Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2015

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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.

Contents

December 31Edit


[Posted] New Year's Eve sexual assaults in GermanyEdit

Article: New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A mass sexual assault on women by up to 1,000 men of Arabic or North African appearance occurs during New Year's Eve celebrations in Germany.
Alternative blurb: Mass sexual assaults on women occur during New Year's Eve celebrations in Germany.
News source(s): Many in article

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Aftermath looks like it's going to be important, at least for Germany, but possibly also for the entire European Union. Banedon (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support widely reported news event and article seems well supported with reliable sources. Not sure about blurb though - it doesn't mention the location of the event, it's quite long and the gender of the attackers is redundant (women don't sexually assault women, it's obvious that men assaulted them) - have suggested an alt blurb. MurielMary (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    Missed that the country isn't given. I've added that. Not so sure about ethnicity, but in the sources I'm seeing it's quite heavily emphasized. I don't mind alt blurb, though. Banedon (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with a preference for a variation of the alt blurb, we don't need to include the purported ethnicity of the assailants in the blurb, but the location of the event is paramount. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current reportage seems quite confused and this may just be a moral panic. It's a week since New Year's Eve so we should wait to see whether anything comes of this or whether it just blows over. Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. What coverage I have seen on this seems to focus on current protests about it (example, BBC); if we post anything I'd be inclined towards mentioning this. GRAPPLE X 12:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point. What I've heard from the news is that there were no serious physical injuries, deaths or mass protests. Having surrounded the women, the mob just tried to grope and undress them. Will reconsider in case of serious aftermath, but so far this looks more like a media hype. Brandmeistertalk 13:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I realize you're just trying to demonstrate the minimal impact of this event, I hope you realize how flippant and careless "just tried to grope and undress them" sounds, as if it was just an innocent act.--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
In terms of ITN, it is. Brandmeistertalk 13:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support seems like a major news development in Europe. would add fuel to refugee migration debate in Europe. --Saqib (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I have checked. Marvel Hero (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support this, but how common are sexual assaults in Germany during the New Year celebrations? Are they basically non-existent? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - widely reported. and major news development. But I agree with TRM, no ethnicity needed in the blurb itself.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as widely reported and of political notability. The ethnicity of alleged assailants is directly related to the significance and impact of the event. It is emphasized in media reports of this subject, and therefore I strongly recommend including it in the blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but do not mention the ethnicity in the blurb. Let's not give in to systemic ethnocentrism.--WaltCip (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "systemic ethnocentrism." Are you implying that it is inappropriate to expect that those from other cultures abstain from rape, mugging, and assault when in Europe? In any case, leaving out a fact that essentially every reliable source focuses on might seem to be an attempt to right great wrongs through censorship. Mamyles (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
My understanding of "systemic ethnocentrism" is the notion that some editors will insist that everything be labelled with an ethnicity/nationality as if it matters. This is a story of mass protests about sexual assault (and to a lesser extent, about police response to it); it is not a story about race/ethnicity/nationality. GRAPPLE X 15:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
This story is so significant and widely reported because of the alleged ethnicity of assailants, given the recent history of migration in Europe. Of course it matters in this case. Mamyles (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The Michael Brown shooting was posted on ITN and it was widely regarded to be a racial issue. Not once in the blurb was it mentioned that the shooter was Caucasian and the victim African-American. Why mention it here?--WaltCip (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing. Generally agree with Andrew D. and Brandmeister, though not with the latter's "just tried to" rhetoric. As far as I've seen in Eng. & Ger., no arrests yet, no one charged. Although Cologne Police say they have identified three suspects, no details released. Thus, the article is necessarily incomplete at this point. Sca (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but agree to avoid ethnicity mention at this time, since this is only from scattered reports. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait. This is still being quite actively investigated, there have been no arrests yet, and police attention is apparently shifting now to a Düsseldorf crime ring.--Pharos (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support big news item, worthy of our coverage, and the article looks good. --L.tak (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Moved to the correct date. The event time in UTC was December 31. LoveToLondon (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Shocking incident in a civilised society that could have some political implications regarding the influx of refugees. STSC (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Change it to asylum seekers instead of Arab and North African men. Marvel Hero (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources all say something along the lines of the assailants having "a North African or Arabic appearance." Reliable sources do not say that they were asylum seekers. Mamyles (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, appears to be a case of mass hysteria, and a fuller understanding may merge in the coming days. At this point the narrative is rather confused and based on speculations (i.e. quoting 1 public official on ethnicity and extrapolating on it), and the ITN posting would just push the rumour-making further. --Soman (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Mass hysteria? We have to see notability. Then delete articles about U.F.O. and Yeti as they are hoax and hysteria.Marvel Hero (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article quality is currently very low.
  • The introduction talks about 4 cities, except Cologne the article does not describe what happened (e.g. how many victims) and what the reactions were on a per-city basis.
  • The article is contradicting itself and incorrect even on basic facts.
  • 8 asylum seekers detained and five men from ages 18 to 24 were arrested are not exactly matching.
  • Police confirmed that eight arrested suspects were all asylum seekers, who were known to authorities because of a history of pickpocketing. is pretty much the opposite of what the police is saying - latest information I am aware of is that there were no arrests so far, and the police has not made any statements on whether suspects are asylum seekers.
  • Media reactions and how they are discussed are an important part of the whole topic. The article does not properly discuss this controversy and the relationship to the migrant crisis. The only entry currently in Media is one opinion piece in the Huffington Post (not an RS), and the opinion piece also does not demand what the article claims (publishing CCTV footage would be unconstitutional by a large margin).
LoveToLondon (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There are many RS online. The editors must pick them. Marvel Hero (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
FYI, as of 18:00 Wednesday the German Wiki article doesn't mention arrests either. Sca (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Terrible. However, this doesn't reach the global levels of wide interests. Also, the sensationalism on this kind of violence would push away the "periodic table" blurb. We can nominate how many rapes occurred in other countries or worldwide. I'm astounded by so many supports due to article quality and the press's tremendous emphasis on this. George Ho (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Every one of your points is invalid here at ITN. Opposes should not be made simply because the events relate to a limited set of countries; Notability to post is based on the event, not what older event will fall off; This is a notable event, not a statistic; Article quality is already far beyond that required for ITN; and "the press's tremendous emphasis on this" is relevant to why this should be posted. Mamyles (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
No, the quality of the article is currently far below what is required for ITN posting. In addition to the problems I already listed above, I just noticed that the article also fails to explain that according to the police the sexual assaults were largely to distract people and use the resulting confusion for thievery. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We would post nothing here if every article needed to be perfect. As described in WP:ITN, the minimum is three well-formed paragraphs. This article vastly exceeds requirements. Your ways to improve the article, while valid and productive, belong on the article's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Not perfect would not be a problem. But we are talking about an article that makes incorrect disparaging claims while omitting known essential information like why it happened. Instead of wasting your time here making incorrect claims like Article quality is already far beyond that required for ITN, you could start editing the article and bring the quality to a level good enough that it could be considered for ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose stale, and depends on a whole lot of alleged crimes for which we have no notable articles. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Stale, hysteria, what else. Notability is ignored. This is more than just news. Marvel Hero (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb to better adhere with NPOV. Majority of opposing arguments are not convincing to me, article quality is fine for ITN, and there's enough support to post this, for however little it will be up on the main page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added orange tags and a summary on the talk page explaining the already mentioned problems of the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've pulled it temporarily until the orange tags are resolved one way or another. Jehochman Talk 02:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Close - At this point, even if the tags are fixed in time, it's going to be pushed out by a more recent ITN story. We had our chance to post it.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree re closure – No change Thurs. State interior minister, per BBC: "Three suspects have been identified ... but no arrests." If down the road there are arrests, charges, deportations or other measures, might be ITN material. Sca (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Re-posting now that the tags have been resolved and the article is in better shape. There's nothing to immediately push this off the bottom but it won't be there for long. Stephen 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Stale. Sorry but have to ask, does an almost evenly split vote constitute consensus? Sca (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    (1) it's not seven days old (just) so it's not stale. (2) Consensus isn't based on counting votes. You should know that by now. To think otherwise is simply silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I feel that we have to look at this one a bit differently. The date of the event itself is stale, yes, but news only broke massively (it was relatively local beforehand for some reason) two or three days ago which is when it truly became "in the news" worldwide. Certain opposes don't hold any water in my opinion; quality concerns have been addressed and claiming "mass hysteria" breaches WP:OR. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Wayne RogersEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2016 (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: Wayne Rogers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1]

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: Very notable actor, starred on M.A.S.H. for a few years, also has a Golden Globe nomination and a star on the Walk of Fame. Aerospeed (Talk) 17:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. "Starred on M.A.S.H. for a few years" is stretching it; he was part of an ensemble cast for three seasons, appearing in less than a third of episodes (74 out of 256, according to M*A*S*H (TV series)), and while he had a long career he never appeared in anything else of any particular note. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of several main roles in 3 of the 11 M*A*S*H seasons. No awards ever won, only one Golden Globe nomination (funnily, he lost to Alan Alda who won that Golden Globe for a role in M*A*S*H). Clearly not very notable. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to poor sourcing, agree with above statements that just being on MASH is not sufficient to gain importance, we have to look at the entire career (eg as Alan Alda would likely merit). --MASEM (t) 18:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent, a popular actor but nothing more than part of the bigger picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - M*A*S*H was an absolutely iconic show and thus he is very well remembered. Should be featured. МандичкаYO 😜 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – per Iridescent and LoveToLondon. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Natalie ColeEdit

not a single update to the tagged sections since nomination; feel free to reopen upon updation. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2016 (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: Natalie Cole (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: Grammy-award winning, sold millions of records worldwide... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support but good god, that's an awful photo in the infobox. ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvements - Inportance as her own (not just as the daughter of Nat King) is clear. Lots of unsourced paragraphs, and there's one section that is pure proseline. (And I would agree swapping the 2007 pic as the infobox image, its much more flattering). --MASEM (t) 18:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support ITN, At the very least she should be listed as ITN "Recent deaths" frontpage especially since she died December 31, 2015 you have look at the previous year to see that she died now that it's 2016. also support swapping pic ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 18:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment there needs to be some serious work on the sourcing before this can get close to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Why not edit the article, that you have nominated, as part of "some serious work"? It's currently locked so ordinary folks can't even edit it? 86.181.130.136 (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I nominated it as a result of another editor making a request to see it on the main page. As for the page protection, you can always make requests on the talk page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Really? As for "some serious work", you can always make edits in the article page. 217.38.140.9 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, really. Of course I can always make edits to any page, I have an account and I'm an admin, but thanks for the reminder! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Or you could not bother and just stay here bossing other people around. Why is that article locked down. 217.38.140.9 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Not at all, I'm just suggesting to those who support it that they may like to help as right now it won't be posted. I don't know why the article is protected, probably due to vandalism. Feel free to log in and help, since you're so interested. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets the criteria as important to her field. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - International star. RD for sure, and a blurb would not be unreasonable given the relatively young age. Jusdafax 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    Nope, we had a 47-year-old rejected because death at his age wasn't unusual, so that's not gonna happen here. Either way, the article is in no way fit for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Cole passed notability wise, no question, but the article has an orange tag with good reason. It needs more sourcing. It has been updated well and that's good. Add sources and its a go! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Suport on Improvement the entire "music career" and "personal life" sections lack a single reference. Given her awards, hits, and full career, I think there's no question she'd RD material. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - very famous and beloved performer; very newsworthy МандичкаYO 😜 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for RD only, gained a boost from much more famous and influential father. Abductive (reasoning) 00:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Fire at The Address Downtown DubaiEdit

Already nominated below --MASEM (t) 06:37, 1 January 2016 (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: The Address Downtown Dubai (talk, history)
Blurb: The Address Downtown Dubai is severely damaged by fire.
News source(s): Reuters Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Spectacular fire severely damages a very tall building. According to the authorities, there were no casualties, a fact that in itself is surprising. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] North American winter stormEdit

No progress made on either side of the argument, seemingly a war of attrition to see who would give up first. Neither party, including myself, put forth effort to actually add the requested global coverage—namely the Paraguay floods. Further discussion needs to be had in the future on how to properly handle multiple, near-simultaneous, natural disasters so this issue doesn't crop up again. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:26, 3 January 2016 (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: Late December 2015 North American storm complex (talk, history)
Blurb: Record and near-record flooding causes at least 20 deaths and widespread disruption in the US.
Alternative blurb: ​A winter storm produces tornadoes and record flooding across the Central United States, killing at least 39 people.
News source(s): Reuters Will lower world oil prices and raise gas prices
 Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

28 dead, large evacuations, 18 million warned and in case we've forgotten this is still winter despite the cherry blossoms in the North on New Years   so floodwaters are forecasted to turn icy (!). This gauge in my continent's biggest river has recorded the highest flood in 171+ years of measuring. It's supposed to take a winter's worth of melted snow and/or spring/summer thunderstorms to break records, to break flood records in winter is unheard of. The most tropical-like winter airmass in the East and South US which caused the tornados is now causing things like the 3rd highest flood in St. Louis in at least 230 years and the breaking of records a little downstream. This might be worth looking into. My city's December was 7° warmer than any on record (145 years), how cool is that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Target article would be the December 26–28, 2015 North American storm complex—as it's the system that triggered the flooding—but it's a mess at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for this latest fashion in avoiding the use of the nomination template and avoiding a suggested blurb? This isn't really the forum for suggesting that some news item "might be worth looking into"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements to the article. Added an altblurb to encapsulate the whole storm. Twenty deaths were from flooding, eleven from tornadoes, four from the blizzard, and four from snowfall in Minnesota. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose US-centric blurb The result of the US storms discussion for December 28th was A lot of movement and chat about this and related stories, closing this to see if we can get a better, bigger-picture story. It is not helpful to have yet another US-centric blurb suggested for the same storms. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The issue with the previous nomination was that it was lumping multiple, largely unrelated events into a single article without a solid reason. It was shot down due to lack of cohesion. This article pertains to a single event with widespread damage, significant loss of life, and considerable disruptions to tens of millions of lives. If you can't think of a better argument against a weather event that pertains almost entirely to the United States, I suggest you find something better to do with your time. This anti-US rhetoric on ITN/C is infuriating. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree with Cyclonebiskit. We are headed into deep waters, and I mean it in numerous ways. Jusdafax 01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
He's not opposing the nomination, he's just opposing the blurb. Banedon (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The blurb is inherently US-centric because it's a US-centric event. Opposition to such a blurb is inherently opposing the event, unless LoveToLondon forgot to read the entire nomination and previous discussions on the topic explaining why they've been separated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The current weird weather is inherently not US-centric. Storm Frank hitting the UK, and high temperatures at the North Pole. More than 100,000 people displaced in South America after the worst floodings in half a century. Severe flooding in Northern Australia. Unfortunately the article lacks any meteorological background (it focusses on the effects in the US), but my layman understanding is that at least the high temperatures at the North Pole and the storms in the US are actually confirmed to be part of the same weather event. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Except they're not all the same storm and it would be inappropriate to lump them all together. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just because storms happen around the same time doesn't mean they're the same complex. Nominate whatever other event you want and have it judged on its own merits; having an article and blurb to cover "weird weather" across the globe is an absurd notion. This particular event far exceeds ITN notability standards with loss of life and disruption. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
RS says it is not an absurd notion to lump them all together: The north pole could be hotter than Chicago, Vienna or Istanbul on Wednesday due to the low pressure system that has brought tornados to Dallas and high winds and heavy rainfall to the UK. LoveToLondon (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Whoever wrote that sucks at reading surface weather analyses as the storm system that spawned the tornadoes in Texas moved to the Great Lakes and dissipated over Ontario yesterday. A completely separate system brought the heavy rains to the UK and surge of warm air to the arctic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Another RS that contradicts your claims: A powerful winter cyclone — the same storm that led to two tornado outbreaks in the United States and disastrous river flooding — has driven the North Pole to the freezing point this week, 50 degrees above average for this time of year. LoveToLondon (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention that The Guardian believes the storm in question "reach[ed] speeds of up to 230mph", which is laughably inaccurate—we'd all be in serious trouble if that were the case. It seems like that particular piece should be taken with multiple grains of salt.

