surely its cultural significance now lies purely with its parodies, many of which are clearly better: [19]. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not even a real billion. GRAPPLE X 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless someone can come up with a convincing theory whereby this is the fulfilment of an ancient end-of-the-world prophecy. Formerip (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Although I find the video awesome, I have to agree with 331dot that it might lower the bar for less serious news in ITN in the future. (And if any single performance would be responsible for any end of the world, I think it would rather be Friday or Baby  .) Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose especially as much of that "billion" was achieved by Internet and social media spamming. At one point, around 10% of all Twitter postings containing currently trending hashtags were spoof ones sending people to this video. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Arbitrary number which means nothing. Modest Genius talk 15:35, 22 December 2012 (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.

New state of matterEdit

Articles: quantum spin liquid (talk, history) and Herbertsmithite (talk, history)
Blurb: ​MIT researchers discover that Herbertsmithite exhibits a quantum spin liquid behavior, a new state of matter.
News source(s): [20]

Nominator's comments: Since the end is not here, it would be nice to add a new state of matter. Nergaal (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Seems to be a pretty huge scientific achievement and MIT is surely a party that lays a strong scientific verification, but on this stage it's difficult to judge whether it's generally accepted or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -News about this seems to emphasize on the the findings' implications. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait The article is incomprehensible to layman. The lead should at least attempt to address the matter in a more layman friendly matter. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Scientists discover that they can create something that is a bit different from anything else. Mutual back patting among those involved, who I'm sure must be feeling very clever, but until there is any practical application, or evidence that it has entered into the non specialist public awareness, it is not of sufficient interest or import. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral and comment: As far as I can tell, this isn't really a new state of matter. It's a new type of magnetic organisation within an existing state of matter (a crystal, which is a type of solid). It seems a bit technical for our readership - more like something you would read in New Scientist or Physics World. Interesting, but not sufficiently wide-ranging to interest the general wikipedia reader. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment I can't support. Modest Genius talk 19:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll second Kevin's comments here. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the few things I do know about particle physics is that if you describe a solid using the word "liquid" it is still a solid, so "new state of matter" is possibly a little misleading. In any event, the bolded article is impenetrable and the herbertsmithite article is a stub, and I predict neither of those things will change in time to post. Formerip (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Kevin's comment, and it doesn't seem to have taken that much space in the media. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is undoubtedly a major discovery with big implications for physics. However, it's disappointing that the main-stream media managed to miss this one, and as such I do not think we will be able to justify it's presence on WP front page. SPat talk 07:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The end of the worldEdit

Consensus is oppose, and in any case, its time has surely passed, in all senses of that phrase. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:34, 23 December 2012 (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: 2012 phenomenon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Mesoamerican Long Count calendar reaches the date, associated with various doomsday theories.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It's in the news worldwide, even if taken not entirely seriously... -- Sandstein  12:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Kind of oppose. That article was TFA yesterday (a brilliant choice, indeed). --Tone 13:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only if the end of the world actually occurs. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Willing to post, then. --Tone 13:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically it would be better to wait a bit and post it at 22 December, 00:00 UTC after 21 December passes and nothing occurs. Brandmeistertalk 13:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"man doesn't bite dog story"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. We have never posted a failure of a doomsday theory, so no way it merits exception now. The calendar has reached its ending day but nothing special that can be classified as an important news has happened.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. A little unclear where the calendar ends, as it were, and this article begins? A fair bit of apocalyptic overlap there, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, massive news covarage. Blurb: The 2012 phenomenon, associated with various doomsday theories, fails to occur. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Dog doesn't bite man? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It's notable, it has widespread coverage, it is of international interest, and is essentially a minority topic (religion/culture). What more is needed? Use Eugen's blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Have we gone completely mad? We've had TWO Featured articles on this already, by the way, and in any case, if you want to start a precedent which requires us to put onto ITN every world calendar changeover, go ahead, but I won't have anything to do with it. This is just flash in the pan nominating which shouldn't make it to the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 14:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This has been in the making for over 2 years. This is a big deal. Truthsort (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
don't you mean 4,000? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This overblown nonsense over the basic misunderstanding of how calenders work has already been given over to two TFA slots this week, let's put the crop down and let the horse be buried. GRAPPLE X 15:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was already TFA yesterday, and is still listed on the Main Page under today's blurb (which was also chosen with this date in mind). At best it's a light-hearted 'aren't they stupid' kind of story, which isn't the best choice for ITN. Nothing has actually happened. Modest Genius talk 15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's not. Since 2012 phenomenon was an FA, yesterday or today was really the only reasonable time to put it on the main page, so I've no problem with that. And I actually kind of like the choice of today's TFA. But that's more than enough about this ridiculousness; it got old about a year ago. Let's not put it in ITN for a week, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as "world doesn't end" is not really news. The TFA choice was an eloquent and sufficient way of dealing with this. LukeSurl t c 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the end actually does happen, in which case I'd have other things to worry about other than Wikipedia. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pile-on Oppose for all of the reasons above and every other reason you can think of. It's already (still) on the main page once; can't that be enough? -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose An interpretation that there is no evidence anyone ever intended as a prediction didn't come to pass. Let's treat our readers' with a bit more credit for their intelligence. Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This has been in the news for years, is all over the popular culture, and is happening today. Wikipedia is all our readers. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • But it was in the news for years through a misunderstanding and mickey-taking and hyperbole and fiction and most other such things. There was no "end of the world", there was a calendar changing, and we can't go putting calendar changes on ITN every few months. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The "every calendar change" comment is fatuous. This one is quite notable notable, having had even a blockbuster movie filmed about it. Our opinion of those who are interested in this phenomenon is irrelevant. Get back to me by μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You get back to me when you nominate the new Ethiopian new year. Are you suggesting we nominate things based on Hollywood remakes? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • On This Day Actually, this would make a whole of sense in the On This Day section at the end of the line on the Solstice. How does one nominate that? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That... actually makes a lot of sense. It can at least be an "on this day" for Dec 21 2013 and beyond. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only notable if the world actually did end. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
So I guess it's about finding sources...Formerip (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If "finding sources" means "stroking our elitist egos"? Then yes. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2012 (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.

December 20Edit

December 19Edit

Amnon Lipkin-Shahak - recent deathEdit

Article: Amnon Lipkin-Shahak (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Jewish Telegraphic Agency Washington Post

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Lipkin-Shahak was the head of the Israeli Defense Forces. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ...and wholly without importance for the front page. We wouldn't accept him as front page nomination material normally, certainly not with the fixed, fudged and wholly unworkable ticker system. A very clear and obvious oppose from me . 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Needs more expansion about his career and what made him notable for this to be RD-worthy. SpencerT♦C 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- I would normally oppose people like this, but because of the unique position of the IDF in the world as both pioneering in military technology and constantly involved in actual fighting, the chief of the IDF is one of the most important figures in Israel and in national defense. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, of strictly national interest, just a careerist. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Suppport why not? I'm not clear on what criteria RD has to fulfill, so until then I'll just support every one that appears here. (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --LukeSurl t c 08:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I wouldn't support a nom for his UK or US equivalent, either. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with AlexT- this person was a government functionary performing his duty; not particularly notable. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Peter Struck - recent deathEdit

Clear consensus not to post; overall article too short to be sufficient for RD. SpencerT♦C 05:40, 23 December 2012 (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: Peter Struck (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Deutsche Welle Washington Post

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Struck was the German defense minister from 2002-2005. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Peter_Struck#Politics is too brief for someone of such great importance. The whole article could use some expansion. SpencerT♦C 22:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose completely Not important enough for the front page, so neither blurb nor ticker doktorb wordsdeeds 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose completely. A relatively minor government official only. 331dot (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- As previously mentioned, he wasn't even that big of a government official. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Purely national interest. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2012 (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.

Robert Bork - recent deathEdit

Article: Robert Bork (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [21][22]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: My second recent death nom this week. While I was sure that Inouye deserved to be posted, Bork is definitely more marginal, but I'm nominating anyway. His nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States was pretty landmark, and it paved the way for more contentious SCOTUS confirmation hearings that continue today. He was also involved in the Watergate scandal. --– Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for ticker per reasoning given. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker, not notable enough for full blurb but a hallmark name in US politics. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ticker Warrants major coverage in many RS. --hydrox (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Is everyone involved in the Watergate scandal going to be on the ticker then? Why are Americans, especially politicians, judges and celebrities, getting such an easy ride on the death ticker? That's Daniel Inouye, Dina Manfredini, Dave Brubeck, Jenni Rivera, Marvin Miller, Joseph Murray, Héctor Camacho (spent first three years of life in Puerto Rico), Larry Hagman, Jacques Barzun, Russell Means, George McGovern in about seven weeks, routinely with about two at the same time in quick succession. Some of these should certainly be there but it's just too much. Anyone from anywhere else has to prove beyond all doubt that they're important enough. Has any other part of the world had even more than one? India might have had about two, maybe Britain. The remainder could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. Have the standards been lowered or something? -- (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Heh. I was about to say that the proponents of the ticker would've never thought that it would be swamped by Americans. –HTD 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I knew someone was going to bring up the AMERICAN BIAS argument. Wasn't sure who it was going to be, though. This oppose vote has no comment on Bork himself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The nomination has next to no comment on Bork for crying out loud! U.S. Supreme Court nomination (one of many) + involvement in the Watergate scandal (one of many)? That's nowhere near enough. The oppose "Is everyone involved in the Watergate scandal going to be on the ticker then?" is just as worthy as the support for him getting a U.S. Supreme Court nomination and involvement in the Watergate scandal.
          • Uh, the nomination is all about who Bork was, what made him notable. I suppose I could've described him as a leading conservative scholar on originalism, but you can see that in the article as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
            • This is what the nomination says with parts relating to Bork in bold for emphasis:

              My second recent death nom this week. While I was sure that Inouye deserved to be posted, Bork is definitely more marginal, but I'm nominating anyway. His nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States was pretty landmark, and it paved the way for more contentious SCOTUS confirmation hearings that continue today. He was also involved in the Watergate scandal.