As has already been pointed out, the North Pole warm surge is a non-story: on December 30, temperatures in that part of the Arctic Ocean briefly approached or reached 0C (the North Pole itself having probably remained a couple degrees below freezing). That's an enormous departure from normal, and worth further meteorological study, but the warm front retreated after just a couple hours and temperatures returned to normal by that night. A storm event involving a meter of snow, one of the most severe December tornado outbreaks in history, record-setting floods, and about 40 fatalities seems to far surpass "weird" weather in terms of both newsworthiness and permanent notability. There have been minor power outages and evacuations in the UK, but nothing that would ordinarily make ITN. Unfortunately, our coverage of Storm Frank (a distinct weather event by all serious accounts) is severely lacking. Instead of opposing this obviously important submission, why not propose your own alt blurb that encompasses the US natural disaster and the UK weather, without giving undue weight to the latter? It doesn't particularly matter how closely the North American and European storm systems are related (and sources do differ drastically on that, regardless of our confirmation biases); one component of this storm sequence has killed dozens of people and broken many hydrological and meteorological records. That it happened to occur in the US instead of a sexier nation is not of concern. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit - I can't explain it, but the blurb feels like it's written by a US editor for a US audience, while the alt blurb does not. That's why I say the blurb is US-centric, and support alt blurb. Banedon (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The alt blurb was my addition as the initial nomination was too focused on a single aspect of the overall storm. I've been working under the assumption that the alt blurb is the focus here as it's the more comprehensive of the two. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that neatly explains why the blurb is US-centric. Banedon (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly notable and ITN-worthy. Let's get this posted. Either blurb works for me. Jusdafax 01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Jusdafax --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - original blurb is too US-centric for me. Banedon (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the orange maintenance tag is fixed and preferably someone actually fixes the sortability of the table etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's weird weather all over the world. To focus on a particular river seems too parochial. Andrew D. (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see much coverage outside North America. Everyone seems to be pre-occupied with their own weather phenomena, and thus no ITN worthy item can be distinguished (unless the "meta" item from below is approved). In Europe the (lack off) water management policy in the UK seems to be the weather news item of the wek... L.tak (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do no suggest that an oppose opinion is a complaint. And please note I didn't say it was related to a single country, but about the news coverage not being world wide. L.tak (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
So 40+ deaths, millions of lives disrupted, thousands of homes damaged or destroyed in a major country is not notable. Got it. I'll keep that in mind for the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I suggested that (did I?). But my problem is the news coverage outside North America that is scarce... There are a lot of cynical news-reporting facts that make the number of deaths not the most important factor (a plane crash in the US killing 20 would create sufficient international news for an ITN item I guess. L.tak (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
That's how your comments have sounded to me, but my apologies if I'm accidentally twisting your words (and for the unwarranted sass). Regardless, each event is taken on its own merits, so plane crashes and natural disasters are not compared. This is the deadliest and most disruptive natural disaster of 2015 in the United States. Nominations are not just judged by how frequently they're circulated in the news, as if that were the case we'd be flooded with celebrity news and other pointless drivel from Hollywood. It's the large loss of life, significant damage, and millions of lives disrupted that this storm notable and worthy of ITN. As brought up by the nominator, at least 18 million people have been under flood warnings . We've posted events that get maybe a day or two of global coverage before they're forgotten, but kept them because of their local notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The US are one of nearly 200 countries in the world with less than 5% of the world's population, and even in the US your claim deadliest natural disaster of 2015 in the United States is either untrue or only barely true. LoveToLondon (talk)
Fourteen of those deaths were in Mexico, thus giving a US total of 33 fatalities from that event. Latest tally for the nominated storm is 46. Reading helps. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't "an American thing". The world is a little screwy right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The world has been screwy for decades, what of it? You're opposing a major disaster in the United States that has killed 40+ people, left thousands of homes damaged or destroyed, and disrupted the lives of tens of millions of people simply because "the world is a little screwy"? Would you be opposing the nomination if 40+ people died in the UK instead of the US but everything else remained the same? I highly doubt you'd be so inclined to state "this isn't just a British thing". Sorry the UK floods don't meet ITN standards on their own, but to blatantly go against a nomination of a clearly notable event to add various events across the world simply because they're also weather-related is bordering on being purely disruptive (and this remark pertains to all of the editors from the UK making these types of comments). Do we mesh together various terrorist attacks that occur within a week of each other? No. Do we lump together people who die at the same time? No. If you're not content with it, do as you always say: nominate another item that pertains to the subject because that's how ITN/C works. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, the world has been unpredictable for some time. Sca (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, I nominated the US storms a while ago, if you care to look, and in the meantime it's become obvious that we need a more holistic answer to this unusual weather, rather than just focus on America. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I know others have complained that lumping these different storms (outside the US) into one article seems improper, but realistically while they may not be all connected outside the common result of the current El Nino, the clustering around these two weeks is what is making all such odd weather notable. TRM is correct that commenting only on the floods in the US while ignoring the flooding in South America (where last I read 6 were killed and at least 150,000 displaced) is poor form. I think it is going to be remembers as the storms around this two week holiday period and that's how we should create the target article, not just the El Nino one, that links in any of the specific unique storm articles that we already have. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Except that the events are easy to define on their own: they're separate storm systems. It's pretty simple. The one being nominated here is the most destructive and fatal of the lot and thus has greater focus. A buoy ~170 miles from the North Pole briefly going above freezing and heavy rain in the UK from a storm upstream from the one in this nomination don't warrant an overhaul to be more inclusive. They're vastly less notable events.

          @Masem: Then nominate the flooding in South America for a blurb. It's an almost entirely unrelated event that happened at a similar time, thus it does not get included within the same nomination. That's like lumping two unrelated, non-coordinated terrorist attack in Yemen from Al Qaeda and one in Europe from ISIS into a single blurb for the sole reason that they're terrorist attacks. As for the clustering, that's a normal occurrence that can happen in any year. Conditions became favorable for such events and multiple systems developed. There's only so much I can do as one person, and my focus is on this particular event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

          • Following what we would do for, say, similar events in sports that happen at the same time (like, for example, I believe a NASCAR finale ends on the same day or nearby with an F1 event) by combining the blurbs so that one type of topic doesn't dominate the ITN. It may be different storm systems, but they are all related to weather and should not be treated separately for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
            • I see no reason why the SA floods and this storm system can't be listed separately in our already outdated ticker. The bottom two stories are from December 20 and 21. There's more than enough space for some new stories at the moment and having both up would flush out some of the stale stories. I've yet to see sporting events combined (lest we forget the horse race debacle from not to long ago) in such a manner—I remember the last NASCAR blurb being kept on its own—but it's also quite likely that I simply just missed when it happened. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
              • If memory serves, we merge football blurbs frequently. It's not a big deal and helps provide a more eclectic view of the world rather than just focusing on a single entity when the subject is global rather than parochial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Crazy weather right now in many countries, no idea why we'd just focus only on the United States. Redverton (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Because that's the location this particular storm system pertains to. This one is the deadliest and arguably the most disruptive of the recent storms across the globe. Opposing on the basis on not relating to other countries is contrary to how ITN operates. Feel free to create articles on other events and nominate them if you feel so inclined. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, that was a suitably patronising lecture on how ITN works. I assure you I'm not new to this. I simply offered my opinion, take it or leave it. Redverton (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stop focusing on the US. Our systemic bias is showing.--WaltCip (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Great, based on that logic I can stop nominating items that deal only with the U.S. Oh wait, that's counter to the "please do not's" at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
      • It is perfectly valid and logical to dispute the construction of a blurb for meteorological occurrences that have worldwide impact, as stated above eloquently by TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    • And your anti-US bias is showing, thus we've reached an impasse. Judge the event on its own merits instead of shoving in other partially related events (UK flooding), or almost entirely unrelated ones (SA flooding). The US-bias is long gone on ITN/C and has been replaced with an anti-US bias. It's utterly disgraceful that people are completely overlooking the large loss of life and disruption simply because this is a US topic. I don't know how many freaking times this can be said, but just because one storm happens around the same time as another, or stem from the same long-term, large scale phenomenons, doesn't mean they're intrinsically linked. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I disagree with this; the concerns given by editors like WaltCip or TRM are that while the US has been probably hit the hardest, the overall impact of all these separate storms in a short time period across the Western hemisphere means that we should construct a blurb/target that reflects there's multiple systems happening at once instead of just isolating the US system. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
        • So just because they happen in the same period of time, otherwise non-ITN worthy events get to be shoved into a single blurb for the sake of avoiding a bias that we no longer have. Let's see..."Multiple storm systems since early December cause widespread flooding across the United Kingdom and Ireland while a severe winter storm claims at least 45 lives in the United States all the while another storm system triggers severe flooding in Paraguay; furthermore, surge of warm air brings temperature at the North Pole close to or above freezing." That's the gist of what's being attempted for a single blurb after the past few days. Oh yeah, can't forget Tropical Depression Nine-C and Severe Tropical Cyclone Ula because these two storms also happened at the same time. The only one that could be shoved into the same blurb is the UK & Ireland flooding which has been ongoing for almost a month and resulted from multiple systems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Clearly with at least 3 "separate" events (1 being the combined US storms consisting of the two tornado storms and the current ongoing flooding; the second being South America, the third being the UK flooding) we can't force full descriptions of each into a single blurb, but it would also be inappropriate to list all three as separate blurbs. And to only include one of these (the US) that would be the seeming bias I mentioned. Instead, something like "Widespread storm systems across North and South America and Western Europe in late December 2015 attributed to the ongoing El Nino event lead to tornadoes and flooding, causing dozens of fatalities and millions of displaced persons" would capture the concept, leaving the only issue of where a good summary article would be. 2014–16 El Niño event would seem to be the one, but there's nothing there. (I would think that we would have a chronological month-by-month of major metrologicial events with links to the very specific events). --MASEM (t) 03:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
            • If you want to push for such a large, unwieldy blurb for the sole purpose of countering a no longer existent bias then by all means keep on doing so. In any other situation, the UK flooding would be ignored (as everyone seemingly has for the past month despite it being severe at the start of December) and the Paraguay floods would be a borderline event due to "relatively little loss of life". I cannot, in good faith, contribute to an article that haphazardly links various meteorological disasters to an El Niño event and refuse to do so. It's not encyclopedic and just piggybacks off the media hype sensationalizing the ongoing El Niño. Much the same as global warming/climate change, you can't definitively link any single event to an El Niño. Yes it makes conditions more readily present for particular weather patterns, but all types of weather can happen with or without an El Niño present. To avoid breaching WP:OR, particularly WP:SYNTH, you'd have to list every single weather event otherwise you create a claim that's not scientifically supported. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
              • To stress the issue: to point out significant weather related deaths that occurred at the same time period as other storms elsewhere in the world that had similar destructive nature though perhaps with far lower death tolls, and which may have the same connection to the long-term El Nino event, we create a bad bias at ITN, and to post all different events as separate blurbs would drown ITN. At minimum, for example, the deaths in South America due to flooding from excessive rain are just as important to the deaths in the US from both tornadoes and flooding happening in the same period. To ignore those SA deaths while highlighting the US ones is really bad biasing. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Very unusual situation for winter. Broaden it to include British flooding if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
This (4,000-word) discussion proves the adage, "Everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it." Sca (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] The Address Downtown DubaiEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2016 (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: The Address Downtown Dubai (talk, history)
Blurb: The Address Downtown Dubai (pictured), a supertall hotel, is severely damaged by fire.
News source(s): Sky News
Nominator's comments: Major fire, receiving extensive coverage. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major news story. Firebrace (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably Oppose. It is admittedly a very nice building, but it's ultimately still just a very nice commercial building, not a world landmark such as the Louvre or Taj Mahal, or even the Burj. The wording seems vague - severely damaged as in insurance will be pissed, or as in the building will be demolished? If it's the latter then I might be convinced to support simply because a building of that size being utterly destroyed is quite rare, but the one source provided seems to suggest that no one was killed, and that while it looked imposing, the building still stands. I don't think a nonlethal fire that causes damage to one or two commercial buildings quite meets the bar. - OldManNeptune 18:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @OldManNeptune: - I suspect that the insurers will be very pissed (off - Dubai is a dry country), Building likely a write-off. Early reports of zero casualties should not be relied upon. Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major news story. And probably the destruction of a major building in the country.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – Partially because the current ticker is excessively stale (one story is approaching the two week mark). Pending on if progress on the multiple natural disasters across the globe is ever made to meet ITN standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Rescinding and going neutral or weak oppose based on recent (rather lack thereof) develops. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait I agree with OldManNeptune, a barely notable building getting some fire damage is not sufficient for ITN. However, the event is still in progress, so the situation can quickly change. Mamyles (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a slow news period and we could do with moving the box along, and this is undoubtedly "in the news", being the lead story on sources as diverse as thr BBC and Russia Today. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the dust settles. Brandmeistertalk 19:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Over 300 buildings over 800 feet have ever existed and only 2 have been destroyed. In fact, The tallest building ever destroyed that's not a World Trade Center tower is barely 200 meters and the Address is 300 meters. So utmost support if this edifice turns out to be too risky to inhabit, it would be the tallest building rendered uninhabitable that's not 9/11. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
They have plenty of that already. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose; it appears that there were few injuries(worst AFAIK is a heart attack) and no deaths; though a spectacle for sure it still may be early to post this as the situation could change. The fire is currently only on the outside of the building and it's too early to say if it will need to be demolished. If the situation changes I would be willing to revise my views. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it's determined that it's something sinister, and/or if multiple fatalities occur and/or the building is entirely condemned. I doubt we'll see any of the previous, but I'm just speculating, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it is on news channels worldwide and has dominated New Years' Eve coverage on multiple networks. Even in the absence of mass casualties, it's still the major story of the day. Buffaboy talk 21:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Buffaboy: We don't just post things that are big stories, as we are not a news ticker, (otherwise we would post the Kardashians and other tabloid news) we post notable stories (usually) that stand out in some way. If you feel this does, fair enough, but its being in the news isn't enough. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Fortunately, there were only 16 injuries and no fatalities at this point, per The Guardian. I'd revisit once the full extent of the damage is known. Calidum T|C 21:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As has been said, it's just a big fancy building. Nobody killed, a few injured, it's just money. And at the end of the day, the people who own it will likely make money off the renovations due to them owning the construction companies as well. Okay, that's just my cynicism on that last bit. But even so, it's not a world heritage site or anything. Dismas|(talk) 22:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Iridescent. A news item needn't involve mass casualties to be important. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's 100% accurate, but this is a currently a fire at a big building. Why is it going to change anything? Do you have more information about why this fire started? Is it just one of those things? It's a hotel incident caused by a burning curtain, nobody died, nothing is substantial here in any way at all. I suppose that if we want to help advertise the hotel we could post it, but beyond that, we're talking about a fire in a tall building. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it was a complete loss of the building, or severe damage to an historical building (such as when ISIS damaged/destroyed several of those important ruins), that would be significant. This is recoverable damage with no losses of life. It is not significant enough for ITN. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This should be posted (once there are significant updates to the article) since it is really rare to see fires hundreds of meters high. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Such a rare case in which there is a large fire engulfing a major hotel/skyscraper in a well-developed area with no deaths. It's also making headlines globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    Dubai might look well-developed, but behind all the shiny facades it is still third-world. 93.215.70.73 (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    @TDKR Chicago 101: It has happened before, earlier last year in fact. Didn't make ITN then. - Kollision (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Big flames on the exterior of the building but only minor injuries and the majority of the fire did not make it to the inside. - Kollision (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Cyclonebiskit. I don't see a lot of coverage of this and it's not too significant, but it's something. Banedon (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose since there is no way a non-fatal fire like this would be posted or world-wide news if not for the spectacular backdrop of the fireworks. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Ian MurdockEdit

No consensus. Brandmeistertalk 15:14, 3 January 2016 (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: Ian Murdock (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Register, Fortune

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: Death was definitely unexpected, a key figure in the Open Source movement. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose until sourcing improved, regardless of any arguments about notability. I can think of no circumstances in which either TechCrunch, The Register or Twitter would be considered acceptable sources for a claim as contentious as this. ‑ Iridescent 15:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Unexpected deaths, where the death itself is the story, typically get blurbs, and I don't think one is warranted here. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Iridescent's comments are important, plus not sure this is really getting the "in the news" coverage we'd expect to see. I grant you that our "regular audience" may be interested in this kind of tech-geek individual (no disrespect) but I don't think it's hitting the real headlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was considering nominating this but realistically, most people even tech savvy ones knows what Debian is. He was important in the open-source software field but he is not of the caliber or importance of Linus T. or the like. Also, the circumstances of his death (at least, when I saw the story last night) leave me in doubt how much encyclopedic aspects we can say about this. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] ASEAN Economic CommunityEdit

going stale, reopen if a ratioanle and sources can be givein
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: Association of Southeast Asian Nations (talk, history)
Blurb: ASEAN launches its Economic Community, their trade bloc and common market of US$2.6 trillion with 622 million people.
News source(s): The Australian, The Straits Times, Bangkok Post, Nikkei Asian Review
Article needs updating
 61.245.25.6 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The news seems quite highly notable, although a rationale from the nominator would be nice; exactly what's happening is unclear, the Australian ref is behind a paywall and the Straits Times article says the Asean Community is set to be formed, which in American English means it is only in the planning stages. The general ASEAN target article is a mess, and the economic community section should be moved into its own article. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mηδείς. This seems interesting, but -as always with ASEAN- they are so preoccupied with big words that it is hard to find the real news-worthy facts. Was this a convention entering into force, or concluded. Or a mere announcement? And is this a framework convention that will lead to later implementation of real measures, or are real things changing? How? and when? I looked for details to update the article, but unfortunately couldn't get clear what was happening. L.tak (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2016 (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 30Edit


[Posted] Four new chemical elementsEdit

Articles: ununtrium (talk, history) and ununoctium (talk, history)
Blurb: IUPAC and IUPAP add the elements ununtrium, ununpentium, ununseptium and ununoctium to the periodic table.
Alternative blurb: IUPAC and IUPAP confirm the discoveries of the elements ununtrium, ununpentium, ununseptium and ununoctium.
Alternative blurb II: IUPAC and IUPAP confirm the discoveries of the chemical elements with atomic numbers 113, 115, 117 and 118.
News source(s): IUPAC press release, CBC, Toronto Star ScienceNews

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

 Smurrayinchester 10:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support ITNR. Surprised it flew under the radar so much. Nergaal (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per Nergaal LoveToLondon (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support well ITNR says to post confirmation and naming. So we can post both. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Added an alt, as these are not the most useful names and they are temporary anyway. Furthermore good to change elements-->chemical elements, as elements is used for all kind of things. L.tak (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - ITNR, also the alt seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Doug AtkinsEdit

Article: Doug Atkins (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, ESPN

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: Member of both the College Football Hall of Fame and the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Eight-time Pro Bowler. One of the first full-time defensive players in football, who "revolutionized" the position of defensive end. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support looks good for notability but referencing is poor - ref 1 which is used to source a whole section is also dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's better now. I removed the dead link and added more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. College and pro Hall of Famer. Article seems reasonably well referenced to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Hall of Famer and appears to be a college football legend in some aspects. Article is in good enough shape. On the side note it's nice to see a variety of people, nice break from the usual actors/musicians/politicians on RD tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: At a glance, this looks like it's ready to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Posted, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    What kind of rationale is this? Come on....--BabbaQ (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    BabbaQ what part of this consensus to post do you not understand? Would you like further explanation? Perhaps we can translate it to a language you can better understand? If you'd like to find a project better suited to your communication skills, Simple English Wikipedia would be grateful for your contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Bill Cosby charged with sex crimeEdit

WP:SNOW close ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:46, 30 December 2015 (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: Bill Cosby (talk, history)
Blurb: Bill Cosby is charged with committing sex crime
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle Los Angeles Times The Times (London)

Times of India
Nominator's comments: A worldwide icon, notable in numerous fields, article may need updating Jusdafax 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. "Convicted" or "acquitted", fine, as and when it happens, but not this. "Innocent until proven guilty" is just as much a principle on Wikipedia as in the real world. ‑ Iridescent 17:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I submit that the fact of criminal charges being filed for the first time by a prosecutor is highly notable, coming as it does after years of controversy. And this will be in the news, and be huge, all over the globe. Jusdafax 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I ask you to strike your comment, which I regard as a personal attack. Jusdafax 17:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack, and he's right. You should know better. Resolute 17:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. George Ho (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015
  • Oppose – Until outcome of trial, if there is one. (Or guilty plea.) Sca (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Oppose per above: just being charged is not the point we post a crime at BLP (unless perhaps we're talking a major world leader); it will be the determination of guilt or innocence that will set the ITN point. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had closed this myself earlier, and just want to support CB's action. When the convicted murderer Oscar Pistorius was arrested for killing his girlfriend in a case where there was absolutely no doubt about the physical facts, we did not post it. This is an indictment based on an allegation of an act which is supposed to have occurred 11 years ago. BLP and UNDUE make posting this hype, not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] North Pole will be above freezing point in winterEdit

We're not getting even close to any agreement on this particular entry, ranging from poor amateur science hyperbole to hard facts disputing the original claim to harder facts undermining the original claim. Closing before anyone makes more of a fool of themselves.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2015 (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.

  • The North Pole is supposed to be above freezing point of water in winter only for the third time since 1948 (previous dates Dec. 4-5 1959, Dec. 25 1990, Dec. 1 2014). The North Pole has been enveloped in a 24 hour darkness since September, and it is usually around -25 Centigrade at this time of year. Not sure what article should be linked to. Nergaal (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Time to call Santa and interview the jolly old elf about global warming. Sca (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This must be part of the same unusual weather pattern which has caused flooding in the UK and storms in the US (see below). If it's due to El Nino then it may last a while and so perhaps should be an Ongoing entry. Andrew D. (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The pattern appears to be different from the NA weather issues (they do connect it to the North Atlantic and the UK flooding, though that itself is not as unusual as what happened in the States) - though the weather pattern in NA may be feeding into that since it's warm air brought up by El Nino to the northeast that is causing it. That said, this says "may", not yet confirmed, so I'd be hesistent to post, and suggest wait. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This nom should be properly templated, the target be El Nino, and the blurb be combined with the related weather nominations listed below. I am on my way to an appointment, otherwise I'd do it. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Only a forecast, hasn't actually happened yet. Some media outlets are also idiotic and don't know how to read state names: TIME cited North Pole, Alaska, for example. Some of the comments here seem to insinuate that El Niño is a storm system, which it is not. It's not the direct cause for anything but rather a factor influencing global weather patterns. Also keep in mind suggestions to lump half a dozen damaging/deadly weather events together into a single blurb is not helpful. Should we also toss in the flooding in Paraguay and the developing cyclones over the South Pacific since they're also connected to the El Niño event? Maybe the rain over my neighbor's house while we're at it? Obviously not. Judge events on their own merits instead of trying to connect them together for the sake of reducing the number of blurbs. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The BBC is certainly combining all these events together. That's what they said in a extended news report I just watched and here's an online equivalent – El Nino may be increasing rainfall across the world, "The temperature rose above freezing at the North Pole at one point in December, a very rare occurrence..." Andrew D. (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: I'll just copy/paste my comments from Talk:December 2015 storm system: There are at least eight systems involved here for North America and Europe. Extratropical cyclones are complex and often break apart into multiple systems.

    (1) The first system involved in this article pulled into Canada and dissipated near Greenland on December 26. (2) A frontal boundary from the first system spawned a separate low south of Greenland on December 26, ultimately merging with storm 5 listed below. (3) A completely separate storm, dubbed Storm Eva, formed off Atlantic Canada—well east of the first storm—and raced across the Atlantic, impacting the British Isles, before pulling north of Scandinavia. (4) A weak system developed behind Eva and impacted the British Isles on Christmas. (5) Yet another system developed from a frontal boundary extending from the third storm and it rapidly pulled north toward Iceland. (6) Another system over the southern United States developed behind the first system—originating from an upper-level low—and is presently a weakening system over the Great Lakes. (7) A lingering frontal boundary left behind by a combination of storms 1 and 2 led to the formation of another storm off the Mid-Atlantic States on December 28. This system exploded into what's now known as Storm Frank, which is presently over Iceland. (8) another system recently developed over the North Atlantic on the heels of Storm Frank.

    At best, there are at least three "families" of storm complexes, with some having multiple degrees of separation from the original. The media is simplifying the complexity of these storms due to their rapid succession. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • (ec) The first several words in your link show it to suffer a severe misunderstanding of how ENSO works; El Nino is most certainly not a "weather system". That El Nino influences precipitation climatology is not in dispute, but the BBC has not, near as I can tell, said anything about linking a particular sequence of storms that happened to take place in the same multi-week period. We can't just lump together a bunch of marginally notable weather events for the sake of milling one newsworthy submission. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Our job is to report what the sources say, not to engage in our own amateur analysis. Here's another fresh source which ties all these global weather events together. Andrew D. (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • That source does nothing to conclusively tie these events together. It just mentions the weather of 2015 and the El Niño event present throughout. It's more or less informing readers of what an El Niño influences. All weather events are inherently linked together; the atmosphere is dynamic and fluid. But to go so far as to say these separate events should be considered the same is incorrect. My own comments were not analyses of my own, they were taken directly from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration surface weather analyses over the past 7 days. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but it would be wise to lend more credit to those whom actually follow weather on a daily basis—in fact, meteorology is my profession—rather than the words of newspaper authors whose job is to catch your attention and give a general idea of what's going on, regardless of whether or not it's factually sound. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have expanded the original US storms article to December 2015 storm system to be more global and included this North Pole temperature as part of that. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that, depending on your model of choice, temperatures at the North Pole have briefly surged to a couple degrees below freezing, and will be returning to bone-chilling cold by tonight. This seems like a non-story. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Julian's recent intervention. Don't believe the hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It was reported today as 34 degrees F. - which is above freezing. Here is a source for it being above freezing today:[2]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind that was not an observation but merely a model analysis (GFS), and one with a margin of error at that. Most other models, including the ECMWF mentioned in that link, analyzed the temperature below freezing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • No, it's an observation.[3]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • That wasn't in the first provided source. Either way, that buoy—87°27′26″N 153°53′52″E / 87.45720°N 153.89780°E / 87.45720; 153.89780 at the time of the observation—was 176 miles from the Geographic North Pole or 184 miles from the North Magnetic Pole and not in any way an accurate representation of the temperature at either location. Temperature can vary dramatically over such distances, as reflected by the model analyses showing temperatures of –6C at the North Pole whereas the buoy had +0.7C over 170 miles away. That's not to downplay the anomalous nature of the event, however. It falls under media hype as the observation was near the North Pole, which in their eyes in close enough to be the North Pole. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's another source based on the views of a German meteorologist. This says that the anomalous weather in the northern hemisphere is connected to a change in the jet stream, not El Nino. So, UK, US and North Pole would go together, but not the floods in South America. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • ...and the Met Office links it all to El Nino. It does no good to cherry-pick your sources. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 31 December 2015 (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 29Edit


[Closed] RD: Kim Yang-gonEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2016 (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: Kim Yang-gon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (BBC), (Sydney Morning Herald), (The New York Times)