This is what makes him notable? This is why he should go on the ticker? His rejection was left out until someone mentioned it further down. -- (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably shouldn't have said "more marginal", but I meant in comparison to Inouye, and I'd say that Inouye's clear passage to recent deaths than this nom proved me right. His nomination was landmark, and probably made him more notable than he would've been if he had been confirmed. My statement was merely an opener, and if you had read the article, you would've seen what was "landmark" about the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how his failure can have made him more notable. There is nothing in the article and nothing has been presented here to suggest this is the case. -- (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The answer to 86.40's question " Why are Americans...getting such an easy ride on the death ticker" is because you, 86.40, haven't improved an article or nominated one to ITNC. Give us a non-American to put up there. Improve their article to where it is main page worthy. Show us sources that consider the death to itself be noteworthy. Or, you could just complain and never see the problem fixed. That could happen too. Oh, wait, that just did. --Jayron32 19:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You don't know me and you don't know what I do or don't do so I'll ignore the personal barb. The oppose asked if everyone connected to the Watergate scandal was going to be put on the ticker. The oppose wanted to know why Americans whom not everyone has heard of are given little detail and how these are expected to be judged by non-Americans, when non-Americans have to go through such forensic detail to get close. A nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court and involvement in the Watergate scandal. That's all anyone has to go on. And when anyone questions this sort of thing, who isn't an expert on U.S. politics and courts, who isn't interested in U.S. politics and courts, they're looked down upon at best, maliciously attacked at worst. -- (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very old, of strictly national interest, did not achieve the office. Abductive (reasoning) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
He didn't even achieve the office? That's even worse! -- (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
He was most notable for the way he was rejected from SCOTUS. He was a United States Circuit Judge, Solicitor General, and acting Attorney General. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
What way was he rejected? This has been made completely unclear in this nomination. It is as if everyone is supposed to know about it or something. A "Circuit Judge, Solicitor General, and acting Attorney General" is not much more convincing than a Supreme Court rejection. -- (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: An Israeli politician and a German politician, both of whom went further than a nomination, also died today. Bork hardly even qualifies as death of the day. -- (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So nominate one of them and stop complaining about this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • But I'd oppose all of them. I was just saying these sort of people die routinely every day across the world. -- (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: How is anyone who doesn't know who he is supposed to be convinced by this? The article doesn't even make it clear. "A hotly contested United States Senate debate", some "strong condemnation" from Ted Kennedy, his video rental history(?!) and lots of uncited material about a rejection. How can this have so much support? Is everybody blind? -- (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • They won't be convinced by the way you lay out your arguments. Those two articles are certainly much more barren than Bork's, suggesting they've made far less impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Bork has a ton of uncited material. His claim to fame seems to be his failure to reach high office. He was an old man. The nomination was very poorly laid out for anyone who was not familiar with him. Is that laid out a bit better? It's as if these people are just expected to walk onto the ticker with no opposition or something. Then when somebody does oppose it's a massive shock and the fireworks start. -- (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker His SCOTUS nom has WP:EFFECT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In what way? -- (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Borking became a verb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. At last. But is that enough? How many people have their own words? Wasn't there something about Romneyshambles recently? And he didn't make it either. -- (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Before Bork, the Senate rarely discussed SCOTUS noms, and more or less rubber stamped them. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh for crying out loud. Surely we can come up with a better candidate for the ticker than a failed, washed-out politician.--WaltCip (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • How about a leading scholar in his field? That'd be Bork. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The nomination placed emphasis on Bonk's unsuccessful court attempt and an involvement in the Watergate scandal. This is hardly the sort of thing a leader is known for. At least he has his own verb I suppose. -- (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for front page As above, really. Simply not important enough for the front page under our usual measure, so the ticker doesn't change that. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This whole circus is really getting draining now. Here's a suggestion: scrap the ticker, and never give any deaths a full blurb either. I don't care if it's Obama committing suicide on live television on Christmas Fucking Day – if we don't post deaths, we won't have to go through this pathetic rigmarole on an almost daily basis. There is other news to report apart from minor-level American politicians snuffing it, and these arguments are not worth having. (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I wholly agree. This is another example of a completely ludicrous sideshow where pigeons are fighting over crumbs for the sake of boasting about getting a bit of crust. Since the death ticker took over ITN/C, I've noticed that valid nominations are being sidelined or allowed to go stale, and all for the sake of admins (in particular) to rub themselves into cheap thrills. We've had enough time to see the damage the death ticker is doing to ITN/C, let's abandon it now, for the sake of the entire project. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coming from a culture without a "supreme court" equivalent I have to profess ignorance as to their importance. However, I am knowledgeable as to Watergate, and Bork's role there was pretty minuscule in the wider picture—I certainly wouldn't have supported the posting of John Ehrlichman or H. R. Haldeman, for example. Liddy's another matter given his media prominence but that's a whole other kettle of fish. From the seems of it, Bork had a relatively high number of almost-achievements—acting Attorney General, nominated for Supreme Court, marginally involved in Watergate—but nothing that outright says "Look at me, I mattered". GRAPPLE X 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker. This guys' considered one of the leading legal scholars of the last century in the US, was a best-selling author, and just under the supreme court when nominated. Opposes above based on opposition to his politics and calling him a washed-out politician are ignorant in the extreme. BTW, I though the guy's judicial philosophy was extremely flawed, opposed his nomination, was glad he dropped out (but not for the reason why) and think his actions under Nixon were awful. But yes, I think a serious encyclopedia would bump a 13-day oldest person listing for Bork in a heartbeat, and call upon an admin to make a judgment here to post based on the seriousness of the man's role in modern law. PS, none of the other current nominees/listees has a word coined after him: to Bork. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Borking mad. Isn't that what the older, more recognisable argumentum ad hominem is for? Why did they need to coin a new word? By the way, at least this is an actual credible support with clear use of reason. -- (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Too many people comparable to him to have his own posting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker - Not just anyone can claim to be a verb, as in Borked. And if you don't know that, you just don't know history, and I can't help that you are uninformed. Arguments against posting are in that category, in my view. Jusdafax 08:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think we can seriously regard 'to bork' as a widespread word; and it's highly confusable with the hacker-slang term 'borken' or 'borked' for 'broken'. And in any case, that's a lousy claim to fame. This is of purely local interest; and by 'local' I mean the Beltway. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Extremely important legal scholar, and his nomination changed the Supreme Court nominating process. Wouldn't support for a standard blurb, but appropriate for the deaths ticker. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • They Borked Bork! This will be an interesting footnote in any future analysis of systematic bias and the objectivity of Wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] South Korean presidential election, 2012Edit

Article: South Korean presidential election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: Park Geun-hye is elected President of South Korea, becoming the first woman to hold the position.
News source(s): BBC News VOA Sydney Morning Herald Reuters CNN Wall Street Journal Washington Post

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.

 --Tone 12:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • General elections are ITN/R; should be posted once results are in and article updated. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: Park Geun-hye has trounced the almighty "X" as the winner. –HTD 15:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The sections for nominations of the main parties a a bit long and could be split to seperate articles maybe? Otherwise post once all the numbers are in as per ITN/R. --LukeSurl t c 17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable event. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Posting. My nomination, but it's ITNR. --Tone 23:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] UBSEdit

Article: Libor scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Swiss bank UBS is fined $1.5bn, following an investigation into the Libor fixing scandal
News source(s): [23] [24]

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 07:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose for impact. No industry changes will likely occur, and this type of "company fined for regulations violations" is something that is becoming routine. Also, I'd like to add an extra oppose to the nomination for the laziness and deceitfulness of portraying a single article as two different sources. (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Is that you Medeis? -- (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if we didn't post anything else yet on the Libor fixing scandal. It's a big deal. Musicians goonna die, that's not going to change, politicians gonna get elected, no change their either, and banks gonna get fines for being criminals. Shouldn't ignore their crimes. -- (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Large fine of a large company for a big scandal. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once there is a good enough update, I gather it's pretty big fraud based on the quick run through the news I saw.EdwardLane (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
comment suggest article should be Libor scandal (I've added that to the template), article needs update. EdwardLane (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. Formerip (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Libor scandal is an exceptionally good article, and the issue is of pretty huge magnitude (in that strange shadowy realm of international finance which basically rules the world). Quite technical tho, but that's where an encyclopaedia like the one we have here can be of most use to readers. --LukeSurl t c 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Question. "Agrees to pay" seems like odd wording, although I notice it's how UBS put it in their press release. Is paying the fines voluntary? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's more that they've elected not to contest things legally at this point. However it is odd wording, so I've changed the blurb to the simpler "is fined". Also the BBC had an excellent article on this, and I've used this to create a paragraph in the article. LukeSurl t c 01:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't recall seeing news of the record fine on HSBC on the ticker. And if that didn't deserve a ITN listing, than neither does this. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • There was consensus to post, but the article lacked an update. SpencerT♦C 02:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

December 18Edit

Gulf of Aden migrant boat disasterEdit

Article: December 2012 Gulf of Aden migrant boat disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​55 migrants are killed in a boat capsizing in the Gulf of Aden.
News source(s): Al Jazeera CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 55 deaths, generally of the magnitude that warrents an ITN posting. Article seems well-sourced and of sufficient extent. --LukeSurl t c 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article currently too brief; could use some more expansion. SpencerT♦C 23:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

December 25 Deadline Approaches for Mes AynakEdit

Snow close; wait until something occurs with the site and then re-nominate at that time. SpencerT♦C 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Mes Aynak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A major archaeological site of Buddhist ruins in Afghanistan is scheduled to be destroyed on December 25th, recalling the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
News source(s): [25]
  • Oppose This is the third time this nominator has put this story forward. I sympathise with his frustration in trying to gain support for a worthy campaign in the face of what seems like incredible commercial insensitivity to history and culture, but as previously, there is no news story relevant to the date of the nomination. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Kevin, the news story would be the actual destruction, rather than its approach. LukeSurl t c 10:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin's reasoning. I would suggest a SNOW close since this isn't going to be approved until something happens there. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow nothing has changed since the last two times this was nominated. I sympathize entirely with the subject of the blurb, but ITN is a profoundly bad place to try to gain the sort of visibility that (I assume) the nominator wants. (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait (suspend). I hope they will be preserved, but any outcome will be ITN-worthy. Brandmeistertalk 12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin. Nothing's happened yet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui acquittedEdit

Article: Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Congolese militia leader Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui has been acquitted by the International Criminal Court of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
News source(s): BBC News
  • Support as the resolution of a war crimes case, in addition to being heard by an international body. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support wondering if all verdicts of the ICC on war crimes or crimes against humanity should just be ITN/R ? EdwardLane (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article needs to be updated; it still says "judgement is pending". In addition, I think that Mathieu_Ngudjolo_Chui#Career should be a tad longer, similar to how Ante_Gotovina#French_Foreign_Legion_and_after and the following section in that article are longer. SpencerT♦C 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Article updated, though it does seem a bit heavy on the court case now. C628 (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Update looks solid. I would've preferred if the earlier section in his article had been longer, but I'll see if I can find further information to add there myself. SpencerT♦C 17:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