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.
 Jenda H. (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you tell us which of the RD criteria this person meets and how? 331dot (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - person was top of North Korean politics. RD seems sufficient.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per TRM, it's a stub. It needs to be an article of reasonable length before any other considerations. Challenger l (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No longer a stub as it would have qualified for DYK at the time of article creation. --George Ho (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stub or not, the article has but two references. More importantly, the text does not make a strong case that his political achievements put him at the top of a field, however you define that. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Pavel SrníčekEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2016 (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: Pavel Srníček (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: The starting goalkeeper for the much-loved Newcastle United team of the 1990s, and a long-term international for the Czech Republic. Admittedly, his career doesn't extend to the heights of his successor Petr Čech, but it was certainly of a very high calibre and his ill health came completely unexpectedly and at a young age '''tAD''' (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly influential player in his country, died way too young. Article may need improvement though. EternalNomad (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not seeing how this meets either RD requirement, unless the narrow field we're discussing is Newcastle United icons. A long career is not the equivalent of a distinguished one - with no individual or team honours, as far as I can see. Newcastle nearly won the Premier League and the Czechs nearly won the Euros. His death was unexpected, but long after his professional retirement. Fuebaey (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly top of his field so it seems and has died suddenly. Article is in good shape for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Typically, goalkeepers made soccer matches tied or barely scored with one or zero points. This guy is no exception. More than that, he was also a coach and an international sensation. Too bad he died so young. His autobiography will be posthumously published. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Are we talking about the same person? Newcastle under Keegan had a legendarily leaky defence; they were famous for scorelines like 4-3, not "soccer matches tied or barely scored with one or zero points". ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He wasn't even first choice at Newcastle for much of his time there (150 appearances in seven years really isn't that much; Peter Schmeichel made about 280 appearances for NUFC's rivals Manchester United in the same period, for comparison), he never won even a minor trophy at Newcastle, and his career outside Newcastle was a procession of nondescript mid-table strugglers. A nice guy, but nowhere near the top of his field unless the field is defined absurdly narrowly as "Czech goalies of the 1990s". ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support the domestic appearances stat isn't that big a deal, he played 49 times for his country which is impressive by any standard. His sudden and untimely death enhances the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent. I don't see how he qualifies as a "very important figure" in the sport. Neljack (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Per Rambling Man, his untimely death makes it notable, article is sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • support - article is in good condition. person is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many support opinions only prove that the person does not know anything about football.
  • Certainly top of his field Top of his field would be IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper. He had one season as undisputed first-choice goalkeeper at a non-top team in the Premier League, and his 146 Premier League games are less than the number of games a team has in 4 seasons.
  • he played 49 times for his country which is impressive by any standard 49 caps are the 20th most in his national team. His national team only exists since 1994. In most countries (including his country) the goalkeeper with most caps has over 100 caps (100 caps equals roughly 10 years as first-choice goal-keeper of a national team). 100 caps is also the most common measure for having many caps, and there are over 300 players who have reached 100 caps.
  • his untimely death makes it notable If someone would nominate Alfredo Pacheco that rationale would make sense. Cardiac arrest at age 47 is nothing extraordinary.
LoveToLondon (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course, I don't know anything about football. Stupid me. If you knew anything about anything, the cardiac arrest of an athlete aged 47 is extraordinary. Now please, feel free to continue your "testy editing". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • You are the person who claimed he played 49 times for his country which is impressive by any standard (I clearly proved it is not), and I am glad to see you finally admitting publicly that you are stupid.
  • Regarding his cause of death, everyone who has a clue about mortality statistics knows that heart problems are a relatively common cause of death for men in that age group in the first world. Most people don't die that early, but dying due to heart problems at age 47 is nothing extraordinary (and having been an athlete does not decrease the risk).
LoveToLondon (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
So glad you're back to your normal testy editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to have a good and long career, but nothing that indicates enough importance for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose his domestic and international career, even coupled with his early death, did not rise to the level that merits a mention in the RD section. BencherliteTalk 08:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Ebola virus epidemic over in GuineaEdit

Nom agrees to wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2015 (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: Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea (talk, history)
Blurb: ​WHO declares the end of ebola outbreak in Guinea.
Nominator's comments: Still needs an update, and so does Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, but this is some good news for the end of 2015. Tone 13:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. It's even bigger news. --Tone 16:55, 29 December 2015 (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 28Edit


[Posted (RD)] RD: LemmyEdit

No consensus for blurb, RD posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (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: Lemmy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Lemmy (pictured), an English musician known as a band member of Motörhead and Hawkwind, dies at the age of 70.
Alternative blurb: ​An English musician Lemmy (pictured), known as a band member of Motörhead and Hawkwind, dies at the age of 70.
Alternative blurb II: ​An English musician Lemmy (pictured) dies at the age of 70.
News source(s): [4]

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: Legendary rock-n-roller – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this. The archetypal heavy metal frontman. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - He certainly meets criteria. Article seems in good enough shape and he's notable, but since news just broke we should wait until his death has been reported by major news outlets so that his article can be updated with the right information regarding his death. Support article in good enough condition and has been updated appropriately. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Confirmation from major sources is in. Here's NBC News. Side comment: should be listed as "Lemmy Kilmister", as that's what's being used by the news sources (of course, I've long thought that should be the article title too). oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. First glance shows a couple of citation needed tags here and there, easy enough to sort out. Definitely notable and influential enough - considered as one of the standards of heavy metal for many years. Challenger l (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The real question for me is whether he deserves a blurb. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
This guy doesn't deserve an obituary blurb. He doesn't seem to be well known in North America. Also, what else is there other than being a rock star in multiple bands? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I've lived all my life in North America, and I knew who he was since I was in high school in the 1970s. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per TDKR Chicago 101. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh opposed of any listing on the basis that I oppose the Stevie nomination below (who at least charted) while I am a huge fan of Lemmy, but seriously don't see him as more than a very tight niche occupant. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, At the top of his field for many years, probably deserving of a blurb too. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - I have not even looked at the article, but the notability appears clear. An RD is the middle path between nothing, and a full blurb. Suggest we take it, assuming the article is decent. Heavy metal is not my field. Jusdafax 07:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he certainly occupied his niche with success, but it's that a niche. Not top of his field. 87.154.209.127 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Full blurb. Both his and the Motorhead article are in good shape and he was a fucking legend. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Tone 09:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support highly notable, highly influential. Lemmy and Motörhead are both very well known, even to those without an interest in rock. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean RD or blurb, Spacecowboy? George Ho (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb; the notion that he or Motörhead are famous only in a niche or a given country is pretty ludicrous. He has charted in the top 10 in multiple countries' mainstream charts, and was still doing so less than six months ago; his music has been featured in cult TV, Hollywood films and even Wrestlemania. The guy's well-known. GRAPPLE X 09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb - See my above response to Ihcoyc. George Ho (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb He is only a musician, and not even top in that field on notability. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yo, check out the BBC quote "as he became one of music's most recognisable voices and faces." That doesnt soudn to me like only nor not even in the top of his field. Nergaal (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb it is rare that an Ace of Spades of the Big Four dies. Nergaal (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb Important enough for RD but not a death that is going to impact the world nor unexpected. Moorhead and Lemmy's contribution are important to music but they aren't the Beatles, for example. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Nigeria bombingsEdit

No consensus to post, no target article, flawed nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (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: Attacks in Maiduguri, Nigeria kill 80 people.
News source(s): Press TV and others
Nominator's comments: Regular attacks in the region for the "first time in months killing [HIGH] tens of people" is not usual. Lihaas (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
By "hight" do you mean named or have you simply misspelled height? μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Corrected.Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but would change the blurb to make it clear that this was an assault on Maiduguri, not just an attack. And using Press TV as a source should be a big no no. 87.154.209.127 (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no target article specified, flawed nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] US stormsEdit

A lot of movement and chat about this and related stories, closing this to see if we can get a better, bigger-picture story. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: December 2015 storm system (talk, history) and 2015–2016 El Niño event (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 43 people are killed in storms across the United States.
News source(s): BBC
 The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't believe TRM hasn't come to oppose this yet based on lack of sufficient update to the article. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe he came did oppose it in nomination ;) (now watch the vitriol in personal attack).
Anyways, death count alone doesn't make it notable and since there is no reason given here for the nomination but mere "shock" that for some magical reason we don't have it, oppose.Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I nominated it. The reason is obvious, 43 people have been killed in the last couple of days. Perhaps next time you could write in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Nergaal, Lihaas, please try to take time to write your comments in readable English, both of you are so keen to contribute, which is really nice, but mostly your contributions are illegible. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Who said anything about contributions. I was just reminding some rambling guy I know to come shoot down another fine nomination. Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You're not making any sense, but never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Besides the death toll, the weather effects are almost unimaginably weird. Deserts are buried under a foot of snow (or more!), the northeast has a nearly summery Christmas, and countless local/regional meteorological records - to say nothing of tornadoes in Dallas. Several major cities are declared disaster zones. I considered nominating this a day or two ago, but the article was still a stub and many of the present effects had not hit yet. - OldManNeptune 20:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    When you say "the article was still a stub" are you referring to another article that I didn't discover? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - pending update Of clear international interest, death count is significant and likely to rise and is almost certain going to break records as shown on this WUnderground blog. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support pending update. With tornadoes and blizzards in Texas and record high 75F weather in the Northeast over the Christmas holidays the event is noteworthy and will be remembered for quite some time. (Many flowers and leaves are budding 3 months early, which will spell disaster when a freeze kills them.) The target article should be tied in with the unusual strong, if not record-breaking El Nino, which might actually be a better target. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose target article, support event – Extremely disruptive event with large loss of life, the deadliest series of natural disaster this year in the United States if my memory serves. As of now, this event is splintered across five articles: the nominated one, December 23–25, 2015 tornado outbreak, December 26–28, 2015 tornado outbreak, Tornadoes of 2015, and 2015–16 North American winter. Meteorologically, this event is comprised of two wholly separate extratropical cyclones, which is reflected by the two separate outbreak articles. The second system, December 26–28, has been far more disruptive than the first, being the cause of blizzards over Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, as well as the deadly flooding along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. The first one, however, resulted in a record "heat wave" for Christmas-time, with record highs falling across the entire Eastern Seaboard. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Is this a better target article Cyclonebiskit? It has nothing about these events but that could be fixed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure at the moment, really tired and can't think of much. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I live at a latitude of almost 65 degrees north, where severe winter weather is a way of life for half the year give or take, and we've had up to 15 feet (4.6 m) of total snowfall some winters. Roughly 24 hours ago, the closure of I-27 and I-40 was all over the news for X number of hours. When I later visited a friend who was watching The Weather Channel's report from Amarillo, we couldn't stop laughing uproariously over how little actual snow there was on the ground. That was before they got to the live report in which the roads behind the reporter were completely devoid of snow. Here, if someone said that they couldn't drive with that amount of snow on the road, we'd tell them that they're living in the wrong place. Sounds to me like another case of the media making a mountain out of a molehill. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • They're clearly reporting from the wrong location; several areas of seen multiple feet of snow, and these areas don't get storms of this magnitude that often. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The northern latitude has frozen your brain. Why would West Texas cities have equipment for dealing with snow at all? It costs millions a year to maintain and would get used once every couple decades. Desert cities don't even have storm drains in many cases. Ergo, many affected cities have zero preparation for these conditions, much the way your city likely has zero preparation for sandstorms and heat waves. What you're laughing uproariously over is in fact a disaster that's pulling power lines down, grinding transportation to a halt, and threatening floods when it melts. - OldManNeptune 05:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, the part about heat waves is somewhat misleading. Interior Alaska is a special case, shielded from coastal weather by multiple major mountain ranges. Temps in the 90–100 °F (32–38 °C) range are about as common anywhere from June to August as −40 – −60 °F (−40 – −51 °C) or colder temps are between December and February. The lack of humidity comparative to many other places keeps the former from being much of a problem. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates The systems and their impact are notable. Per Cyclonebiscuit, I think that we need one good article here, likely the current Christmas storms one, but that links in the two tonarndo events and the summary article, and links in the El Nino factor, as well as including the temperature inversion that we saw. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Fairly high death toll, but though I'm American, to be honest I don't detect great global interest. (Perhaps I'm biased against weather news?) Generally, wars and terrorism, i.e. human-caused disasters, are of greater significance. Sca (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If this were deaths from winter blizzards typical of the States, with the same death toll. I'd agree. What is unusual is the toll being from floods and tornadoes which very rarely happen in this season. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The news in the UK lately has been dominated by flooding. This followed an unseasonably warm Christmas. There has also been heavy flooding in South America. All these unusual weather patterns seem to be due to El Nino and so this should be the focus of the blurb, with a global background, not just the US. Here's a source which ties all this together: El Nino weather 'could be as bad as 1998', says Nasa. Andrew D. (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I'll get behind either a U.S.-oriented blurb or a broader worldwide "El Nino" one. There is no doubt that we have notable weather-related events in the news currently. Let's acknowledge that at ITN on our Main page.Jusdafax 15:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, perhaps in conjunction with North Pole temperature, oppose American-centric blurb – the weather systems are just as destructive across the Atlantic, thank you very much. Sceptre (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have expanded the article to a degree and moved it to December 2015 storm system to allow the broader coverage that has been pointed out in this nom and in the above North Pole temperature nom. I also tried to include the South American flooding and the expected UK flooding. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Per revision by Masem of main target article, which however is still comparatively brief at 450 words. Sca (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, faded from the news, not important enough. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 30 December 2015 (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] RD: Meadowlark LemonEdit

Article: Meadowlark Lemon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT

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: Arguably better known as a basketball player than most NBA players were during his heyday.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose I can see the notability of a 22-year-experienced Globetrotter, but the article is really poor and needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The NYT obit describes him as "an American institution". I'm not American but he was clearly one of the big names in 20th century sport. The article could use some work but I expect it will get it now. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    A big name in 20th century exhibition American basketball perhaps. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    According to The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, "In 1978 a nationwide poll named Lemon the fourth most popular personality in the United States (after John Wayne, Alan Alda, and Bob Hope)." That makes him a big name, period. Bigger than Jimmy Hill who is our most recent RD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    The comparison with Jimmy Hill is irrelevant and misleading. But thanks. You might like to add that to the article though, and clean it up while you're at it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've done my bit and will be working on his high school – a significant institution which was not covered at all before. I'll leave the Meadowlark topic to the basketball experts for whom it should be a slam dunk. Andrew D. (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought you were interested in this article being on the main page. My mistake, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    I was expecting it to be on the main page the same day but, as it is, it only took 24 hours. In the meantime, the page had already attracted more traffic than Jimmy Hill. Putting such cases in RD is just a formality. Andrew D. (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    More traffic? No surprises there, unless you live under a rock. It's called systemic bias. ITN RD is not just a formality, it ensures that we have some level of quality control before posting garbage to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits but, as already stated, the article needs work so I oppose on quality. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if article is fixed. Merits alone is enough for support.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Per BabbaQ. Famous comedian-athlete, entertained millions. Sca (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's clear this has consensus to post, but if not one of the supporters is going to sort out the issues with the article, it'll just get stale and drop off. How about you guys doing something about this? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not qualified to edit sports. Sca (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
We're all "qualified" to find sources for dubious statements, you know that. But no-one is under any obligation, of course, just a shame this will drop into stale territory before too long, despite the keen supporters who aren't prepared to do anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I the untechie made a few attempts. Sca (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks ready to post. Sca (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Japan-South Korea agreement on 'comfort women' issueEdit

Articles: Japan–Korea disputes (talk, history) and Comfort women (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Governments of Japan and South Korea announces their "final and irreversible" agreement on historical comfort women issue.
News source(s): NHK World, Associated Press via The Guardian, Bloomberg Business

 61.245.26.3 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Update is required but otherwise this seems to be an end to a long-lasting dispute which merits an ITN blurb. --Tone 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see either linked article to have been suitably updated, and that would include checking existing material as some of it is written such that no further action was ever likely. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • support - when a adequate article is presented.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits(just read about this agreement in the news) as the resolution of a long time dispute, but we need an updated article so I oppose until there is one. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once the Comfort women article is updated. Abductive (reasoning) 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the blurb as worded is true, I could happily support it if a clear rationale and target were given. The blurb has no bolded link, and "Japan–Korea disputes" is quite a broad issue. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a significant milestone in the history of the dispute. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've copied the update form one article to the other. I guess it's ready to post. --Tone 09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but need better blurb I suspect not many western readers know what comfort women mean or how this directly factor into these countries necessarily (I didnt). Perhaps "Japan offers to pay over one billion yen to surviving 'comfort women' (forced prostitution) from its occupation of the Korean pennisula, improving relationships with South Korea." --MASEM (t) 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tone: if I understand you, you have created a new target article? If so, can you at least link to it, if not do what would be preferable, post a new, properly formatted blurb? I find it hard to know aht WP material I should be judging, while I agree the event as described is quite notable. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I just duplicated the update from one article to the other. Anyway, I think the blurb is fine and it goes along with what the media said. Posting. --Tone 10:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

December 27Edit


[Closed] RD: Alfredo PachecoEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2016 (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: Alfredo Pacheco (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC ElSavador.com

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: One of South (oops) Latin American football players. He had a good run until the fixing scandal. Too bad he was murdered. This should be in response to LoveToLondon's comments at the "Pavel Srníček" RD nomination. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • He was a left back—if he were "top scorer" that would be earth-shaking news. You realise that restricting football noms to "top scorer" would instantly disqualify nine out of every eleven players (the "four" and "four" in 4–4–2, plus the goalie), since it's only the two forwards whose job it is to score goals? ‑ Iridescent 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Most capped player in the history of a nation with a long football tradition is clearly "at the top of his field", even if Central American football isn't as well-known as its cousins to the south. ‑ Iridescent 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support South America is a powerhouse in football, and Central/North America countries are quite weak in comparison. El Salvador is currently at place 99 in the world in football, and playing many games for a weak team is comparably easy. His ban for life for match fixing and his murder are actually the parts that make him notable. LoveToLondon (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support anyone who believes that FIFA rankings count for anything "only prove[s] that the person does not know anything about football." It bears little relevance to this nomination. More testy editing. This individual was certainly notable enough within his sport and his untimely death makes the nomination even more notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Aren't you a bit schizophrenic when you first claim a reasonable discussion I started would be a waste of community time and effort, and then start spending time and effort on stalking me with nonsense comments? LoveToLondon (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you accusing me of being mentally ill? Please clarify your statement so that I can make sure exactly what it is you're accusing me of. Your RFC is a complete waste of time and effort, as already demonstrated. Your recent edits however seem to be as testy as ever. If you'd like to retract the questioning of my own mental health before you and your other accounts get indefinitely blocked, that would be wise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you again wrongly accusing me of having other accounts? Please retract that lie. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No, of course not, you missed the point where I asked if you were suggesting I was mentally ill. Are you going to continue this testy editing again? You have been advised time and time again to improve, clearly it has fallen on deaf ears, and now to accuse me of being mentally ill, you've taken it one step too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Check your dictionary for all meanings of the word schizophrenic. You seem to have (deliberately?) picked the one that fits best your agenda to block me. Please retract your lie regarding other accounts. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)\
  • Nah, you can dance for that. Calling me mentally ill is beyond the pale pal. You need to sort your life out before your ongoing testy edits can be tolerated. Funny that I'm not alone in asking you to stop contributing in your own "testy" way, both then and now. If you could stop that altogether, it would be great, if not, it won't be long before you can't. Good riddance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Knock it off, both of you. This is not a productive conversation. Prodego talk 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, even footballers and football managers deem the FIFA rankings to be a complete joke. For someone to claim that the ranking of El Salvador is in some way relevant is abjectly clueless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent Despite all its shortcomings, the FIFA ranking are the best available RS for the approximate strength of a national team - especially for lower ranked teams that rarely make it to big tournaments. 8 wins with 1 loss and 0 draws is a good record in 2015, and when you consider that the FIFA ranking is half based on the 2015 ranking it is not unreasonable to have Belgium at the top. Germany might have won the World Cup last year, but this year Belgium clearly had a better performance. Wales has a good record in 2015, and Brasil had non-stellar performances in 2015. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Anyone who thinks that FIFA rankings are a reliable source "only prove[s] that the person does not know anything about football". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems that he was a decent player, but not important enough for RD. It's lowering the bar too far to say most "caps" for El Salvador is enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and for that matter, give a rationale in your nomination template, not a snarky "in response to otherstuff" wisecrack. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Ellsworth KellyEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2016 (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: Ellsworth Kelly (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian

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: Major American minimalist sculptor and artist. Many solo exhibitions at major museums inc. Whitney and Guggenheim, National Medal of Arts and Praemium Imperiale recipient. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support half decent shout at notability, half decent article could use some improvements on sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • support - after some improvements has been made. overall notability is enough for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once improved Some unreferenced material and cite needed tags still remain. Once fixed, I'm happy to support. Miyagawa (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Article needs to be fixed. Sourcing wise. Kelly himself is notable and would pass on notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Three basically self-congratulatory awards, not a single work any layman could name or recognize if it were named, derivative works, no influence at all on the wider or later culture. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - His works were inspired by previous works. Not worldly known or inspiring, unfortunately. His artwork is very abstract and simple; nothing wrong with that. But I can't think of a best-known artwork. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Corsica protestsEdit

although I was involved in this discussion, the nomination has an overwhelming lack of support. Feel free to revert if you want to support this. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2015 (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: 2015 Ajaccio unrest (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following an arson attack on a mosque in Corsica, France, protests continue despite a ban.
Alternative blurb: ​A civil unrest occurs in Ajaccio, Corsica, following an arson attack on a mosque in the island area.
News source(s): bbc
Nominator's comments: A violent turn in the events going on in Europe...yes Germany and Sweden too but that's in ongoing and this is not on migrants. Also the context of the JUST concluded election is at play.. Lihaas (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose An article about an attack on Muslims in France that does not even mention the Paris attacks? The nominator claim done the background makes it clear that the nominator has no understanding of the subject of the article he is writing. Before discussing the question whether this is ITN material (which I doubt), this article first needs someone who reads through French sources and properly describes how Corsican nationalism and the many recent attacks on Muslims all over France interact. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Instead of being a whingeing tendentious editor, you can go ahead and draw the connection. I don't WP:OWN this article. btw- it also already cites racial tensions and the circumstances this month in CORSICA. where the winners want to be SEPERATE from france. Maybe you have "no understanding of the subject of the article". No need to insert your own synthesis that it has to mention the pris attacks and be related if you haven't read it.Lihaas (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Lihaas, I have no opinion on the event as of yet, but the article has things like "lingeres" for "lingers" and mentions breathlessly that "a part of a Qur'an" was burnt--(is this surprising in a mosque arson?)--although with no source. And even the blurb above isn't grammatical. I suggest a better presentation up front, before rushing to a nomination will have better results. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose no injuries, no deaths, a few hundred angry French people marching around shouting, sounds like every day ending in the letter Y. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Considering below you [rightly] cited the ITN criteria and being in the news...how then does the mere build up in a morue constitute a criteria?Lihaas (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - minor altercations, not some sort of deadly pogrom that ends the entire Muslim population of Corsica. Also, blurb neglects to mention the attacks on firefighters which were followed (completely undeservedly) by the vandalism of the mosque. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest a snow close by an uninvolved editor. None of the above concerns by me or others have been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, closing myself now, given no further support 24 hours after my suggestion this be closed. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Stevie WrightEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2015 (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: Stevie Wright (Australian singer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC Australia, The Guardian (UK)

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 Australian singer who fronted The Easybeats in the 1960s and known as "Australia's first international pop star". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose His band was internationally a one-hit wonder (two-hit wonder in the UK), and in his solo career he had no international success. Any claims he was an international star are therefore not trustworthy. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support whether or not he was "international" is actually irrelevant here, as we all know. The article is in good condition, notable singer, important in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose From reading the article and discography, I do not believe that this singer meets the RD criteria. He seems to have had a successful career, but average nonetheless. Mamyles (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to have been the frontman for three singles for which we have articles, but is very derivative and no indication of acclaim or influence. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A one or two-hit wonder that doesn't seem to have been the most influential or successful of their field. One that has their fans, but doesn't really meet the RD criteria, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Haskell WexlerEdit

Stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2016 (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: Haskell Wexler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes LATimes CBS

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: Described by NY Times as "one of the most inventive cinematographers in Hollywood", won two Academy Awards and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Seems to have been important enough in his field for RD. Everymorning (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
presuming that's the highest award for cinematographers, then obvious support.Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing this. The last thing I would mention in recommending One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would be the cinematography. Is the filmography in the article complete? That, In the Heat of the Night and American Graffiti seem to be his best works. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notablility but Oppose on article quality. Some semi-obscure vote more than 10 years ago is used to claim his importance in the lead section of the article, but clicking on the IMDb link is the only reasonable way to get an overview of his Academy Award wins and nominations? Two Academy Award wins for Best Cinematography is clearly enough for RD, but a properly structured (and sourced) article is needed before this can be posted to RD. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, influential and honored, and a good RD nom. But as noted, article needs work. Jusdafax 04:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support placing personal opinions of his work aside, of course, the man was clearly highly important in his field. The article, however, is a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - The article needs to be fixed. More sources and the format needs to be organized. Wexler is notable and certainly the top of his field no question. Fix the article and I'd support it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once improved There's sizable chunks of uncited information in the article at present. That'd all need to be fixed before this could go on the front page. Miyagawa (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even when well known and prominent in cinematography field, I haven't seen one cinematographer honorably mentioned in ITN or RD. Also, the article doesn't well explain importance of his cinematographic skills in well-known movies. I'm astounded by supports here. --George Ho (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I suppose two Academy Awards doesn't count for much these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    One for Woolf I can count. Bound I am unsure aside from using first "Steadicam", which is just... eh at today's standards but impactful at its time. Same for the documentary. Of course, the documentary is related to well-known massacre, not Massacre at Huế, which has higher death toll than the other. --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say. Your oppose is bizarre and ill-founded, but it is, after all, your opinion and you are, after all, entitled to express it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm fairly certain Gordon Willis was there and he never even won an Oscar. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    Feel free to be 100% certain. GRAPPLE X 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. "Wexler was judged to be one of film history's ten most influential cinematographers in a survey of the members of the International Cinematographers Guild", sourced in the article's lead, seems justification enough for me. GRAPPLE X 11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Liberation of RamadiEdit

No consensus to post at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2015 (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: Battle of Ramadi (2015–Present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Iraqi Army announces ISIS has been ousted from the capital of Anbar province after the Battle of Ramadi.
Alternative blurb: ​Government forces in Iraq announce ISIS has been ousted after the Battle of Ramadi, while in Syria government forces announce Jaysh al-Islam leader Zahran Alloush is killed.
Alternative blurb II: ​Government forces in Iraq announce the ousting of ISIS after the Battle of Ramadi.
Alternative blurb III: ​The Iraqi Army announces announce the ousting of ISIS after the Battle of Ramadi.
News source(s): Reuters
Nominator's comments: Another major gain against Daesh, as in Syria below (which we could combine). This was a major centre of theirs in Iraq. I suppose when Raqqa is liberated next year that would be more important too. Lihaas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A combined blurb might be good if someone wants to suggest one. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Tried one. Feel free to tweak. (the blurb is not showing up, but you can see it when you hit edit)Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem was that the altblurb field was there twice, with one of them blank. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do you want to combine completely unrelated events from different civil wars in different countries into one blurb? There is no relation at all between the two. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we post every major battle in the ongoing civil wars in Syria and Iraq (and Yemen (and soon Turkey?)) that would be several blurbs per week. If anyone would turn Iraqi Civil War into a good article that would be a good addition to ongoing. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In recent weeks too many blurbs has not been our problem. We are often criticized for a lack of turnover. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think newsticker blurbs about the latest battles in these civil wars, or newsticker blurbs about the latest rebel leader killed, are an improvement. And turnover is expected to become better when the Christmas time is over. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support it's a major development. Oppose vote fails to convince. Major developments happen, by definition, quite rarely. Offhand I don't recall the last major battle from the Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni civil wars we posted to ITN; it's probably been months or at least weeks. Banedon (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Did anyone you actually check the article quality? In it's current state Battle of Ramadi (2015–Present) does not even properly describe the whole background and significance of this battle. And any reader trying to find that by clicking on Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) will get an article that is an awful state. Is WP supposed to be an encyclopedia, or a random collection of articles about battles posted to ITN without any proper overview of the whole wars? LoveToLondon (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Soemoene changed the link from the one I nominated.Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I did that, thought it was obvious? The one you nominated was to a battle that was fought from 21 November 2014 – 17 May 2015? Banedon (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The contents was moved to an own article during the nomination. The nominator doesn't seem to follow the talk page of the article he nominated (and got his only edit in the article he nominated reverted due to violating existing consensus). LoveToLondon (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Go humour your ad-hominem NPA someplace else. I nominated...someone changed the onus is on them to inform of this!Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Reuters says it's not confirmed what's going on in Ramadi, so I won't !vote on this just yet. And as noted the article condition situation isn't much better. Jusdafax 07:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the article needs some improvement and expansion first. It's an extraordinarily relevant development though, so should be promoted to ITN. "Iraqi Civil War" can use improvement, too, though it is no particularly common term as it remains a diffuse mixture of different conflicts. The altblurb doesn't seem to be a good idea, as the two events aren't really connected. --PanchoS (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2015 (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 26Edit