December 17Edit

Daniel Inouye - Recent DeathEdit

Article: Daniel Inouye (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [26]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: If "recent deaths" is indeed supposed to focus on the biography rather than the specific update, Inouye has a bio to honor. And if it's also a matter of update, well I'm updating on his hospitalization of 11 days ago, which I hadn't heard about until now. --– Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for RD ticker. One of the longest ever serving United States Senators in history. Canuck89 (converse with me) 23:23, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • RD Ticker - As per nom, a biography of note. LukeSurl t c 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Never heard of the bloke, and have no interest at all in Hawaiian politics, but seems like he should be there. Sampling random months, daily hits are rarely less than about 600, often much more. Kevin McE (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - incumbent, current senate president pro tempore, very notable. – Connormah (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A President Pro Tem, has represented Hawaii in Congress since they got statehood, Medal of Honor recipient. Certainly worthy for the ticker. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Lukewarm Support once updated, not a back-bencher, long significant career, not like he'd be pushing anyone else off the ticker now. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Article: Daniel Inouye (talk, history)
Blurb: United States Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Daniel Inouye dies at the age of 88.
  • Support as full ITN story - Inouye was a World War II Medal of Honor and Order of the Rising Sun recipient, a representative, the incumbent president pro tempore, and a senator for just 17 days shy of half a century. There are few biographies in our project that can be said to compare.   — C M B J   09:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for both/either - It's quite clear that his achievements go far beyond his long and distinguished political service. I'm content for his name to stay on the ticker, but I'd be pleased to see a full listing instead. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose With all respects to Inouye, he had almost no international profile. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
At least one embassy has mourned Inouye and his death has been reported or syndicated by major publications in Australia (Sky News), Canada (CTV News), Denmark (Fyens Stiftstidende), France (Le Figaro), Germany (Donaukurier), Hong Kong (The Standard), Iran (Press TV), Italy (Il Tempo), Mexico (El Mañana), Poland (Gazeta Wyborcza), Romania (Adevărul), Russia (LƐNTA·RU), Switzerland (swissinfo), Taiwan (Radio Taiwan International), Turkey (Hürriyet), the United Kingdom (BBC News), and Vietnam (Thanh Nien).   — C M B J   12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb - I think the ticker is sufficient. Career was extensive but generally national in scope. Death, though occurring while in office, was from natural causes and somewhat expected. LukeSurl t c 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Inouye received prestigious honors in Japan (Order of the Rising Sun, Order of the Paulownia Flowers), France (Legion of Honour), the Navajo Nation (honorary membership), and the Philippines (Order of Sikatuna, Order of Lakandula, Philippine Republic Presidential Unit Citation, honorary citizenship in Bulacan and Pangasinan).   — C M B J   12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Previous discussion has suggested full blurb in cases of natural death should really be reserved for international household names, which is not the case here. LukeSurl t c 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There does not appear to be clear consensus in this area, at least not at a glance: no formal position on its implementation has been adopted by the relevant guideline and multiple attempts to hash out the ticker's scope have failed in just the past two weeks.   — C M B J   17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thread withdrawn as miscommunication.   — C M B J   16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn.   — C M B J   16:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
All the postings CMBJ lists are 2011 or before, i.e. much prior to the Ticker being introduced. LukeSurl t c 14:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There appears to have been a pretty serious misunderstanding on my part, so I'm withdrawing the above comment and collapsing this thread to focus on more productive discussion.   — C M B J   16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
CMBJ seems to have demonstrated this is being covered internationally (even Iran, hardly a fan of the US) which would suggest there is some level of international recognition. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
That a story is covered to a basic level on many websites internationally doesn't really much nowadays, as it is very simple to port a newswire story into a basic web posting. Many websites will translate and write up Reuters et al. stories as a simple matter of course. As a more instructive yardstick, see what level of prominence a story is given in the bulletins of the major international news services (BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN etc.) --LukeSurl t c 14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In no particular order: NBC - 2x home page; CSPAN - home page; Press TV - home page; NHK - 3x in world news; Yahoo News - home page; NPR - home page; USA TODAY - home page; Chicago Tribune - home page; NY Times - home page; TIME magazine - home page; The Guardian - home page; The Atlantic - home page; Washington Post - 2x home page.   — C M B J   17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
All of those are US (I assume you're seeing the US edition of the Guardian front page, because I don't see it on my UK version. I can't see it on PressTV front page at the current time). The exception is NHK, which has placed it into the world news section. This just isn't an international story of the magnitude than warrants a full blurb for a recent death. LukeSurl t c 17:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
CNN is US as well — I assumed that you were speaking of placement on any site with a substantial international readership, which is an equally important metric for ITN inclusion.   — C M B J   01:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Though I understand the reasoning given by the oppose voters, Inouye was the second to last WWII veteran in the US Senate (New Jersey's Lautenberg is the last) which marks a fundamental generational shift in the Senate and politics. [27] I think that aspect pushes it over the notability threshold for me. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose significant figure, but now that we have the recent deaths ticker only the most legendary should have a full blurb. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose He was up there with the more important senators, but there's plenty news that needs a full blurb. Wouldn't oppose changing link to Sen. Daniel Inouye. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the short discussion that did take place at WT:ITN, only those with the very highest global profile, whose death would trigger a major global media circus, should now be blurb deaths: he does not have such a profile. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
In contrast, there is lengthy, ongoing discussion about whether the ticker should even continue to exist. We shouldn't be categorically excluding this (or any) nomination under the given circumstances.   — C M B J   14:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And as long as the discussion is not over with consensus indicating otherwise, it's status quo. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The status quo is that the death ticker exists as an option.   — C M B J   06:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. The person is notable without doubt, but that notability is not that significantly based on his death, and therefore this event is not meant for a full blurb in the template. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

4179 Toutatis flybyEdit

Article: 4179 Toutatis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese lunar probe Chang'e 2 flies by asteroid 4179 Toutatis and takes first close up pictures of this Near-Earth object.
News source(s): NBC News

Article updated

 --Hektor (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Like many interesting astronomical observations, this is a mere curiosity compared to other news. Also, this does not appear to be fresh: our article on 4179 Toutatis says the flyby was on 13 December. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • First we are not talking astronomical observation, we are talking astronautics. Otherwise I thought that space firsts were valid entries. This is the first time a Chinese spacecraft observes another object beyond the Moon at close distance (i.e. 3.2 km) ? Similar feats by Japan (Hayabusa) had been ITN I think. Hektor (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as a milestone in Chinese space exploration, but I think the blurb should be reworded to focus on that aspect and less on the asteroid itself. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Question': What did this discover? Was it interesting? Currently 4179_Toutatis#Exploration merely says that the flyby happened with a few numbers, which to me is a an insufficient update for this event. Also worth noting Alex's point that this occurred 13 December, so even if we do post it will be quite far down the list. LukeSurl t c 11:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose on evidence so far about what brings it to a notability threshold. Am I right in surmising that the only first is that probes from that country haven't done it before? I don't think our threshold has dropped that low. Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This was unexpected, and kept secret in case of failure until after the accomplishment, which is major, and a first for China. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
To clarify to Luke and others, this was a moon-orbiting probe that complete its lunar mission and was retargeted to Toutatis only after the fact. The mission was not planned ahead of time, and it was not announced until after it was a success because it was risky and uncertain. It's actually quite a development, and has no parallel. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If what Medeis says above is correct, 4179_Toutatis#Exploration should be updated to reflect this. Right now, it seems like a typical flyby mission looking at the present update. Or I'm not sure if the updated article should be that of the probe itself, namely the Chang'e_2#4179_Toutatis_mission section. SpencerT♦C 01:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Kevin. Fortunately these flybys are happening more and more often, and I don't think it's necessary to highlight every individual first that comes along with this fact. Especially when the "first" has been done before. Space knows no borders... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree that the update is pretty darn thin, but I expect that to change rapidly. This is a fascinating article on a topic in the news. The Chinese first is appealing as well. Overall a fine candidate. Jusdafax 05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support if the article incorporates the points made by Medies above. I'm weary of the petite nationalism that says we should post accomplishments based on the actors, and not the accomplishment itself, but if this event really is the first impromptu mission change ever then I would support it. (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we get the pictures taken into the article? Would they be licensed in the same generally free was as NASA pictures? Currently my support hinges on the quality of the update, which I do not think is presently sufficient. Also note that if this is posted, chronologically it fits between the knife attack and the Tallow Candle items. LukeSurl t c 10:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
To support my clarification above: "Chang'e 2 was launched in 2010 primarily to serve as a lunar orbiter, but after a successful mission at the moon, the $132 million spacecraft was repurposed as a deep-space explorer. The encounter with Toutatis had been planned for months, but Chinese media kept mum about the results until Saturday."NBC News It should be noted this is the first time a moon orbiter has been repurposed to visit an asteroid. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] World's oldest living person diesEdit

Article: Dina Manfredini (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Dina Manfredini, who recently became the world's oldest living person (and 10th oldest person ever recorded), has died at the age of 115.
News source(s): "Iowan who was world's oldest person dies at 115". Retrieved 2012-12-17.

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, Wait Support ticker. Curiously, her successor Jiroemon Kimura will break the male longevity record (currently set by Christian Mortensen in 1998) if he lives for another 11 days. Seeing as the "world's oldest living person" title changes hands quite frequently, I think Kimura would be a bit more interesting to ITN editors. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why is he more noteworthy? The title and ranking does not change all that frequently – there is just a recent cluster. Any change in it is quite an accomplishment, and, I believe, newsworthy. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Note further that, just a few hours after her death, there are hundreds (maybe thousands – hard to tell) of sources reporting it in many languages. It's a big story. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I actually didn't think of the ticker when I opposed, so I'd definitely support that, but considering the fact that she only held the title for a few days, I'd be inclined to say that her tenure was pretty non-notable. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the oldest person ever, just the oldest currently. Since people do tend to die quite shortly after becoming the oldest currently living, I don't think we should be posting every one of them. If/when the oldest person ever record gets broken, that would be more appropriate. Modest Genius talk 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • RD Ticker: Looking at Oldest people, it seems the average "reign" is about a year. That's probably borderline on an acceptable rate for recurrence of largely identical ITN stories. Using the ticker means we are using less space to tell the story. LukeSurl t c 21:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker only: achievement is by default, record is only ever discussed when it changes hands, record holder rarely does anything to support a public profile other than breathing (possibly with assistance). Ticker ready for some change: Rivera's and Ahmed's deaths were over a week ago, all three are older stories than bottom one on template. Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ticker- Novelty story that could get some interest. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker Too common of an occurrence to justify a full blurb IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ticker only. Too common an event. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 23:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Pretty absurd given Jiroemon Kimura Besse Cooper, the prior world's oldest person had died only 13 days earlier. This is an event that usually happens many times a year. While I won't argue this should be pulled, Inouye's death is far more notable. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    Jiroemon Kimura is still alive, but I guess we can still understand your point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, copied wrong name by mistake. The point still stands, an under-two-week record holder is absurd, and this sets a terrible precedent. Admins should do a little research. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we could have a "world's oldest living person" ticker. Formerip (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Having watched how ITN/C operates for a week or so, I think fears of a "terrible precedent" are unwarranted. There are bigger issues than whether we're going to put Mr. Kimura on the ticker in the future. Maybe dial down the near-constant hyperbole a notch? Then, when you actually do think something is absurd, people might take your comment seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, please, the posting was simply not justified, and I am quite sure you didn't realize it was being put up less than two weeks after the last oldest person in the world had died. The fact is, admins need to pay more attention, not less attention. That being said, who cares, the listing isn't keeping some more important person off ITN, so I certainly don't. Perhaps we should add this to ITNR? μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would support adding it to ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd third that, if we confine it to the ticker. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the first ITNR ticker item. I think such deaths would be a good fit for the ticker. We should probably consider the omission of Besse Cooper an oversight. When Jiroemon Kimura becomes the oldest living man ever, I think that may be full blurb material, but that's a somewhat different story. --LukeSurl t c 10:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've written an ITN/R nomination. --LukeSurl t c 11:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull As has been said above, this "title" changes regularly and the notability question is far more complex than just passing a baton between each elderly person fate and fortune deigns with longevity. It's potentially bias, as records are more accurate in the developed world than elsewhere, so we could be opening ourselves up to a real problem of precedent. Pull this from the front page whilst we fathom out a solution doktorb wordsdeeds 05:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • All or nothing. I see no particular basis to pull, and would have been neutral on a full blurb had I seen this before I posted. That said, RD seems the worst of all worlds in this situation. Sometimes we post people who were huge in a few countries and relatively unknown in others: for them, RD works reasonably well. But Dina Manfredini was not a household name in any part of the world. We should therefore either have posted a full blurb to explain that she was the world's oldest person, or not posted at all on the grounds that she wasn't well known enough. —WFCFL wishlist 09:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • If people want to find out who she was they can click on the link and read the article. LukeSurl t c 10:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I was hoping for a response with even the slightest of insight. —WFCFL wishlist 03:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, WFC. We have an RfC recommending the insertion of random links throughout WP. If people click on them, they can find out what they are about as well. Kind of viral and all Third-Milleniumish. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

December 16Edit

[Posted] Japanese general election, 2012Edit

Article: Japanese general election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Japanese general election, the Liberal Democratic Party wins an absolute majority in the House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb: Shinzō Abe is elected Prime Minister of Japan as the Liberal Democratic Party win an absolute majority in the House of Representatives.
News source(s): FT LA Times BBC

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.