December 25Edit


[Posted] RD: George Clayton JohnsonEdit

Article: George Clayton Johnson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, Variety, CBC News, NY Times, Gulf News, TVQC, RP Online

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: Most famous for Logan's Run, Ocean's 11, his work on The Twilight Zone and the first episode of Star Trek: The Original Series. Nominated for both Nebula and Hugo Awards, and won a Balrog Award and an Inkpot Award. The article did previously mention an unreferenced Academy Award nomination but I couldn't find any sources for that and so removed it. Since his death there has been a surprisingly high coverage in the media around the world which has resulted in listing it here. Miyagawa (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator Like I said, I was initially unsure until I saw the coverage, then when I saw the awards I felt that he met the criteria to have been at the top of the field - which he was, at least for a time. Miyagawa (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but article needs clean up. Just for interest, the Academy Award nominations for Logan's Run didn't really have anything to do with Johnson (one for cinematography and one for visual effects). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, that explains the loose Oscar line that I couldn't find a cite for. I've now cited the rest of the article and removed what I couldn't find evidence for. It could still do with a hefty expansion which I might be tempted to do at some point having been working up "The Man Trap" prior to his death. Miyagawa (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Accomplished writer and has contributed to some well known programs. Article seems to be in good enough condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A contributor to two TV shows considered among the most influential, nominated for two of the top awards for his field. His influence among writers is also notable and very clearly cited. Challenger l (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't get supports. Reading his article, it looks good. However, at the top of his field? You wish. People say mention his name just because he wrote the aired pilot episode of Star Trek (original). Awards that he won are just minor. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready, article is well-reffed after work by Miyagawa. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted good work Miyagawa. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Robert SpitzerEdit

Stale. If only we could squeeze four names on the RD section.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2016 (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: Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News Seattle Times NY Times Independent

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: Described as "most influential psychiatrist" for his work on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and he is credited with removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An overall well-sourced article. The man himself is established as at the top of the field of psychiatry, and his work on homosexuality is groundbreaking for the Western world as we know it today '''tAD''' (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Decent article condition though a death section needs to be created. Notability and ITN-worthiness is clear. Good nom. Jusdafax 20:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a very brief section about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
As of this edit a lot of the article is written in the present perfect, rather than the past perfect or simple past. The article itself seems overwhelmed by the orientation controversy. I am not sure we should be posting the death at ITN if that controversy is what makes the subject notable. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD nomination advertised with most influential psychiatrist, but the only entry in the Awards and prizes is from the city where he seems to have lived his whole life? If the claims by the nominator are true, he surely got many awards in his field and honorary awards from several universities all over the world. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not me advertising, it is what the reliable sources are saying. He essentially wrote the book of psychiatry. If that doesn't make one "very important" to a field, what does? Awards are not the only measure of notability. Not every field has awards. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
That's simply inaccurate. Spitzer didn't create the first DSM in the 50's, he chaired the committee crafting the DSM III published in 1980. Then absolutely nothing of great note until 2001 when he said that some people can have some success at changing their sexual orientation. Except for the "betrayal" (the word is in our article) the gay community felt, and his rather belated retraction of that paper, he'd be a footnote. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
If you feel that way, fair enough, but you might want to speak to the reliable sources who are saying otherwise. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Who exactly is saying exactly that? A journalist citing his successor with a blurry claim that he was the most influential psychiatrist is the opposite of a reliable source.
Even one of the sources you gave disproves your claim: From 1980 to 2001, he won many of the field’s most prestigious awards, including one for patient care and one for teaching. This is still too vague to be useful, but proves that the article is incomplete at this critical point.
Is there actually any person not from the US claiming (opposed to citing a claim) that he was the most influential psychiatrist, or was he only important in his field locally in one country with less than 5% of the world's population? What you call the book of psychiatry has zero WP articles in other languages, which seems to hint at the latter? Awards and honorary doctorates (and their geographical distribution) are objective facts that are much more useful than his successor telling a journalist a blurry claim that he was the most influential psychiatrist.
My oppose is primarily about article quality. There might be enough objective facts proving his importance in his field in the US, and I am curious whether he was also considered important in his field outside the US - but with the current incomplete state of the article there is not enough information for judging whether you or Medeis are right about his importance. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
As I stated, fair enough. You are entitled to your views. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The "book of psychiatry" actually has 40 different language articles and it is "the book". GuzzyG (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Well sourced article and the subject appears to be top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am queer, and I remember when the DSM III was published, and homosexuality itself was removed as a disorder. I also remember when Spitzer said that it was possible for certain homosexuals to have successful heterosexual relationships (something I can attest to myself) in 2001. Finally, I also remember the shemful campaign against Spitzer, and his qualified withdrawal of his claims as scientific fact. That being said, Spitzer in no way reaches the level of acclaim of others in the general field of psychology who have been posted, and besides the three controversial declarations on homosexuality, I see no notability here. I honor the man for his integrity, but not his personal notability. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support His involvement in the DSM demonstrates significant importance to the field of psychiatry. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Zahran Alloush deathEdit

No consensus. Brandmeistertalk 16:48, 30 December 2015 (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: Zahran Alloush (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Jaysh al-Islam leader Zahran Alloush is killed in Syrian Arab Air Force airstrike.
News source(s): RT IE MEE

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: notable step, especially since the ones being bussed from Damascus suburbs to Raqqa under UN supervision (as part ofa months long negotiation) is now on hold. Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leader of one of the many rebel groups. Delay of a minor event does not create importance. Instead of RD, the death should be covered in the Syrian Civil War article that is already at Ongoing. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd consider it to be included already in the Ongoing article. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] December 2015 Hindu Kush earthquakeEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2015 (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: December 2015 Hindu Kush earthquake (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: A 6.3 magnitude earthquake hits north Asia.
News source(s): US Survey yahoo NBC Samaa

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.
 Anjana LarkaTalk 09:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose there were six stronger earthquakes this year, did we post every one of those? This one seems to have relatively minor consequences (at this time). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Yes you can say (at this time) this is a minor consequence but first one is not a good excuse life of a single person is as important as of 10 or 20. Anjana LarkaTalk 10:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
No one is saying that a single life is not valuable, but we are not able to post every single earthquake in the world. There must be something notable or unusual about it, such as a large number of casualties or damage. This earthquake doesn't appear to have even killed one person as of right now. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of right now per my above post. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Nothing unusual about this earthquake nor did it cause major damage/loss of life (thankfully). The epicenter's considerable depth lends me to think we wont be seeing any either. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:19, 26 December 2015 (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] RD: Sadhana ShivdasaniEdit

Article: Sadhana Shivdasani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Veteran Actress Sadhna Passes Away

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: Article in good condition and appeared to be a major figure in Bollywood --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  • support - indeed, seems like a top actress in Bollywood at her time. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article says it better than I can: "she did not receive any of the leading awards of the film industry" - popular does not equate to notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if she would have worked in Hollywood we would discuss whether her death warrants a blurb or not. 93.215.94.29 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt that very much. Just because she was "highly paid", it doesn't mean her not-particularly-unusual death would warrant a blurb, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reading her article, her notability seems to come from how she appeared in her films rather than her acting ability- and even there she seems average. She did get a lifetime achievement award, but it seems to recognize her popularity more than her ability, and as TRM states, popularity does not equal notability. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should go ahead and propose for this article to be deleted if she is not notable? 87.154.217.17 (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you being deliberately disruptive? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We put up Paul Walker did we not? Samuel L. Jackson has not won any major American awards but is very popular and are you going to say that we would not put him up? She was nominated for India's academy equivalent twice twice. Unfortunately we don't have edtiors that specialise in 1970's Indian Cinema to make her article up to scratch, especially compared to our coverage of internet celebs or the likes. GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    Jackson's lead puts it better than I could: " has achieved critical and commercial acclaim, surpassing Frank Welker as the actor with the highest grossing film total of all time in October 2011,[1] and he has received numerous accolades and awards." and not just "he was third highest paid actor in the 1970s". Posting Walker was a gross error, as we know, to repeat it would be negligent. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    You fail to mention that it also says "... was one of the top actresses in the 1960s and the early-1970s, a period regarded as Bollywood's golden era". Nice try. 87.154.217.17 (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not a "nice try" at all, I simply stated that Jackson would be obvious because he actually won awards and set records, unlike this individual who was popular and according to one single source "one of the top actresses". Now give it a rest. Oh, and that reference to the hagiographical Hindu page, the article is so poorly written, one wonders if it really could be used as a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    I do think it's a bit of a stretch to include her but Jimmy Hill has been on the page for a week and i am positive that if this actress was British or American and of equivalent status in those countries cinemas that she would qualify. Indian cinema is one of the top three worldwide so i have no problems with posting one of it's top stars, especially when you can guarantee that people will get Pamela Anderson up here. The quality of the article is weak i do agree with you. GuzzyG (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    Jimmy Hill fundamentally changed the way football worked. This actress was reasonably popular and well paid. Yes, Pammy would get some support, but there'd also be a huge backlash against it too. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    As a huge Football fan i am quite aware of Jimmy Hill's accomplishments and i am not downplaying them, i was more pointing out in nice terms that seeing a fresh name might not hurt. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per GuzzyG. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As long as this person is not blurbed and the article is in good shape, mentioning and honoring her name are fine for me. Also, regardless of popularity, she has been prominent to the industry, especially due to her award nominations, though she did not win awards. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. When you're an actress whose name is a household word in your country, that sort of popularity puts you at the top of your field even if you didn't get a single Oscar. The article easily qualifies her. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment before an admin posts this, could they read the article please. We have unreferenced puffery such as "The Rafi – Asha duet "Abhi Na Jaao Chodkar" remains evergreen.", "to make their famous suspense thriller trilogy.", "she played her remarkable double role ", " Madan Mohan’s all time classics like", "thus making her famous as the "Mystery girl"." etc etc, all in one section. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
not ready there are 2 sentences of her death as of this month...and one is the general illness, but I 'spose it counts as a reaction of sorts. Plus there is an orange tag in the article.Lihaas (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The orange tag was more a drive by tagging with no rationale provided on talk page or elsewhere. I removed that. And "Abhi Na Jaao Chodkar" is indeed notable, included in 47 seleted duets of Asha-Rafi in Golden Collection pack. Anyways, the sentences are now altered a lot. The Hindu called her "the woman who defined elegance and grace for Bollywood" (ref) and that conveys her notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    It was pretty obvious (a rationale was given in the edit summary), so I've replaced it and added a note on the talk page just for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  Done All films refed/blue linked. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Asian Infrastructure Investment BankEdit

Article: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is formally established after 17 countries ratify its Articles of Agreement.
Alternative blurb: ​The Charter of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank enters into force.
News source(s): reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: very relevant development in Asia-Pacific region, with relevance also to lots of English speaking regions (India, New Zealand, Australia); but also from an international relations pov. L.tak (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  • support - significant and article seems ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment a quick breeze of the article, I'm not sure of the significance of this agreement between a handful of countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe that's why it's partly confusing since the blurb only mentions 17. And the article you mentioned was posted with a blurb that included "amounting to about 40% of world's GDP", which was a clear indicator of the significance of the agreement. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The US alone has 22% of the world's GDP, so that's not a good measure - even a bilateral agreement between the US and a tiny country always amounts to more than 20% of the world's GDP (the signatory countries of the AIIB are also over 40%). I've added an altblurb without any confusing numbers based on the wording on the AIIB webpage - apart from what the name of the bank already tells, it is hard to put the significance of the bank in a NPOV way into very few words. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - China is one of the signatories and will be most influential to the Bank. So is South Korea, which is geographically smaller. Of course, the creation of the Bank is big news, even when the press doesn't emphasize it that much. George Ho (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
neutral for now I considered coming here for this but am not so sure. If we posted its announcement then we should probably wait till its operationally functional in a few months.Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I see the point, but the problem with that is that there is no true "moment" for that. The board of governors will meet early January. At some point it will hand out its first loan etcetc, but there is no clear-cut "start of operations", except for its formal establishment as a bank (which now has happened on the 25th). So it probably is now, or 6 months ago (signing the articles of agreement), or... probably not at all...L.tak (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
its not. they were to formally begin operations in April or March.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The point where it is confirmed that the AIIB is actually being founded is now. That is the big news. A first board meetings or staff hiring (they won't have much staff) will not be big news. LoveToLondon (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - formation of a big supranational organization makes posting this seem obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a big international deal. Per above supports, let's post it now. Jusdafax 06:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb. For amendments, please take it to WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