 --RJFF (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • We've got the results, but the article could use a little more TLC before posting.--Chaser (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Post once the article is tightened up, as Chaser suggests. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Since this is listed at WP:ITN/R, we don't need to establish consensus before posting; we just need a sufficient update.--Chaser (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I realize that, I was simply saying it needed to get the TLC you suggest before posting. :) 331dot (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support re: notability as per WP:ITN/R, but the article is far from ready, and is very much in a "pre-result" state at the current time. I've done a little bit on reactions/analysis prior to my bedtime here, but a lot more needs to be done. This is an election about who runs the world's third-largest economy so we should aim for more than the bare minimum. There should be plenty of sources around. Indeed, as an experiment I'd recommend that ITN/C readers, even if one does't have time to edit the article, collect sources which can be used by other editors and place them in the template above. (This seems like a good use of ITN anyway). --LukeSurl t c 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I now agree with the below that the article is Ready. --LukeSurl t c 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable event. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR. The post-election update is sufficient, although hopefully some of that will make its way into the lead in the near future. —WFCFL wishlist 08:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready - article seems fine now. Modest Genius talk 18:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 FIFA Club World CupEdit

Article: 2012 FIFA Club World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Brazil football club Corinthians wins the 2012 FIFA Club World Cup, after 1–0 win over English club Chelsea in the final.
News source(s): (ESPN) (FIFA)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major football tournament. --NickSt (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. If I read that right, this is a tournament between regional champions, right? Seems significant enough. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is something of an oddity of a tournament (rather like the FIFA Confederations Cup and the FA Community Shield and its equivalents in many countries) whereby winning the event that qualifies a team for this is a massive goal for the teams involved, but this is itself not much more than an overblown friendly tournament. Although they were guaranteed a place in the semifinal against opposition they should beat 19 times out of 20, winning this will have been at best fourth in Chelsea's priorities this season behind the League, the FA Cup and the Champions' League. Kevin McE (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. Really, with Corinthians beating the UEFA champion I think the arguments that this tournament doesn't matter to the teams playing should be ditched. Both teams played full strength squads and it clearly mattered a great deal to both teams. All statements by the team officials indicate that this tournament is one of the teams' significant priorities. It probably matters more to the South Americans which I think accounts for the European perception that this is a second rate tournament. I also think it's time to post this to ITNR. However, the article needs more prose so I'm marking it 'not updated'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
If you have quotes from the beginning of the season saying that, I'll withdraw my oppose. But comments in the immediate run up to the event or immediately after by the winners are slanted by circumstances, and any comment that says "it is an important competition, honestly" is only necessitated by widespread opinion to the contrary. Articles on all but one of the other previous winners have it at the very end of the listing of achievements in the opening paragraph, suggesting that to fans of those clubs (let's face it, most club articles are largely fan written) it is less important than the others. Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Kevin's right. I'm sure FIFA would like this to be considered important, but the simple fact of the matter is it's a glorified series of friendlies. I'm not as well-versed in non-European football, but I can guarantee the Champions League is considered vastly more important than this by Chelsea. Johnsemlak may be right that the non-Europeans care more, though I'm not aware that anyone really believes this is the top achievement in world club football. LukeSurl t c 14:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if there's a championship parade at the streets of Sao Paulo once Corinthians arrive. Otherwise, oppose. –HTD 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- A huge upset in the most underrated football tournament in the world. The fact that Corinthians can now call themselves FIFA World Champions should mean something. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, seems to be the top-tier inter-club competition, higher than UEFA Champions League. Brandmeistertalk 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The thing is, it isn't. As Kevin said above, although a European side needs to win the Champions League to qualify, no-one (in Europe certainly) considers this a more important competition. Compare media coverage if you're not convinced. LukeSurl t c 16:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The Champions League may be more popular, but it's organized by UEFA and only European clubs can compete there, while the tournament in question is a FIFA-run Club World Cup, where all clubs compete as the name suggests. I watched the final match and both teams played at decent, non-friendly level, with one red card and nice defense by Cássio. Brandmeistertalk 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose recurring event, not on ITN/R, and nothing particularly notable about this occurrence of the event. There are already nine association football items on ITN/R. Lets stay with that list please, so that we don't randomly post sporting events based on the whims of whomever happens to be participating at ITN at the time. In the name of consistency, stop this madness please. -- (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Discussion of whether or not this should be a recurring event should take place over on that page, not here. This page is just to talk about the event going on ITN. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You're very wrong about the "nothing particularly notable about this occurrence of the event" claim. Rarely does the European team lose the final. Also, I think this should be ITN/R, and as far as I know it has never been up for discussion, so the fact that's not on the list means nothing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There really should be some sanction against the posting of blatantly untrue claims in the hope of swaying the opinions of the uninformed. S American teams have won 4 out of 9 editions of the competition: that is as near as is possible to equalling Europe's success rate. European teams have lost 38% of the finals they have reached (and once didn't even reach the final). 38% of the time is not rare. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That part stricken, but my other point is still valid. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Struck, I note, with no apology for attempting to mislead. Your opinion as to whether it should be at ITN/R is not relevant here, and it has been discussed there. Kevin McE (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support it is the highest honor for a football club. Nergaal (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Source? Or just assumption based on the puffed up name that FIFA give to their own event? Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Very weak support only if it is posted under the Connecticut shootings. Otherwise, support this, as it looks like an important match. gwickwiretalkedits 17:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely oppose any changing our ordering practice, even for the sake of cute American kiddies. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • weak oppose based on judgments above that nine other tournaments are of more notability. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Based on the discussion above, this doesn't appear to be a particularly notable event. In addition to the opposition, I take note of Bzweebl's comment that it's "the most underrated football tournament in the world" — an acknowledgement that it isn't among the more highly regarded association football championships. It's not our place to promote sporting events that we believe should be considered important. —David Levy 18:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a glorified friendly tournament that no-one takes very seriously. There's very little interest except from fans of the teams taking part. Modest Genius talk 19:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per arguments that this event is not on ITN/R. This event falls short of the mark needed, in my view. Jusdafax 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose a friendly tournament between just four clubs, two of whom are perennially pointless, and a needless distraction mid-season for the European club involved. Who won it last year? Not a clue...... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Both of your claims are untrue: 1) Not a friendly tournament. 2) Six teams, not four. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, it's seven teams. The host FA gets one slot. –HTD 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A recognised FIFA event organised to showcase the best teams from recognised regional competitions, with the two finalists having amongst the best players in the world on their teams doktorb wordsdeeds 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support because "World Cup" mean a lot specialy when champions from the 6 populed continets are in, and 16M US Dollars is the money price to split betten the 7 teams for play and win this playoff. Become the real World Champion is the news. --Feroang (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • This is sorta not correct. The AFC Champions League is basically a closed system (think of it as like the US/Canada and Australian sports leagues where there is no promotion and regulation). This means not all of the members of the AFC can participate in the AFC Champions League (unlike UEFA's competition which allows even shitty leagues such as those in Northern Ireland and San Marino to participate). I dunno about other leagues, but this brings to question that all leagues pitch in. –HTD 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Important international event. Seen by many people in many different countries. ComputerJA (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing can disguise the fact that this match was a glorified friendly. Not the trophy, not the title, not even the formalities that were the semi-finals. In fairness South American supporters do tend to care about the competition somewhat more than European ones – win or lose – but only a particular year's winners would ever claim that it came anywhere near the Champions League or the Copa Libertadores. —WFCFL wishlist 08:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jalsah MoviesEdit

Snow close; nominated at DYK. SpencerT♦C 02:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Jalsha Movies (talk, history)
Blurb: ​This television channel is going to be launched today (16 December, 2012). Article created: Today. It is being expected (by different Bengali film personalities) that this channel will be the biggest Bengali movies channel Ref If article length is going to be an issue I can try to expand it a bit more, but, all the information I have at this moment is on the launch. It is difficult to write on the the channel without knowing the structure and even program schedule (before the official inauguration) --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. This is going to sound like a crap reason, but here goes. I think we need to leave the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting up for a while more before an update. I will rethink this oppose sometime late tomorrow or Monday, but I do not think the time is right now to bump the massacre down on ITN. I have no prejudice against this however. gwickwiretalkedits 04:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Launch of a 24 hour movie channel is a special event for Bengali television industry. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Assuming nomination in good faith (so is the above oppose). it would probably be best to close this per WP:SNOW rather than opposing it 50 times. This just doesnt meet ITN criteria and is not of enough importance/interest. Please read WP:ITN for general guidelines... -- Ashish-g55 06:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The nomination is without a doubt in good faith; there's no reason for that to be questioned. However, the news is simply not important enough on an international level to warrant inclusion on ITN. I would suggest SNOW closure. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this nom and support a closing of this per WP:SNOW. Seems like an advertisement more than anything; certainly not a news story. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can't imagine any support, lets bury it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per 331. --LukeSurl t c 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Perfect for DYK. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

December 15Edit

[Posted to RD] Recent death of Páidí Ó SéEdit

Article: Páidí Ó Sé (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Independent BBC The Sun The Belfast Telegraph

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
  • Weak Oppose Plenty of sports figures die at this age, and the fact he had a pub with famous people's faces on the wall is hardly notable. Please convince me he's otherwise more notable than other recent such sports deaths. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That he won ten All-Irelands as player and manager across four decades? That he won a record-breaking number of All-Ireland medals on the field of play and still holds that record? That he only conceded once to a direct opponent in ten All-Ireland final appearances? That he captained his team? That his team is essentially the Brazil of his sport? That he is essentially the Maldini or Beckenbauer of his sport? That he managed a team that had never won anything to their first title at the top level? That, on top of all this, he died suddenly in the morning despite being well the night before? That the President, lots of senior government ministers and other politicians, and rival players and managers, tripped over themselves to pay tribute? That he's been in the news continuously ever since? Did you even read it? How can you have ended up focusing on the pub after all that? -- (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be evil, but "all-Ireland" compares in population to "all-New Jersey". Are there other ways to gage his merit?
Well, the Beeb isn't Irish and doesn't bother too much with any football that isn't soccer. And New Jersey's population outweighs that of more than about 150 other countries if this is correct. Therefore New Jersey has more merit than most countries on Earth. All-Maryland + All-Minnesota + All-Colorado + All-Wisconsin nearly equal All-Australia. Therefore maybe they should break off and form their own country with Wyoming and/or Vermont? All-Norway + All-New Zealand + All-Uruguay + All-Mongolia + All-Republic of the Congo is less than All-Texas. Therefore Texas has more merit than random bits of all the other continents. All-Oceania is less than All-California. Therefore California has more merit than an entire continent. These equations are quite fun and could be done all day but what point would it prove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker. Ó Sé's achievements certainly place him in the uppermost echelons of the sport; that his success hasn't been coupled with international recognition shouldn't diminish it. GRAPPLE X 01:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker per Grapple's reasoning. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for both We would not put him on ITN so why support putting him on the ticker? Not notable enough - remember when we cared about notability ? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Iconic national figure: I suspect that it is difficult for many readers to appreciate how deeply engrained GAA is in national psyche in Ireland, which is key to his profile. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker. IP made it pretty convincing that he was at the top of his sport. Perfectly suitable for the ticker. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting to RD. The article has a good amount of material describing Páidí Ó Sé's career, and the IP makes a very convincing argument for inclusion. SpencerT♦C 03:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

December 14Edit

Lieberman fraud and resignationEdit

Avigdor Lieberman
Article: Avigdor Lieberman (talk, history)
Blurb: Avigdor Lieberman resigns as the Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister and as Deputy Prime Minister following an indictment for fraud.
News source(s):

Article updated
  • Oppose. We should consider political resignations in context. In this case, Lieberman is not very well-known outside Israel and, even in the context of Israeli politics, the resignation is likely to have a very limited impact - with an election upcoming it's not going to cause a crisis in government or even necessarily have much effect on Lieberman's career, it seems. Also "following an indictment for fraud" is obviously misleading. Formerip (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Formerip. They are also correct that using "fraud" is misleading, as the exact charge is "breach of trust". 331dot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, he was also originally accused of fraud, but prosecutors have not charged him with it. Formerip (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbingEdit

Article: Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​23 people are stabbed in a knife attack at a primary school in Xinyang, Guangshan County, Henan.
News source(s): This tragedy is getting coverage in the world's English-language media. Some examples are CBC News Sky News
  • Neutral Oppose. The event does not have an article. Without an article, the ITN candidate cannot be posted. Needs further expansion. Currently at 1214 characters. Would like to see it meet at least the DYK length criteria (1500 characters). Also, was the attack significant? How does it compare with other events in China?--xanchester (t) 23:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The article is now DYK length. Regarding impact of event, its being reported in BBC, NYT, etc, etc. Google "闵应军" to see the story in Chinese language rolling news. As School attacks in China (2010–2011) shows, this isnt the worst school killing, but this is like a serial killer - each time it happens the general public's concerns multiply. And they always use knives - that is cultural. Knives don't kill as often, but that is the weapon of opportunity in China. China isnt even listed on list of countries by firearm-related death rate (for various reasons, including tight regulation and minimum prison sentences: Gun_politics#China). John Vandenberg (chat) 06:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Satisfied with the length. Thank you for the expansion. Leaning towards support, but the impact of the event and reactions should be discussed in the article. --xanchester (t) 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I understand it, there have been no fatalities, and this is no longer that fresh a story. Proposing it now, in light of the mass killing in CT, seems a bit pointy. Please let's not have a spat about US-centrism today of all days. Revised argument: No fatalities, no article. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    We can't post it if there's no article, but, it isn't a stale story, it happened today. And if you don't want to have a spat, perhaps don't accuse someone of being blue-linked pointy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. It may well be that I have confused this mass stabbing with another. I retract my statement (Struck out above.) AlexTiefling (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What did I tell you, Hydrox. No deaths, no sympathy (so to speak). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Article created. Expanding now.. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support now that article exists. GRAPPLE X 03:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • A point of note: ITN does not require a new separate article on a topic to be valid; just *some* article has been expanded to discuss the ITN. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, but prior to the article's creation it seemed nowhere else contained this information (nor was there really any article that seemed relevant to update). GRAPPLE X 08:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support-ish, but wait a bit. As a knife attack, deaths aren't expected. However, if the same attack were performed with a gun, there'd be mass deaths. I do think we need to wait maybe 12 hours (or longer), or people will think "attacks everywhere = end of the world". gwickwiretalkedits 03:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Bad Taste the rationale and everything about this is pointy. As a survivor of someone who was murdered, this screams bad taste. That's a strong oppose, btw. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you honestly think that the fact that the nominator may be trying to prove a point discredits the fact that 22 children were stabbed? If you have a bias, just leave it aside, please. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. A bias against "slashed" children who haven't died? I do find the nomination repulsive, but I don't have anything against the children. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
        • My point is that whether or not the nomination is pointy, the fact of the matter is that it's still a nomination, with a valid story. But your entire oppose revolves around the nom being in "bad taste". So it's not a really valid oppose. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news, and the article is good enough. --Jayron32 05:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no fatalities. The story has mainly had prominence in the West due to it somewhat mirroring Sandy Hook - I've seen a few posts which essentially use this to say "if the U.S. didn't have guns, people would survive the attacks." It would be highly unusual to post a non-fatal attack like this to ITN, and, I think I agree with μηδείς, it would seem "pointy". --LukeSurl t c 10:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support lets be hard hearted about this, it is not just another stabbing, its a mass stabbing in a school, and it is in the news, which is why I'm giving this weak support, it is probably very slightly more in the international news coverage because of its comparison to the school massacre in the USA, but I'm not sure that extra coverage is bad, and the 'pointy' comparison is in the news too, so we could reasonably have nominated the comparison in its own right. So I don't think the possible comparison to the sandy hook is an argument against posting this, if anything it seems an argument in favour of posting this in a combined blurb (which seems unlikely), so if there is a good article out there comparing gun control and fatality rates in massacres or perhaps this table which is similar, and we can get that into the blurb then I'd change from weak support to support.EdwardLane (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Difficult one, marginal support. There have been many similar events in recent years, with greater number of injuries or multiple deaths: much lower levels of media attention than this week, and no sniff of a nomination here. The suddenly enhanced attention to this incident is, one can only assume, due to piggybacking on the Connecticut incident. On those grounds, I so nearly came down on the side of opposing, but on balance I support on almost exactly the same grounds. Even if it is only due to tragic circumstances that it has been given media priority, we should overcome systemic bias to post events in China that we would otherwise support in the anglophone world. Kevin McE (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose We did not post any of these, of which there are much more serious attacks, and this seems just a bit too reactionary due to the Connecticut shooting. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll give it a Weak support, only because I'd put my full support behind it, had we not already posted another similar nomination. But this is just as big of a deal as the CT shooting... just because they didn't die doesn't mean it isn't as tragic. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- The difference between dead and wounded is overrated, though still important. These kids will be scarred for life, and this is as much a tragedy as the US one. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted There seems to be sufficient consensus to post this, and the article has sufficient information about the incident itself. -- tariqabjotu 04:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Staggering, unprecedented, absolutely mind boggling fail - Bus crash in China == "OMG Support", massive freeway pileup in America == "Yawn, no deaths". Massive school shooting in America == Support, so you would expect tragic school stabbing in China to be "Yawn, no deaths", but nope, up it goes. Let everyone who wailed and cried of "Systemic Bias" over that dead musician get a good look at this one. Utterly ridiculous. -- (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    A car crash is a teensy bit less newsworthy than a mass stabbing. But hey let's drag nationality into it for no reason. GRAPPLE X 12:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    Some Chinese mayor steps down steps down and it goes up, Lieberman resigns in Israel and it's more "Yawn, not news" (even though and have already posted that story to their MP). If there is systemic bias here it's that you can't take a walk in China without it getting posted to ITN, unless of course some village throws off the shackles of their fascist oppressors, making international headlines, then it's "Yawn, village dispute". Should just get a cname created in DNS for to I mean, really, how did this get posted?? -- (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This unregistered user is using an IP account that self identified as User:IP98 on the talk page the other day. IP98's userpage acknowledges his previous Wikipedia identities as user:StopChinaNow and user:TheSinophobe. Such user names might cast some light on 76.110's attitude in this discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's me, IP98. This was posted either because of blatant, unwavering Sinocentrism on WP, or someone just had to Think of the children. -- (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "Massive school shooting in America == Support, so you would expect tragic school stabbing in China to be "Yawn, no deaths"." There were 23 deaths. Staggering, unprecedented, absolutely mind boggling logic fail. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No: there were 23 stabbings, none of which were fatal. Please read the article/discussion/sources lest your accusations of a fail rebound. Kevin McE (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Ouch. Agree that the Staggering, unprecedented, absolutely mind boggling fail is squarely on my side. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The implication from having this on ITN is that the stabbings were fatal, which they were not. I really don't like this posting (see above), but if we have to have it, please revise blurb to explicitly say the incident was non-fatal: 23 people are injured in a knife attack at a primary school in Xinyang, Guangshan County, Henan. --LukeSurl t c 13:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I tagged this item as "Needs attention", my raving notwithstanding, LukeSurl has an excellent point about the blurb. -- (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Tag removed. Blurb has been rephrased, and IP98 has made it very clear in the past that he has some agenda on items regarding China which means that his contributions in regard to any item emanating from that country cannot be taken on face value. Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. My disdain for a brutal band of baby butchers has nothing to do with this fact that this item should never have been posted. I live in Miami, next time a kid gets shot on the bus I'll be sure to whip together a stub of an article and nominate it here. A kid, a bus and a shooting, we could speedy post that! The good news is that as of this posting, the old argument "not enough deaths" no longer stands. -- (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Shootings happen in Miami all the time. Tell me the last time an elementary school in Lewisport, Kentucky was shot up.--WaltCip (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Easy now. WP:NOTBATTLE & WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Looking at some of the discussion above, I fear a lot of 'support'ers may have assumed the attack was fatal (having not actually read the article). I'd really not want to use this as a precedent as it is so counter to all pre-existing custom here. --LukeSurl t c 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull There's no consensus here, we have three supports, three opposes, three weak supports, one weak oppose, one wait and one neutral. The precedent set by this is bizarre. Will we now post "23 sent to hospital after stink bomb is set of in building" and "50 people hurt on golf course when lightning strikes nearby"? It's obvious this topic is parasiting its notability off the Connecticut shooting, even the noms comments note that, and it would never have been considered otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You've been here long enough to know that we don't just count votes. Read the quality of the opposition arguments and you'll see a flawed reasoning behind most (including your own) of them... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Where is the significant impact? Did the President of China give a press conference after the stabbing as Obama did after the shooting? (No.) Did dozens of international leaders rush to give their condolences to China? (No.) Did anybody die as a result of these stabbings? (No.) Is this form of political dissident or protest as uncommon as it is in America? (No.) Poor comparison; thoughtless application of avoiding systemic bias doctrine. Shrigley (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see the need to compare this to the US shooting. That event was especially notable, so comparing other events to it would leave ITN dry. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No-one is questioning that the Connecticut shooting is notable: please don't invite analysis of your emotional biases by expecting everyone to agree that it is especially so. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Is that a reply to me or someone else? The indenting indicates it is for me, but I can't understand what it means if that is the case. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You're the one who said that an item was not merely notable, but especially so, so yes. Kevin McE (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull - Add me to opposers on the lack of ITN-worthiness and also those who don't see consensus to post. Just pull it now. Jusdafax 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull. It appears there was no consensus to post this item; there is still much disagreement about it. It should be removed until that is cleared up. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull already with what I think are new commenters Jusdafax, 331, and Shrig, it looks like there's a strong anti-posting consensus. I have to wonder what's going on when the same admin who pulled a nom with ten-to-one in-favor support leaves up a nom with two-to-one opposition. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    I was watching this page, and I have been seeing what's going on. But no one ever comes here to say they are so happy an item has been posted. So, I was going to take a wait-and-see approach. However, now that you've accused me of impropriety with a shit summary of the two actions, I'm not going to follow this section anymore or take any further action on it. So find another admin to listen to your whining. -- tariqabjotu 23:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This crying about not having consensus is totally unjustified. The three main arguments against this were that it's a WP:POINTy nom, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that there were no fatalities. The only valid argument was the latter, so I don't see a strong case against before the post. The pulls are calling out the "non-consensus" while IP98 and the opposer are crying OTHERSTUFF again. I see absolutely no reason to pull. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't appreciate to your referring to my objection as "crying". There was no need for that, it's just my opinion. Your view you posted above is yours. Your opinion that the objections of those calling for it to be pulled is invalid is just that- your opinion- which I don't happen to agree with. Though I didn't mention it, it is not irrelevant to bring up another, somewhat similar event. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I admit it was a lack of a better choice of words. But it does seem that, for the most part, the pressure being placed on Tariq for his decision is a little overly frantic. And no, it isn't irrelevant to bring up a past event to refer to for consensus, but it is rather absurd to be using them to accuse people of being pointy and in bad faith – or to use them as the basis of an argument (because WP:CCC). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"Cry" as a transitive verb is rather different (Henry V, Act III:Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George!): it means to call out, not to sob and weep. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Where I live, "crying" in some contexts refers to repeated and sometimes unjustified complaints and has a negative connotation; it does not just mean literal sobbing and weeping or simple calling out. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seriously once an item is up people need to calm down unless there was strong consensus against the item at the time of posting. It looks AWFUL to pull an item once its been posted and should only be done under exceptional circumstances. And this particular item is really not that bad. It contrasts US school shootings fairly well. I see no reason to pull since article is good, its decently important and its ALREADY UP! -- Ashish-g55 01:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • fwiw, its also on zh:Template:Itn (also in the second slot), and was placed there soon after the article was written.[28] Almost every regional and national news source on the planet is covering this story, and probably most local sources as well, and there is a lot of public commentary discussing both of these events together, including several high readership outlets like an AP story being republished by many newspapers - 666) and a NYT blog post. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Shit? So now people who give rationales for pulling a post can be ignored as crying and whining (I have posted in this thread 4 times, twice as a response to others) and be cursed at by admins who are supposed to pay attention and judge things on the merit? Here's the edit summary which has justified Tariqabjotu in ignoring every contributor to this thread: "I have to wonder what's going on when the same admin who pulled a nom with ten-to-one in-favor support leaves up a nom with two-to-one opposition." [29] This factual comment deserves the response "shit"?
Regardless of his opinion of my arguments, Tariqabjotu has just declared that he can abandon his duty to you as an admin to listen to all editors because I as an individual have said something he doesn't like. In other words, your comments don't matter because he has declared like Queen Victoria "we are not amused"? Isn't that special? This is an invaluable lesson. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Sandy Hook Elementary School shootingEdit

Article: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​28 people are killed in a shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
News source(s): [30]
Article updated