December 24Edit


[Closed] Santa is on his wayEdit

Cute, done for the year, or at least until 1 April 2016. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Santa Claus (talk, history) and Christmas (talk, history)
Blurb: Santa Claus is making his way around the world delivering gifts
Alternative blurb: Santa Claus is giving Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and his friends a well-earned rest after they helped him deliver gifts to all the good children of the world.
News source(s): Google's Santa Tracker, RTE
 Count Iblis (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Supported by NORAD. However, the target article has one orange tag, this is a BLP issue. Brandmeistertalk 20:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Brandmeister, can't be a BLP issue as BLP is Biography of Living People, and Santa Claus = Sinter Klaas = Saint Nicholas, whose bio article tells us he died on December 6th 343 AD, so to claim it as a BLP issue is to blasphemously doubt the inerrancy of Wikipedia and/or its Reliable Sources. Incidentally we may first need to update the Norad and Ghost articles, as Norad's tracking clearly means that Norad has proved the existence of at least one ghost, unless you are a wicked conspiracy theorist who blasphemously doubts the inerrant truth of the utterances of an agency of Uncle Sam. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, more seriously, per WP:IAR, the presence of the tags should not be used as an excuse to avoid posting. There are potentially major benefits for kids who read the article and learn that Santa is a fiction inflicted on them by lying adults, and potentially major long-term benefits for Wikipedia in the form of the long-term gratitude of some of the kids who realize they have learnt the truth thanks to Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Cute, but DYK.--WaltCip (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Humbug! NORAD Tracks Santa is currently on SA/OTD. I also wish to avoid all the questions as to why the info from the Google web site does not match with NORAD's website (As I type this, Google shows Santa in Tanzania moving south along the east coast of Africa while NORAD indicates he is moving north along the western coast into Nigeria). --Allen3 talk 21:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — Tossing in something fun and cute is a nice touch, especially if that orange tag can be dealt with. Can't be excessively serious all the time, after all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "Santa's sleigh shot down over rebel-held territory in Ukraine."--81.157.117.60 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I met him a few hours ago in Sweden. Nice guy.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice guy, BabbaQ? Nearly 60 years ago I used to meet him every year in my local department stores, and I found him more boring than nice. But he's obviously got a picture in an attic somewhere, as he hasn't aged a bit in 60 years. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there an Islamic and Jewish counterpart of Santa Claus? Also, is this a serious nomination? The usualness/unusualness criterion is already useless. --George Ho (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, Mr. Grinch: "You may hear some reindeer on your rooftop / Or Jack Frost on your windowsill / But if someone's climbin' down your chimney / You'd better load your gun and shoot to kill!" -- Weird Al Yankovic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there an Islamic and Jewish counterpart of Santa Claus? Possibly, but presumably not one who delivers gifts to good kids at midnight as Christmas Eve turns to Christmas. And there presumably isn't a Confucian, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Shinto, animist or atheist equivalent either, and I'm my own eccentric variety of agnostic ignostic sceptic humanist and I'm not aware of any equivalent among any of my 4 labels, but I've still supported the nomination. I don't even want to be ecumenical by having us point out that Santa is an anagram of Satan to try to broad-mindedly keep a few Satanists happy. The relevant rule that supports posting is WP:IAR. I should add that any kid who is old enough to read and understand the Santa Claus article, and proceeds to do so, will presumably learn that Santa Claus is a fictional character (and that adults must therefore sometimes be shameless liars), and he/she may also pass on this info to his/her friends. And I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is to prevent kids finding out useful info like that. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - but switch to something like the alternative blurb once it's past midnight in California (or maybe Hawaii). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - clearly a joke nomination made in the spirit of Christmas, and then it becomes a judgement call whether we want to be serious all the time or not. I favour "yes we do". Banedon (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
So you think there is nothing serious about helping kids who are old enough to read Wikipedia to learn that Santa Claus is a fiction inflicted on them by lying adults? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
And do you also think that there is nothing serious about potential long-term benefits for Wikipedia in the form of the long-term gratitude of some of the kids who realize they have learnt the truth thanks to Wikipedia? Or do you think that the encyclopedia is improved by depriving itself of those long-term benefits? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
(I should perhaps add that I personally only really care about the potential benefits to the kids, but I'm also mentioning the potential benefits to Wikipedia (which for me are just a minor bonus) because they are real and because others here may really care about them, and it's probably a very good thing if they do so) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose' A flawless performance is all but certain from this annual event. May change to support if his rounds turn out to be extraordinary. Mamyles (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Must we post this every Christmas? Isn't OTD enough, which lists Christmas every year? --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Come on it's time to give the guy some credit! It'd be nice for it to be posted to show users we can have a funny bone...well in this case a funny motherboard. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Don't be ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not the funnies pages. Let's at least pretend we take this seriously, shall we? Fgf10 (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
May I refer you to my earlier comments about the seriousness of giving or denying kids who can read Wikipedia a chance to learn that Santa is a lie inflicted on them by lying adults, plus the seriousness of the potential benefits to Wikipedia of us doing so. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A midwinter festival co-opted by the church to assimilate pagans, fronted by a commercialised pastiche of St Nicolas and Odin, celebrating a putative birthday of a fictional character? No thank you. 94.212.132.191 (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose One doesn't get a chance to say this often, but this is fucking stupid. 72.196.121.121 (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2015 (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 23Edit


[Closed] 2015 Zaria Shia MassacreEdit

This item is stale, the attacks took place over a week ago, the article was created nearly a fortnight ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2015 Zaria Shia Massacre (talk, history) and Ibrahim Zakzaky (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Dozens of shias are killed in clashes with Nigerian army in Zaria following arrest of Ibrahim Zakzaky.
News source(s): (Al Jazeera), (BBC)

Article needs updating
 --Jenda H. (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Substantial issues with POV/neutrality: "Nigeria's military is infamous for its excesses." or "What happened in Zaria was nothing but an act of brutality by the Nigerian military." Additionally, nearly all of the "international and domestic reactions" cited in the article come from the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Iran, Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, as well as students in Pakistan and India. I'm not saying those aren't relevant, but I'm curious as to what other reactions are out there from other nations/NGOs. SpencerT♦C 20:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • support - when the issues mentioned above has been solved. Notable and interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did the deaths happen on the 12th through 14th? The news seemed too old. This ain't elections or floodings; I'm unsure whether announcement exception applies. George Ho (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally in support of promoting this to ITN, I'm not at all happy with the current state of the article. A number of important questions remain unclear, and while the article is overly verbose in various citations, it is imprecise and lacks meaningful, sourced background. PanchoS (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
oppose as stale it happened some time ago and should have been posted then. DYK maybe if the article was recently created.Lihaas (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Bülend UlusuEdit

Stale nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2015 (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: Bülend Ulusu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Possibly significant enough for RD. Turkish admiral, Commander of the Navy and former prime minister -- though he was prime minister in the regime formed by a military coup. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Only on article quality. We don't do stubs. Nobility wise it's a go. Fix the article but adding more info with sources not only Turkish, but some English ones such as obits or some newsflashes on the New York Times archives. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TDKR Chicago 101. Unbelievable that we only have a stub for this individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: He was the prime minister after 1980 coup detat. Kenan Evren was a "dictator" presuming absolute power during military rule, so Ulusu's role is merely a "titular" prime ministry. Also, no state funeral was held.--Joseph (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was curious as to why we had so little to say about a fellow whose CV looked fairly impressive on paper. Given the way he rose to the title, I wondered whether he wielded any actual authority. Internet searches find very little information in languages I read. Can probably close this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Brunei bans ChristmasEdit

No consensus to post, closing before more stupidity ensues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Hassanal Bolkiah (talk, history) and Brunei (talk, history)
Blurb: Brunei sultan Hassanal Bolkiah bans the public celebration of Christmas.
News source(s): [5] [6]
 Banedon (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless this leads to massive protests or widespread religious conflict of some sort. More symbolic than real impact at this point. SpencerT♦C 02:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Countries are free to recognize or not recognize whatever holidays they see fit, and they can also limit the rights of their citizens to engage in public activities they find undesirable. As Spencer states, unless this leads to widespread protests or conflict, I don't think this merits posting(though I concede it may garner interest with Christmas approaching). 331dot (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    While I can agree that countries can do whatever the want with public holidays or limit the rights of their citizens in whatever ways they want, if we say this kind of policy decision is an internal affair and not worth posting then it would also exclude a variety of items from ITN, such as elections (unless they lead to widespread protests) and Japan expanding the role of its self-defense forces, something we posted in September this year. I realize I'm extrapolating somewhat from what you wrote, but the implications to me are quite clear. Banedon (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    We judge each item on its own merits, not on past precedent, and in this case I don't feel the merits warrant posting. A country taking an action that it is able to do, that isn't heavily in the news(from what I see this is not front page, top level news) does not rise to the level of ITN. An officially pacifist country like Japan deciding to expand its military is a radical change in policy that was widely covered; an Islamic country using Sharia law deciding to ban Christmas is not a radical change in policy. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Brunei? Never heard of it. In the meantime, you're a mean one, Mr. Sultan. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Leaving aside the religious aspect, it's perfectly reasonable for a government to see the secular version of Christmas as a public nuisance and decide, "we don't want that." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 09:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure about posting this, but it is not at all a secular decision. Brunei if I remember well is one of the most repressive anti-secular countries in the world, where Sharia law is actually pretty much used in courts. Nergaal (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
support IFF they HAD shoot down or drone Santa.Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2015 (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.

Resignation of the Georgian Prime MinisterEdit

Article: Irakli Garibashvili (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili (pictured) resigns after only two years in office.
News source(s): Civil.ge, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Let's see whether this will fly... This is a very surprising resignation, after only two years in office, no reasons given. Admittedly in a small country, but this is a big deal for what is a young democracy. Alternatively, one could post the new prime minister, once announced (this Friday probably). Or nothing at all if Georgia is just too small to matter. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Since the head of state in Georgia is President and not Prime Minister, this doesn't seem to hit the bar. Brandmeistertalk 22:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The president has a mostly ceremonial role, as the constitution was changed in 2012. The prime minister is the one who calls the shots. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements - Won't matter that he's not the President. The change of government is very significant. Too bad the BLP is tagged with orange maintenance banners. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The government is not changing, at least not until the next election in a year. Presumably someone from the same party will replace him, even if only temporarily. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have added a few citations and removed some non-neutral language, the article is not perfect, but at least everything is cited now. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I marked it as ready by default as opposers seem too proud to be mostly ignorant on Georgian political system. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral First, I do note the article really could use more citations. But as for including this, it really would be prudent based on the reasons. If it was just that stress got to him, that's probably not news. If it part of some scandal (which I'm not aware of) that might be different. But as it is, adding Brandmeister's point that PM in Georgia is not the state leader, it's hard to tell if this is news. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. This doesn't seem to be getting widespread, top news coverage; as stated he doesn't seem to have resigned due to a scandal or other problem. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP gave us a heads-up about the Georgian government. Shall this change your mind, 331dot? George Ho (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what you are referencing, but if you are referring to the fact that the Georgian head of state is ceremonial, that does not change my mind. The government is still not radically changing as I understand it until the next election in a year. If this resignation was prompted by a scandal or even a serious health issue(neither of which seems to be the case, he either did for political reasons or he was just not interested any more), I would support. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
He did not state any reasons for his resignation. There might have been a scandal, there might serious health reasons or whatever. It's all speculation, but the fact that this resignation came as an utter surprise and is completely unexplained makes it noteworthy.
It would be noteworthy if it resulted in political change or was due to a scandal(which does not seem to be the case as no one knows why). 331dot (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable and important news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - seems obvious to me. Opposes fail to convince. One does not need to have scandals or health issues to have news. Banedon (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
We are not a newspaper or news ticker. Merely being in the news(and this isn't top level news) is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
What's the difference between Georgian politics and US politics? Also, how should the resignation of the Georgian PM be different from resignation of the US President? George Ho (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The US President is head of state; the Georgian PM is not head of state. We did not post the US Speaker of the House resigning. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
But a Georgian PM is the head of government right now. It somehow can resemble a US Vice President, right? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The US Vice President is not head of government(the President is) and I doubt an uncontroversial resignation of one would warrant posting either. The Speaker of the House is closer to a PM in America's system(though not exactly the same) and as I indicated, that resignation was not posted. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the Georgian PM is the one who holds all the power and is the Georgian equivalent to the US president or the German chancellor or the Russian president. Different countries have different political systems, but in Georgia it is the PM who matters. Fine if you oppose, but at least educate yourself about the item in question. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
You do not know what I have and have not educated myself about; I am well aware of the nature of the position. ITN has always placed head of state as more important, as they represent their nation to the world. Someone who resigns without scandal and will likely be replaced(if temporarily) with someone ideologically similar is much less notable. As I stated, the recent resignation of the US Speaker of the House was not posted, for the same reason. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The absurd comparison to the speaker of the house strongly suggests that you have no clue about the Georgian political system. Which is fine, after all it's a small nation, but then please do not vote on these items. I would also not claim that there was no scandal, because quite simply, the reasons for this resignation are unknown. There might have been a scandal, there might be health reasons, there might be something else. What makes this is a baffling and non-routine resignation. I also find it hard to believe that ITN places head of states as more important than the head of government as a rule. Surely Angela Merkel resigning would be posted, Joachim Gauck as president and head of state of Germany resigning would be much more doubtful. 93.215.83.247 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
If you had read my above posts you would have seen that I realize the two offices are not the same, but the manner in which they were suggested for posting is. I will post my views (we do not 'vote') on whatever nominations I choose to do so, as will you. A change in head of state is specifically listed on the recurring events list while head of government is not and attempts to add it have not succeeded. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur with this IP guy. Watch what you say about the news and politics from Georgia next time, 331, or you'll be sorry. --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Is that a threat?--WaltCip (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Ho: What exactly does that mean? 331dot (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
───────────────────────── I'm too busy to reply to your misassumptions on Georgian politics, 331. Please excuse me, I have other errands to do... --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Walt, I wasn't threatening 331. I just warned him to be careful about his words. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here are Georgian and Russian versions of Presidential Powers. The English one doesn't detail it at all; it's empty. Also, here's the website of the Government of Georgia. Seems to me that his role is currently the same as the UK PM. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it seems to have caused nothing more than raised eyebrows. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? George Ho (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It's hardly "in the news" is it? I looked for updates, but nothing. And don't try to threaten me, it won't work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not frontline news because the NY Post, Daily Mail and others, rarely report on anything happening outside North American/Europe. Unless there is of course a terror attack on American/European tourists in the darker corners of the world. 93.215.94.29 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't know about those outlets, I never read them. But the outlets I do read most certainly cover international news. This was covered when it happened and has soon been completely forgotten about. This is the ITN section of the main page, not the "things we ought to be seeing in the news" part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:ITN says, "Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason." You haven't explained else why the resignation of Georgian PM is not newsworthy other than "it's not in the news" criterion. George Ho (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm basing my position on whether our readers will be looking for this. That it was a mere blip in the major and minor news outlets and that it has already become chip paper means it's not in the news. And there is no consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This is still big news and widely discussed in the media of post-soviet countries, please don't base your assessment on the news sources you read. 87.154.217.17 (talk) 10:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, as am I. I will base my assessment on my own criteria, and that means this isn't in the news and therefore shouldn't be on the main page of English language Wikipedia. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Widely discussed in the media of the former Soviet Union is not an opinion. No go back and read your personal favorite news about the Kardashian's and Justin Bieber. 87.154.217.17 (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not going to remove it but I disagree with the 'ready' assessment; there is no clear consensus to post this. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposers rely on the press's low emphasis on Georgian political system, bad comparisons, etc. Masem, care to vote? George Ho (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion that news coverage is not relevant to "in the news", as you canvass for support. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's worth re-visiting the ITN introduction which states The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. i.e. of wide interest. This individual's article was receiving around 50 to 60 hits per day before the resignation, then around 1000 before now dropping back towards its previous levels. This is a clear and bright indicator that this story is most definitely not of wide interest to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
What about other criteria of "wide"? --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Do tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
If you really believe in this method of judging whether an item is of wide interest, you should get it written into ITN policy. I can just imagine the clause: "Any article that does not receive more than an average of 1000 page views a day for a period of one week is not of sufficiently wide interested to Wikipedia's readers to post in ITN". Banedon (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I really do believe that if an article gets around 60 hits per day on average, it is of little interest to our English language Wikipedia readers. I have no interest in your suggestion, by all means take it up yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've restarted the general head of government change ITNR discussion you had closed as stalled in Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Change proposal: All changes to the head of government. The current rule that changes of a lot of mostly powerless presidents, kings and queens are listed at ITNR but changes to the head of government are not doesn't make sense. LoveToLondon (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Great! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Rambling Man prefer ITN to be populated by basketball players and the Kardashians, because clearly they get many hits and can be found in the English language press. It's sad to see so much hostility by an admin (!) towards news from parts of the world that are already underrepresented at Wikipedia. 87.154.209.127 (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
That has neither logic nor evidence attached to it. But why spoil a good story? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait A new Prime Minister will clearly be suitable for ITN, and the parliament is expected to vote on a new Prime Minister soon. Two ITN items for one Prime Minister change are too many, and the new Prime Minister is the more important news. LoveToLondon (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
In your opinion. The question is if it is sufficiently noteworthy to appear in the news. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: War in AfghanistanEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:05, 25 December 2015 (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: War in Afghanistan (2015–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
Nominator's comments: Even when the article has very little to update, additions have been recently added. Also, the War still continues. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
2015? It's been going on since shortly after 9/11/01. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: I don't know whether you misunderstood or are joking. This is one of the phases. Also, the War went on since the Cold War. George Ho (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. So how does a begin date of 2015 figure into it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? I just chose one article that is easier to update. The main War page hasn't been updated recently. What are your alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really don't see any need for posting this to "Ongoing events", as there are currently no related news that merit inclusion and thereby making overcrowd. The increased editing traffic certainly indicates that something is going on but there are hundreds or even thousands other articles with increased editing traffic as well. Shall we include them all?!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Without any comment on the merits of the nomination, something really needs to be done about the delineation of the Afghanistan War phases. Using arbitrary years just seems too confusing, because the war has been going on for over a decade now, regardless of what the POTUS says.--WaltCip (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There are Cold War (1962–79), Cold War (1979–85), etc. Why must phases of Cold War be treated differently from phases of Afghan War? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not seeing anything major that warrants this being placed under "ongoing". I share the same sentiments on the awkward delineation of the war phases too. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There is an ongoing war but no recent major battles. 198.16.164.205 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are dozens of such world affairs that are technically ongoing for decades, but unless they reach an intensity as to warrant special attention, we can't list all of them all the time. If the article has little to update but has still been well maintained, that is commendable, but it would be better to post as ongoing when there is a great deal to update, no? - OldManNeptune 13:45, 24 December 2015 (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 22Edit