Nominator's comments: While school shootings are generally borderline notability, 27 people is a rather large number unfortunately. Article currently is not expanded enough, but I will go work on that some more. SpencerT♦C 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - significant (!) school shooting. for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ...My God. This is the deadliest elementary school shooting in America since the Bath School disaster. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - A very tragic event. Any American school shooting receives a lot of media attention - this is undoubtedly newsworthy -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and Post ASAP and if anyone doesn't mind I added an additional blurb possibility with the number of children killed and without a wikilink to Connecticut.. gwickwiretalkedits 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support A shooting of this magnitude, and in an elementary school no less, is major news. This needs to be highlighted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Clearly there are a lot of unknowns here, so I don't think we should post until the people in charge of investigating give us a good estimate of what the numbers are. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • We know its at least 23. That's bad enough. We can update as it develops. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • No, we don't know. Those are unconfirmed reports. The police are confirming that "several people" have died. That's not enough confirmation to post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, we do know. See the CNN article: ""Close to 20” people have been killed, including at least 10 children, a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation says." and others, including the recent press conference. gwickwiretalkedits 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • No, we don't know. These are all estimates from "sources", and no two source (except from the "18 children, 9 adults" source) has matched so far. Wait. There is no rush. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) As someone recently pointed out, we have an unreasonable fixation with the number of deaths in relation to such sad events. The exact count of deaths is largely irrelevant (and in some cases not even immediately available). I guess it would be often sufficient to just say that there are "numerous" or "several" deaths. --hydrox (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Not trying to argue (I agree for the most part), but wouldn't that make this notable as well? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass here because the editors here are obsessed with death counts. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I say post ASAP because while the numbers might shift, the fact we're going with here is that there was a mass shooting in an elementary school. We know this. That's a fact that won't change. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support & ASAP - The numbers and fact that its an elementary school are what put it over the edge for posting. (However, to Hazhk I would be very cautious to say "any American school shooting" is automatically ITN-worthy, as the country where it happens should not enter into the equation.) --MASEM (t) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Tragic and a huge story but I echo Eric's concerns about rapid posting. Let's give this at least a few hours to get some confirmed facts. Jusdafax 19:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Obvious support based on international prominence of coverage, but agree that we should hold posting until facts are slightly more solid. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb whichever blurb is used, it should say "killed in a shooting", not "killed after a shooting". μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Notable school shooting. Ryan Vesey 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reports now that one of the parents have been found dead at the shooter's house. I stress the need for some time before posting. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That report has been included in the toll already hence it being 27 instead of 26. Also, that's not relevant to the blurbs, and it can be very easily updated as things progress. gwickwiretalkedits 19:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You don't know that for sure. My point is that this shows that there is a lot we don't know. There is no use in recklessly posting this only to embarrassingly update it every hour until we make it to like 30 or 40 deaths confirmed, for example. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • We updated regularly after the Aurora shooting after posting it quickly. As long as the updates follow reliable sources, that's not an issue for ITN, only that some threshhold has been passed. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I've been contributing to ITN for almostover two years now, and while I wasn't around for Aurora, I can personally attest to the fact that we prioritise getting it right rather than getting information out ASAP. This is an encyclopedia – not Wikinews. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
            • However, getting it out quick is better than having people come here saying "What is that school shooting not news enough for Wikipedia?" That's why we do this type of 'post quick then update' things for these news, such as Aurora, Benghazi, etc. gwickwiretalkedits 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)26 confirmed from multiple sources, plus 1 parent = 27 total. That's how I know. ITN is exactly for these kinds of events. Updates aren't embarrassing, they're needed to keep the information correct. That's how ITN works, not 'wait until every single little detail is confirmed by 1,000 worldwide news outlets'. And agreed with above comment by Masem. gwickwiretalkedits 19:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Treating information as being true and then updating it after the fact is embarrassing. I'd like you to back up your claim of "26 + 1" because I see no online news outlets specifically mentioning that; it's always been either "at least 20", "23", "26", or "27". None of them specify AFAICS. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
            • WSJ says "Dozens" in their title. So can we. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
              • We don't follow the same standards as the media. For example, I know for certain that the CBC will broadcast a report as its main source of information if it hears it come from two independent outlets. I have no idea how the WSJ handles reports, but we aren't the WSJ. Precedent here is that we report when we know it is true, and we know it is true when the police in charge says so. They have said that information is coming in a few hours. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────: CNN 26 plus parent. NBC same FOX yet again. There's tons more as well. gwickwiretalkedits 19:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • You're totally missing my point. None of them say that they've added that parent to the death toll. All that we know is that a report came out from two sources saying "27 dead", much of the media reported on it, and then reports came out that a body was found at the gunman's home. No one in the media has mentioned if that parent is included or excluded from that death toll. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think your insistence on having the numbers lined up perfectly is missing the point. Details will be confirmed in due time, but we know enough to move on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this is one of the worst mass killings in American history--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per above, no disptute as to notability. As regards the article, it's not a question of sufficent size of update, but rather wether what is up there is in ahderance with guidelines, especially WP:V. The Template:current notice at the top of the page does alert readers as to the developing nature of the story. Suggest we post as soon as we can, and that experienced editors (i.e. people reading here) keep an eye on the page and make sure everything on it adheres to guidelines, with hasty removal of unverified information, and a skeptical mindset as to the accuracy of sources for the next few hours. Semi-protect if necessary. LukeSurl t c 19:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Over Two Dozen Lets be bold and put this up now with "over two dozen, including 18 children". μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted with a blurb similar to like Medeis was suggesting. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Strongly Recommend Pull. You are setting a precedent for posting ITN stories before we know the facts. You could have waited two more hours thirty minutes for police to confirm the death toll. ITN is not a news ticker, it is a way of displaying good quality, factual articles to the Main Page. Times like these are why we don't jump the gun like news outlets. If you were really keen on updating the ticker, there was a perfectly good article just below this one. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, ITN is a news that showcases updated Wikipedia articles related to notable current events. We regularly post natural disasters before the full death toll is known in the exact way I had just posted this, so I see no issue here. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I guess the big difference between this and natural disasters is that there is currently no official indication of a death toll. None whatsoever, just reports. Whereas, during natural disasters, we often get those kinds of briefings relatively fast. Or at least a range from officials. That's the only reason I disagree here. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think this should have been posted. The article does not have enough information yet to meet our minimum standards. -- tariqabjotu 20:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    And I've pulled it. It's really in terrible condition. -- tariqabjotu 20:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There's clear consensus to post it, you are incorrect in pulling it. Ryan Vesey 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus is independent of the article's quality. And I highly recommend addressing my concern before posting... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Which minimum standards? It seems in decent shape, no orange tags, everything is cited...what more are you looking for on a developing story? Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    I believe this is the standard, as indicated by WP:ITN. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    Bad pull. There's nothing wrong with this article. It's short, but gets to the point. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I would have pulled, but I definitely would not have posted the article when it's in its current state. It's still a little brief, especially Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Shooting, IMO. SpencerT♦C 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not expected to be omniscient I am not quite sure what these mysterious "facts" are that we are waiting on. We go by reliable sources, not Saruman's Palantir. There's not a single source claiming less than 26 dead. If we subtract the killer and his father, that means at least two dozen. The final story won't be known for days, but we should definitely be giving people a link to our article on the front page now. Or if we're so timid we could always relegate this to DYK, in which case we'll probably finally have it right when it's posted ... in January. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Admonish Tariqabjotu for defying consensus. Repost this ASAP. This is insane.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Police have confirmed 27 24 (18 children, 6 adults) dead at the school, two children dead at hospital, one adult dead at the shooter's home, shooter is dead. 28 deaths in total. But I'm satisfied now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting now - After further consideration, I have come around. President Obama has commented on national television, and enough facts are known. I do not condemn those asking to wait further as I understand their concerns. The article, however, is acceptable, if barely, and will improve further in the next few hours. Jusdafax 20:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you all need to put your emotions aside when dealing with ITN. I see no reason why being bold is an excuse to post this item and not for any other item. Tariqabjotu is right to pull it until the facts are established. ITN is not in competition with news sources to see who can have this up first. That said, it has reached the point where the majority of the facts are known, so I support it being posted shortly. --PlasmaTwa2 20:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
My admonition to be bold had to do with using the blurb "two dozen" instead of an exact number. But what would be helpful to know is just what especial facts you have become aware of that this can be posted now. Can you also give the refs? It will move things along. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • According to WP:ITN guidelines - "For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." This isn't exactly the cure for cancer, but it is nonetheless an extremely internationally significant event, as warranted by the support !votes above (not a single complaint regarding U.S. centrism!). A unilateral pull of this post is defiance of consensus and goes against the guidelines of WP:ITN. It is injustice to not provide a link to the breaking article on the front page as a service to our readers and editors.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Long story short, we can't get all the facts in when the editors cannot quickly find the page.--WaltCip (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • "Injustice". Any other emotionally charged rhetoric you wish to add? Resolute 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment At this moment, every statement in the article seems to have a citation. Basic details, reactions, I think this meets minimum standards. LukeSurl t c 20:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This issue has been raised at WP:ANI#User:Tariqabjotu acting against consensusRyan Vesey 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, both a significant event and a well-referenced article. Hope it will be posted soon. Egeymi (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that the cheif of police has gone on TV to confirm 20 children dead, 6 adults, the shooter deceased and possibly the shooters mom, dad or brother (the media keeps changing the story) I say its relevant enough and RS supports all the basic facts, which if not already cited by the article, reasonably will be. Let it be posted!--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Consensus is consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a view about the post-pull-post thing, but it can be quite proper for consensus, as it is meant on WP, to override voting. Formerip (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you clarify? AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying I think you are confusing "consensus" with "voting". The number of people who want the story posted can't necessarily translate to a statement about whether it should be posted or not. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So if the vast amount of people calling for the story to be posted is not a consensus, then what is? One administrator?--WaltCip (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been following. But, in principle only, it could be. Of course it could. Formerip (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. It seems pretty clear that consensus is in favor of inclusion. I don't believe administrators have the right to defy consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. WP:CON states that if the action of an administrator is by and far contested, it must be reverted.--WaltCip (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Post eventually, but not now. Tariq handled this exactly right, in the face of a lot of pressure. Things are changing too fast, let them settle some before we put an article on the main page. We're an encyclopedia, not a news outlet, we do not have the same time pressures they do, and we have an obligation to be more deliberate than TV news shows that absolutely must say something right now. For example, it appears we may have misidentified the shooter. By name. Posting this ASAP does not help anyone, it's not a race, and it's not a measure of how seriously we take the issue, or how deeply we feel about the shootings. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Currently the most significant and talked about event in the USA. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support of course, but as Floquenbeam notes, let's get it right rather than get it quick. BBC News has reported the shooter was incorrectly identified initially, let's get it right and then post. Another day, another shooting. Right to bear arms strikes again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. This is a self-evident argument for repealing the Second Amendment.--WaltCip (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you two don't mean to be insensitive, but I don't think this is a good time to argue politics. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 01:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Never talk about gun control when it's topical. Formerip (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Post or remove ITN from the main page. It's ridiculous to have a section called "In the news" and not have something this significant. If the article isn't right we should fix it right now because it's likely lots readers are going to find it even if it's not on the main page. NE Ent 21:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly, very notable, worse incidents of this type since the Bath School disaster unfortunately. I feel very sad for those who have been injured, and do feel that this should appear on the main page, as people can show feelings, as well as what I've already said. TBrandley 21:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to admins - Tariq has stated that he'll be offline for a few hours, so the continuing assessment of this article's readiness will need to be done by another admin. LukeSurl t c 21:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait before posting - Police have not even left the crime scene, speculation and the news is flying off the handle. Major issues with the article and the coverage are related to its timeliness. Let's wait a bit before posting it up, so things can solidify some more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready Article looks decent. We dont need 100% accuracy since its current event, thats why we have a tag. Things will change as more news becomes available. For now i think its good enough to post. Any passing by admin please post. Thanks -- Ashish-g55 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't have to have 100% accuracy, but let's not mistakenly name someone for a mass murder, ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree however i see that the name has been fixed. I dont see any major issues with article for now. -- Ashish-g55 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Posted. I've not posted a new ITN blurb before, so I hope I did it correctly. I also removed the oldest item that was already there. Not sure what is the appropriate handling here to show that it has been done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support second largest school shooting in US history. Note the total dead is 28 including the shooter and a body found in a nearby family home. 2010 SO16 (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support was shocked that this wasn't already on the front page. Guess beaucracy is alive and well. (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
At the moment its simply lack of Admins... Incase you havent noticed its ready to be posted just need an Admin to do it for us, so please stand by -- Ashish-g55 22:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
and there you go. happy? -- Ashish-g55 22:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I know it's emotive, but shouldn't we be clear that 20 of the victims of yet another ridiculous gun riot were children? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Well it is an elementary school... people will most likely guess its kids that got killed -- Ashish-g55 22:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't make that assumption. It could've been that the gunman busted into a teacher's lounge and started firing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Entirely so, it's important to note that the majority of those shot to death by this guy, with easy access to weapons, are children. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • People are capable of clicking the blue links and reading more information in the article, where they will learn the relative ages of all of the victims. --Jayron32 22:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Why censor this? It was clear the attack was centred on murdering children. The "relative ages of all the victims" is somewhat irrelevant when 20 of them were five years old or younger. What's the issue here with telling the truth about this, most recent US gun crime, sadly centred on killing children? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weeeelll, given that the shooter's father was dead at their home, and the mother was the teacher of the classroom that was killed, and his girlfriend has gone missing, it's difficult to say that the shooter's target was the children. I don't think we should be hiding the fact that most of the victims were children, however. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What has been censored? The information is plainly available at Wikipedia. No one is preventing the information from being read. Censorship is not a synonym for "I am not getting my way". --Jayron32 01:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification Jayron, no-one suggested the censorship was a synonym for anything. It just struck me as significant that 20 children have been murdered in a "first-world country", that's all. It seemed to add further weight to the ITN. In any case, it's no longer of any relevance I suppose. With over 10,000 deaths in the US every year from hand guns, I suppose this isn't really that significant at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • support.the admins decision to pull based on article quality. People claiming this violated consensus need to be reminded that there is a strong consensus that articles only be posted when updated appropriately.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] The Tallow CandleEdit

Article: The Tallow Candle (talk, history)
Blurb: Hans Christian Andersen's The Tallow Candle is discovered at the bottom of a box in Denmark.
Alternative blurb: ​In Denmark, the discovery of a previously unknown 1820s story by author Hans Christian Andersen is confirmed.
News source(s): Politiken BBC

Article updated
  • Support. I don't see much literary news on ITN, and this does seem like a historical find relating to a well known author. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Everyone loves Andersen. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Somewhat stale, the manuscript was actually found in October, don't know why media reported it only now. Perhaps it took some time to positively identify the finding. Brandmeistertalk 08:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe that it has only just been fully authenticated. -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • DYK, I'd say. As mentioned above, it's somehow old news. --Tone 11:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I really hate the works of HCA myself, but finds like this are always of great interest. The October discovery is of no consequence since finds like this take time to verify, and the story is in the news now. Very strong support. μηδείς (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. I'm likewise no fan, but new discoveries of works by acknowledged masters are big news. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: HC Andersen's earliest work is undoubtedly newsworthy. -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Newsworthy discovery of the earliest work of a significant author.--xanchester (t) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Worldwide interest. Nice change-of-pace ITN item. Jusdafax 18:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The Politiken source indicates that it was only confirmed recently. I don't know to change the blurb to reflect that, or if that's even necessary. Marking ready. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Second blurb is definitely preferable. -- Hazhk Talk to me 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously, "nice find" is an understatement. But obscure "lost" works of this type turning up is not a rare event. I remembered hearing about a Titian painting and a Beethoven hymn being unveiled in the past few weeks and so I my slight surprise, it turns out that there are two new Titians [31] [32] (I actually think neither of these are the one I had heard about and two new pieces by Beethoven [33] all unveiled in recent weeks. I think that's just scratching the surface. Since the BBC don't seem to consider the Andersen story important enough to make it one of their featured Europe stories, I don't see why we would want to feature it here. It would qualify for DYK, though. Formerip (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the alternate blurb. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted a tweaked version of the alt blurb. --Jayron32 21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

CIA sodomy/torture rulingEdit

Article: Khalid El-Masri (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Human Rights finds that a German citizen, shackled, beaten and sodomised by the CIA, was an innocent victim of extraordinary rendition.
Alternative blurb: ​The European Court of Human Rights proves Khalid El-Masri a victim of extraordinary rendition by the CIA and fines Macedonia for his arrest.
News source(s): The Guardian Al Jazeera, The Australian, The Telegraph, CBS, New York Times

Article updated
  • Weak Support- The blurb could use more NPOV, but this will be an interesting article for people to read on the main page. A good choice if the article is updated very well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've proposed a modified blurb with less bias and more information about the outcome of the ruling.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with the original blurb. A good example of a U.S. story that should be included on the front page that isn't too Yank-centric.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't imagine a more leading blurb or headline. Basically an immigrant to Germany was caught doing naughty things, got held in Macedonia, where the standards for Muslim prisoners are not that high, and now the CIA is raping German citizens? I think this falls way under the Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo cases in notability. μηδείς (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Please watch what you're saying; you're on BLP territory here. He was not "caught doing naughty things"; he's proven innocent. And yes, he is a proven torture victim, and yes, the CIA are the perpetrators. The case may not be that notable in the US, but it sure as hell is big in the news here in Europe. Fut.Perf. 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I missed it here in the UK. Or, maybe we're not part of Europe - I can't remember. (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • You missed The Guardian linked above from the start of the nomination, I added The Telegraph which might be more to your taste. --ELEKHHT 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Correction: a US court was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the evidence for his participation in a particular attack against the United States. The biography of the man concerned in this blurb notes that he was involved in some transnational Islamist rabble-rousing in Lebanon. Therefore, the description of this man as an "innocent victim" in the blurb is an unacceptable moral judgment as to the sum of his life activities, which were definitely not apolitical. Shrigley (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Such comments that ignore the news item should be disregarded. Appalling standard for an ITN discussion. --ELEKHHT 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - but I don't like either blurb. Courts don't 'prove', they make judgments. And while the first blurb might be, in its elements, true, it seems designed to be emotive. (I'm strongly against the policy that the story relates to - but we're supposed to report these things in NPOV fashion.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support per AlexTiefling. The case is appearing in the news media prominently, so it meets the first criteria of In The News. With him, I don't like either blurb currently, and if this goes would strongly suggest replacing the word "proves" with "rules" or "finds" in the second blurb. Being a scholarly source, Wikipedia needs to strive to use unemotional language as far as possible, and also needs to us accurate words. Courts don't prove things, the rule on cases, and we need to narrowly report the ruling in a way that doesn't prime the reader to have any particular emotional response to it. --Jayron32 17:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    As an alternative alternative blurb, I suggest the following statement from the article itself, which I think does a better job than anything above:
    How does that sound? --Jayron32 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Like a bad parody of a line from the trailer of an anti-Catholic movie on the Inquisition :) μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose back page news at best. Court cases about alleged torture of terrorism suspects are basically routine; especially when the court sitting in one country rules some other country did it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting story that is ITN-worthy. International scope. I support the alternative blurb that focuses on the court ruling, as the original blurb is poorly worded. Suggest that the alternative blurb be used to replace original at the top proposal here. This story is in the news, and the alt blurb can be supported as NPOV no matter what ones personal views are on the topic. Jusdafax 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Categorical oppose First of all, my understanding is that the European Court of Human Rights is not a real court, as its decision set no precedent. The violating parties, their courts and legislature are free to ignore whatever it decides. This decision and other decisions by this court serve a purely moral purpose, failing to be particularly encyclopedic. --hydrox (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The ECHR has no jurisdiction over the CIA; they could say they determined the CIA is controlled by space aliens if they wanted to, it doesn't mean anything. I agree with those who say the blurb is leading. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Has no direct power over the CIA of course, but has been described as a "significant legal rebuff ", and the Republic of Macedonia has been fined. --ELEKHHT 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Significant ruling by one of most notable courts in Europe. An innocent German citizen was tortured by the United States. It can hardly get more notable than that. It is rare that the Americans get caught red-handed, and it is even more rare that a court in a Western country dares to rule against them. Nanobear (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Americans & CIA are best at this. So it's routine. (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a "landmark ruling", so the news item is not about the routine. --ELEKHHT 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb broad international scope, reported world-wide. Also appealing to the admins to disregard the many ignorant comments above. --ELEKHHT 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the notability comes from this being the first time that ECtHR has described CIA interrogation as "torture", then why is that fact not front-and-focus in the blurb? Per hydrox and others, ECtHR is nonbinding, and there's no real world effect except for a small embarrassment to Macedonia.

    There didn't seem to be any real controversy over the word 'torture', except that the US government itself refused to use the word, to avoid triggering certain domestic legislative provisions. Furthermore, this opinion is not a sweeping indictment of CIA, but of an individual case. El-Masri's treatment by the US was tangential to the main issue under ECtHR's purview, which was the behavior of a European country. Shrigley (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

British payment for Gaddafi tortureEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The British government pays £2.23 million to the family of Sami al-Saadi, who with his wife and young children, was abducted with the help of MI6, forced onto a plane and secretly flown to Tripoli, where he was tortured for years by the security police of the former dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
News source(s): [34] [35]
  • Comment. Before commenting on the merits, this needs some sort of article to link to, and the proposed blurb should be much shorter. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Obscure, UK-centric news. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Em, Tripoli is not in the UK? -- (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't get confused. The story is about London's involvement, not torture in Tripoli. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not because it's UK related (which is not a valid objection as stated above) but because of its obscurity. We also need a blurb and article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose back page news at best - lawsuit settlements of individual claims are nearly always not notable. There is no article on this topic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no article and it is not a significant event, or a significant payout. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael Palmer resigns over sex scandalEdit

Article: Michael Palmer (politician) (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael Palmer resigns as the Speaker of the House in the Parliament of Singapore over his involvement in a sex scandal.
News source(s): Today

Article updated
  • Weak oppose. I'd support this if it was the head of state of Singapore or Singapore's head of government, but the office of Speaker is neither and I'm not yet convinced this is notable enough- though I think I could be convinced. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Falling on your sword is probably a good move for your party, Newt Gingrich did exactly the same. But this hardly seems earthshattering, although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per 331dot. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarification of facts: The two Speakers Michaels both resigned the speakership and their seats in parliament. Dunno though if resigning SG MPs are routine, although I heard another MP earlier resigned that led to the Singaporean by-election, 2012 (the next previous by-election there was in 1992). –HTD 08:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

December 13Edit

"Shocking state collusion" in murder of Pat Finucane; PM says he is "deeply sorry"Edit

Article: Pat Finucane (solicitor) (talk, history)
Blurb: Sir Desmond de Silva's inquiry confirms agents of the British state were involved in the murder of Pat Finucane.
Alternative blurb: Sir Desmond de Silva's inquiry confirms agents of the British state were involved in the murder of Pat Finucane; British prime minister David Cameron says he is "deeply sorry" in the House of Commons.
News source(s): News reports: BBC News Irish Independent The Guardian Sky News Channel 4 News Others: Review summary Timeline

Article updated
  • Comment. I considered handling this, as it's major news—but the findings aren't actually new (state collusion was already acknowledged previously), and without an independent inquiry, this is really another step in a story that is neither new nor over. (Though with this, widespread rioting, assaults on politicians' homes, etc, it might be worth looking at a short-lived NI sticky) GRAPPLE X 00:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support despite the objections pointed out above, this event has impact and is certainly in the news, and I think many readers will be coming to Wikipedia to read further about this event and the recent findings. Additionally, the event in question and the surrounding subjects are not straightforward in the same way that, say, the death of an artist or the arrival of a hurricane are. The strength of Wikipedia is that there are very nice, fleshed out wiki pages for this event and surrounding subjects that could very quickly inform a naïve reader in a way that strict news publications could not. Lastly, I would suggest that an event like this, which seems in increase in breadth and scope with every turn, will never be "over" in any clear sense. (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Cameron's apology is the newsworthy item for me. He calls it "shocking" that the government was involved in the assassination, and that is also big news. Wording the blurb may be tricky, but it is worth getting it on ITN. Jusdafax 09:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
oppose local uk issue. Myanmar apologised for the violence on monks a week ago, other apologies are not common but not rare either.Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if made about the apology itself. Geographic objections ("a local UK issue") are not valid("Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country."). I probably would have endorsed Myanmar being included. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A very important story for the UK. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose only of national significance. As Lihaas touches on, other governments committ and then later make statements regarding crimes with many more victims. In this context we need to place the story in an international perspective. LukeSurl t c 15:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that other events with similar apologies were not nominated is not relevant. While this involves an event only within the UK, it is of interest to Irish people in Ireland and elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that this section of the main page is titled "In the news" not "What we wish were In The News" or "Definately Not The Stuff We Wish Weren't In The News". The two overriding criteria is "Is it a prominent in the News" (sources will tell us that) and "Is the article of a state that makes it worthwhile to appear on the main page". Our personal wishes and desires as to what news sources will and will not find themselves worth giving prominence to is not how we decide what should pass or fail a nomination here. --Jayron32 15:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it has been very prominent indeed in UK news. It is insular in the extreme to assume that because your preferred local news carrier does not prioritise it that it is an invention of someone's desire. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Items on ITN are only there because someone nominated them and others agreed with it(in other words, what they thought should be on ITN)- based on their personal opinions as to its prominence, notability, and the state of the article- so I'm not sure how personal judgement can be removed from the process. If someone doesn't believe it to be notable, prominent, or an appropriately styled article, they should say so- but that doesn't preclude others from disagreeing. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
"We didn't have this, so we can't have the other" falls foul of ITN rules and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so Lihaas' vote can be ignored (as they so often are anyway) doktorb wordsdeeds 16:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Since youre so concerned about WP guidelines, NPA = comment on CONENT nt editors.
As opposed to yoru harem of frivolous local nomination turning it into WP UK!Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The last UK blurb to get posted was over a month ago. Just saying. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that UK nominations are invalid in all cases? And are you saying that NPA doesn't matter if calling me the controller of "a harem of frivolous local nominations"? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Last I checked, the Republic of Ireland is not a part of the UK, and this is being reported there. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a report 23 years after the fact, and not an arrest, conviction or even resignation. The scope strikes me as very similar to the Penn State scandal, a very emotional scandal of high local interest, but not a story on the world stage or one attached to a great article. I can understand the pros, but don't think this should push other news off the front page. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reminder: "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country." So what if it's a local issue? You could classify all murders as local issues; are we therefore excluding murder cases from contention on ITN? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I opposed it on the basis of it being a report of a matter out of the news for 23 years that deals with no arrest, conviction or even resignation. Is that clear? I sympathised with the pro votes as well, understanding that this is obviously a strongly felt-about local issue. Is that clear? Wouldn't want anybody to think I was opposing this because it didn't happen in the US. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. What we should have done is posted when the official acknowledgement of state collusion happened. We rejected that nomination, though. This report doesn't seem to contain anything additional of earth-shattering importance. Formerip (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this report is not notable enough for ITN, this was not a massive media story like some other reports regarding northern ireland, such as bloody sunday. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

December 12Edit

[Posted] Mali updateEdit

Article: Django Sissoko (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister of Mali Cheick Modibo Diarra resigns after his arrest by leaders of the Malian coup d'état and is replaces by Django Sissoko.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Update the blurb to add the name of the new PM. ----Lihaas (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy support. ASAP, uncontroversial modification.--xanchester (t) 13:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but since the coup has ended on 8 April according to that article, it shouldn't be bolded. Brandmeistertalk 16:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, agree that the PM should be bolded instead. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, significant event; the blurb includes the PM bolded.Egeymi (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just seen this one, updating. --Tone 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ravi Shankar diesEdit

Article: Ravi Shankar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Indian classical composer Ravi Shankar dies in California at the age of 92.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian classical composer and sitar player Ravi Shankar dies in California at the age of 92.
News source(s): The Star, Washington Post, The Guardian

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Probably the most widely known Indian musician of recent times, remained active musically up until his death, and also very well known for his association with George Harrison. This might possibly be a suitable candidate for a full posting, albeit on the lower end of the importance scale, but #1: it's not a painfully obvious full posting candidate, as they almost always should be (think "Michael Jackson"), and #2: it's honestly not worth the arguments we've been having. Let's just post it to the ticker and be done with it. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support full blurb, how can he not even be in the ticker of recent deaths yet? He is one of the most revered musicians in modern history. Times of India and NYT are featuring it front and center.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - Internationally famous music star who cut across ethnic and generational barriers. Jusdafax 05:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb This is Ravi Shankar we are talking about here. As stated above he was by far one of most famous musicians. As far as Indians go he is one of select few that would deserve full blurb. He is one of Bharat Ratna holder. Please check that list and who is on it before making any comment if you did not know the guy. Most news paper out there have him featured front page right now -- Ashish-g55 06:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
comment not updated.Lihaas (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb no brainer; one of the greatest and most influential musicians of the last n decades who has gone to meet George Harrison. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb Huge name, article has source calling him "the most famous Indian musician on the planet" by 1966. Since that time there has not been a more famous one. Also, father of Norah Jones. Abductive (reasoning) 06:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Discussion on talk page is consolidating around very very restrictive access of deaths to blurb status: discussion not going much farther than Queen Eliz, Pope Benedict, Mandela etc. Of course such a principle should have been laid down in guidelines before enacting RD line, but... Kevin McE (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - This has been posted to recent deaths (not by me). I'm not sure if this was only intended as a stopgap measure or what, but it can always be "upgraded" if necessary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Who is unilaterally posting things per their personal whims? There is a reason we have ITNC and its now updated and also with the caveat of a full blurb by the vast majorityLihaas (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It just looks like an admin who is unfamiliar with ITN who was trying to help. I don't think they were trying to push any sort of preference or agenda or anything, and there's no harm in having it there until it is given a full posting, as appears likely. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
No harm? Then whats the point in having consenssu discussion if it doesnt matter?Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb one of perhaps half a dozen musicians who should definitely be posted. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb for reasons explained above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb but sitar should be in the blurb. --ELEKHHT 09:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There's near unanimous agreement that this should be posted as a full blurb, but I'm hesitant to do so since this seems contrary to the discussions going on at WP:ITNT. -- tariqabjotu 09:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's your's to post, then, but I wouldn't hesitate to post...if the discussions are currently ongoing then consensus has not yet been determined to have changed. Ks0stm (TCGE) 09:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, discussion at ITNT mean there is no consensus eyet, not a reason to hold back on presumption of conclusion without one.Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The consensus seems to favour the upgrade to a full blurb. Done. --Tone 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Full Blurb This was front page news this morning, and I expected this would be going up as a full blurb--just happy to see it done so quickly for once. This shows that the system is working. Noms like Jenni Rivers are not being rejected as not deserving a full blurb, and Noms like Shankar are getting the full treatment they deserve. Of course there will be borderline battle, but throwing the baby out the window won't prevent the dirtying of future dishwater. μηδείς (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. Sorry, I have to oppose this in principle the same way I opposed Brubeck, and second user Kevin McE above. He is notable, but not exceptionally notable to an overwhelming degree to warrant a blurb. Seems to me like all that RD has done is decrease the threshold for an RD post, but maintained basically the same threshold for blurb posts as before. Colipon+(Talk) 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose full blurb, support RD. this might be close to notable enough for a full blurb but I agree with colipon and kevin.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb if we want to add more info, sitar player makes sense, but we don't usually give the local of death unless there's a reason. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb, Support RD. He is well known in many countries but only, IMO, because of his association with George Harrison. Without that I strongly suspect that his fame would be only a small fraction of what it is. I think it is generally accepted that Dave Brubeck should not have had a full blurb and I would contend that Brubeck is as well known as Shankar and that all of Brubeck's fame is for his work and not his association. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support fully, just in case someone thinks it's a good idea to pull. His influence in Western media isn't restricted to George Harrison. This guy was big. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose blurb, support ticker are you kidding? A silver bear at BIFF in 1957? At a time when we're debating when to use a blurb vs ticker, this is absolutely not a blurb item. It's light years away from the Pope shooting Obama. An old performer dies, that was barely a blurb in the past, now it's definately not. Get it out of there right away. Pull --IP98 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I think it might be a good idea to go and have a look at the coverage this is having worldwide - and that's the important part, really. "An old performer dies" is like describing the death of, say, Michael Jackson as "some weird guy dies". Incidentally - 54,000 Google News results for "Ravi Shankar"+death already. I realise a lot of them will be irrelevant, but that's a huge amount of hits. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "It's light years away from the Pope shooting Obama". Yes, very thankfully, and that's why it deserves respectful prominence. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated full support I'm against the posting of most deaths to full blurbs, but Shankar is one of the few elite individuals whose death merits it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why no picture? There isn't a picture up right now, so why not use one of Shankar? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that a photo of him is a good idea. Jusdafax 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ticker only. I'm not convinced this person was notable enough to warrant a full blurb. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb and suggest pulling it, since this person did not have a wide impact on the world. Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support keeping full blurb. Shankar was an iconic cultural figure with enormous worldwide impact. The opposers might want to bother to read some press-coverage. E.g. Slate writes[36]:"It is impossible to overstate Shankar’s impact on popular music and culture. He was more than a great sitar player; he was an essential bridge from India to the Western world.". CNN writes[37]: "If there was a musician who transcended the difficult boundaries between East and West, it was sitar maestro Ravi Shankar." And so on. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Apparently he even appeared in a little musical get-together, somewhere in New York, organised by somone called George? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Image We do have this cropped free image or its parent image avail for posting with the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] First North Korean satellite launchEdit

Article: Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea successfully launches its first satellite, Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2, using a Unha-3 carrier rocket.
News source(s): [38], [39]

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: North Korea claims to have successfully placed a satellite in orbit, which obviously should be taken with a grain of salt. South Korea is saying the launch may have been a success. I may be jumping the gun a bit here, but once the updates happen, posting this is a no-brainer, whether orbit was achieved or not (we've posted several unsuccessful North Korean launches in the past). I've omitted the blurb for now until we know for sure if we're dealing with a successful launch, or another failure. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. If they let that unicorn pilot it, this is definitely ITN-worthy. GRAPPLE X 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. NORAD seems to confirm that an object was indeed put in orbit. NORAD acknowledges missile launch Hektor (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support pending expansion of the article. Satellite launches are ITN/R, the first successful launch by a country is highly notable, and in this case especially so as it is controversial. I've also added a suggested blurb to the template. --W. D. Graham 08:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support although I would strongly oppose language that tries to editorialize this as "controversial." All satellite programs in every country began as thinly veiled ICBM tests. (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed, I proposed the blurb "North Korea successfully launches its first satellite, Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3, using a Unha-3 carrier rocket." as it seemed fairly neutral. I was just saying that it had achieved a lot of international coverage because of the controversy, making it even more worthy of inclusion. --W. D. Graham 08:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Huge news. If there is any doubt over whether the launch was a complete success, or whether the "object" in space is a working satellite, removing the word "successfully" would resolve this. —WFCFL wishlist 10:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    The launch is widely regarded as having been successful, and NORAD have confirmed that three objects have been detected in orbit. Since the nomination, the article has been expanded significantly and is probably nearly ready now, however the reactions section could probably use some more information. --W. D. Graham 13:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • North Korean media are referring to the satellite as "《광명성―3》호 2호기", or Kwangmyongsong-3 Unit 2, so I've renamed the article and adjusted the blurb accordingly. I think this is about ready to go now. --W. D. Graham 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Mainstream is running with it. Likely it was successful. Important geopolitical event. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support given what various sources have stated while still fully investigating exactly how "successful" it was. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Note: I've removed the ready tag, as the section titled "Launch" at the bolded article (which is the obvious relevant section and article here) has "citation needed" tags and zero inline references. If that is fixed, I will post this. --