[Posted] Falcon-9 first stage landingEdit

Articles: Falcon 9 (talk, history) and Falcon 9 Flight 20 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During the launch of Orbcomm satellites, the first stage of Falcon 9 (pictured) successfully lands in Cape Canaveral after completing its flight.
Alternative blurb: ​During the launch of several Orbcomm satellites, the first stage of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket (pictured) successfully lands in Cape Canaveral after completing its flight.
News source(s): spaceflightnow, Telegraph, USA Today, The Verge

Nominator's comments: This is a major achievement on the way to reusability of launchers. Hektor (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Falcon 9 Flight 20, the actual flight's article, has been added to the nomination. SounderBruce 02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: To stress the importance, this is a first time they've been able to land a rocket-type craft which is normally launched from the vertical position in the same manner that it took off, upright and near the intended target landing zone on solid ground. The Flight 20 article could use a bit more but this just happened in the hour so it might take a bit of time. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: the blurb needs to be rewritten to focus on what is newsworthy about the flight. It's a definite post after that is done. Prodego talk 03:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – This is 100% the type of material we need to showcase on the main page. Historic event without a doubt. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Super cool, arguably ITN/R as notable spaceflight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely. For those who wonder why I didn't support the Blue Origin story, and do support this one: this was a fully functioning, commercial, operational launch into space, which was fully successful in both delivering the payload and landing the stage, not a test flight. It went higher and faster than New Shepard. Furthermore, this was a return to flight after a stand down and the first flight of an ungraded model. Fgf10 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The most relevant and amazing thing that happened in spaceflight for a while, fantastic! :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I just happened to watch the BBC report and was so impressed that I came here looking for a nom. Note that we should be careful about claiming a first though. The key thing to mention in the blurb is that this is a rocket landing vertically. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    No it's not, Blue Origin did that with a suborbital rocket a few weeks ago, and there are many other examples for rockets that didn't reach space. This is the first orbital rocket to soft-land vertically. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    The part that soft-landed was the first stage and so was not itself orbital. The article indicates that they have plans to recover the second stage in a similar way and so this is a work-in-progress in which the achievements are getting bigger and better. And, when man landed on the moon, it was noteworthy that there was live coverage on TV. Now it's the tweets that are notable... Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I nominated the similar (but non-orbital) Blue Origin landing a few weeks ago. That was not posted, on the grounds that it was suborbital and Falcon 9 would be more significant. Well now we have the bigger, better version. Definitely significant. I don't think we need to mention the Orbcomm payload, but getting a link to VTVL into the blurb would be a good idea. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, picture: I added a symbolic picture of a Falcon 9 above. We can also use this one of the actual maneuvre, of course: [7] -- cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Came here to nominate this. shoy (reactions) 13:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As with Shoy, I just came here to nominate it! Miyagawa (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Quite a milestone in space history. Sca (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if somebody could address the maintenance tag (have any of you read the article?) then we can easily post as consensus is overwhelming. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If we're talking about the specific launch article, that maintenance tag was added in the last two hours (from TRM's post date above) and does appear unjustified as the bulk of the prose is properly past tense (there's one sentence in future tense that says what happens if the launch was proven successful, but that's reasonable). --MASEM (t) 15:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
      • No it wasn't, it was added something like 13 hours ago. If you are happy with the article, and have proof-read it, please remove the tag and then we can post this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Oops, my bad, I was looking at when a bot dated the tag. I do see that many intermediate edits were done to fix the tense since that point it was added, so what I'm seeing now clearly looks like it was done to address the tag. I would be fine with its removal at this point, but should get more opinions if that's the only thing limiting posting. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
          • If you think it's fine, remove the tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Someone else pulled it before I could, so that probably means its ready to go. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The focus of the blurb needs to be that it is the first commercial launch of this type of craft. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks ready to me. Marking it so. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure the blurb is ready. The topic clearly is. Prodego talk 18:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a shorter blurb, needs work, so any admin prepared to be more creative, go fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

December 21Edit


[Closed] FDA relaxes ban on blood donations from MSMEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2015 (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: Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Food and Drug Administration lifts a ban on blood donations from men who have sex with men, and replacing it with a requirement that such men must not have had sex with other men in the previous year to donate blood.
News source(s): The Guardian NPR Ars Technica
Nominator's comments: This ban was previously in place for 32 years, and many activists and medical groups have criticized it since then, so them getting the policy relaxed seems like a significant event. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose systemic US bias, parochial regional story about a backwards society finally catching up with the civilized world, things happened but nothing changed. Is that enough boiler-plate anti-American rhetoric to kill this item? --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
As stated above, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ignoring the claimed national bias above, this is nowhere close to the importance of the legalization of same-sex marriage. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor change in policy; as Masem states, SSM was a much bigger deal. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - According to the linked article the controversy is a global one. I need to see some reasons for why the actions of one particular country in a global controversy is significant to support this nomination. Banedon (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Pending the creation of a World government, these sorts of things are going to happen one country at a time. Big countries decisions affect more people than little ones. Hopefully France will lift the ban soon so that support and praise can be heaped upon them via ITN. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't go far enough. Why celibate for one year? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Bisexual, bicurious, lesbian and heterosexual are other ways to not have sex with men for 1 year. Your point is still true for homosexual men though, at least those older than their state's Romeo and Juliet laws allow and not where the age of consent is 18 (Do 17 year olds count as men? It's probably safe to have gay sex with 17 year old males in my state if the youth never left the state in his life) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Bagram suicide bombingEdit

Clear consensus against this nomination, closing per WP:SNOW. Modest Genius talk 11:51, 22 December 2015 (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: 2015 Bagram suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Six United States NATO service members are killed by a Taliban suicide bomber in Bagram, Afghanistan.
News source(s): Washington Post BBC Al Jazeera
Nominator's comments: Terrorist attack on United States NATO service members. Andise1 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While an attack, there have been plenty of others like this in the region, this just happens to have a larger death toll. It's part of the ongoing tensions in the area. --MASEM (t) 02:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not unusual for a war zone. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot, people get killed during war. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Six people killed by a suicide bomber in a country with ongoing military activities does not seem to be something extraordinary rare and worth considering for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Star Wars global box office recordEdit

Consensus against posting with an agreement that this nomination would be more worthwhile for posting if/when Star Wars: The Force Awakens breaks the all-time box office record (presently held by Avatar). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:33, 23 December 2015 (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: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (talk, history)
Blurb: Star Wars: The Force Awakens earns more than $528 million worldwide in its opening weekend, a box office record.
Alternative blurb: Star Wars: The Force Awakens earns more than $528 million worldwide in its opening weekend, a box office record, including $247 million in North America.
News source(s): CNN, Vanity Fair
Nominator's comments: Despite earlier estimates that Star Wars would fall just short of the global record (primarily due to not opening in China yet), it now appears that it has eclipsed Jurassic World for the largest worldwide opening weekend of all time. Although this isn't exactly an unexpected outcome and this isn't a record that we often post - a new record happens every few years or so, with Jurassic's record occurring in June 2015 - these are still huge numbers by a well-known mega-franchise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I added the total of NA box office gross in altblurb. Despite significance of the franchise and fantastic excitement, the overseas gross ratio ain't that huge. Also, significance at ITN standards is too low. Jurassic World wasn't ITN when it hit $500 million worldwide. Why should this movie? George Ho (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
For the note, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was ITN four years ago. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Biggest of all time" yes, if it reaches that, but opening weekend sales are more a piece of marketing than anything else. It's completely predictable that with the number of theater seats rising, blockbuster movies are going to have increased sales. ‑ Iridescent 21:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An event like this is a trivial figure in the grander scheme of the world, like being a presidential frontrunner or having a big lead in the middle of the sports season. If it becomes the highest grossing film of all time, definite support '''tAD''' (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Harry Potter blurb. Jurassic World wasn't nominated, and media and public interest in The Force Awakens is much larger. Last week it was our most read article by a factor four to five, excluding a factor two for Star Wars. December box office is usually more spread out when people have many days off. The previous December record opening was only $250 million for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.[8] Avatar was in ITN when it became the highest grossing film in total (the only such record in Wikipedia's time). News interest is far larger when a film opens than when its total breaks a record – something "known" long in advance except for the precise day. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Huge, notable, obviously in the news. Yes, it's trivia, but so are a lot of the things we post. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support now or later, but not both. This is going to break Avatar's record and become the highest grossing film of all time. The question is do we want to wait for that second record, or post this one. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – For this to happen without the movie being released China is an incredible feat. It holds opening records in 19 countries. Sooner or later the sales from the movie will warrant a blurb on ITN, whether it's now or when it inevitably passes $1 billion, or even $2 billion. Star Wars is most certainly "in the news" due to its status as a cultural phenomenon loved by multiple generations, it's of interest to the vast majority of people. Hell, The Force Awakens was the most viewed article on Wikipedia for December 13–19 by an incredible margin of 2.5 million views (above the article for the Star Wars franchise itself) and 4 million views above third place. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That says it all, doesn't it? This is a cultural phenomenon. Whether it's "media-generated" or not, this is something Wikipedia's readers actually care about. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  * Comment OpposeSca (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

.......PS: May the Farce not be with us. Sca (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as media generated uber hype, no surprises, and trivia. Please consider making this a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The record is one broken frequently (see Jurassic World), and as TRM points out, arguably no one was surprised by this news. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I see enough media coverage (+ fan coverage) of this to support this nomination. Oppose alt blurb: I see no reason to single out North America. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Frequently broken record and hardly a surprise for the franchise. I'm not impressed by the volume of media coverage given how much is unmistakably sponsored content. As mentioned, we did not post Jurassic World; Harry Potter presumably went up due to sheer weight of fan bias. Can be renominated if it becomes highest grossing of all time - which is still trivia but at least is a less frequently broken record. - OldManNeptune 06:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Widespread global news, wide impact, multi-cultural touch point. Opposers utterly unconvincing. Huge Wikipedia readership. ITN-worthy, without a doubt. Jusdafax 07:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wide impact on who, specifically? Are Star Wars fans getting a cut of opening weekend proceeds? It seems you mean to say "wildly popular", which is self-evident from the fact that it's a blurb about ticket sales. The Star Wars franchise is obviously noteworthy, but I don't see how that translates to "The seventh film, much like the six before, sold well, setting the second opening weekend record of the year" being notable in the sense ITN uses. - OldManNeptune 07:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
And of course if we post this, we then should be posting the next one in the franchise which no doubt will be as, if not more popular. This isn't a Star Wars ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Poor argument, TRM. Same logical fallacy can be applied to numerous items that are posted here. We're not a sports ticker, yet the FIFA scandal has been posted multiple times. We go by what's "in the news" and it so happens that this movie is just that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hold on, why aren't you criticising all those before me who have noted that this is an often-broken record? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
No reason in particular, thoughts came together after seeing your comment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Right, gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A quick perusal of box office records, whether it's overall gross, opening weekend, whatever, shows an undeniable and marked trend of recentism, to the point that this is the second time we've had a biggest opening weekend this year. Further, I dare say that it's a small minority of moviegoers whose chief interest in a film is the income it generates for its owners, and that most just want to see and talk about the movie. I'm fine with record trivia, and I'm fine with regularly posting something that fate has decreed be the flavor of the month (such as the run of horse race blurbs earlier this year), but it must be pointed out that to no small degree, sales records are "in the news" because the news is owned by the same people who make and sell other media such as films and records, and even unaffiliated outlets cover entertainment news that we wouldn't touch ITN. In short, I believe the argument via "everybody's talking about it" is discounted as entertainment news, and the argument via trivia record is weak since it's broken with increasing regularity, indicating an underlying bias to the record itself. - OldManNeptune 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I will submit that I have personal bias in this instance, so my view could very easily be clouded by the Dark Side my personal enjoyment of the franchise. It's quite possible that Disney's ownership of multiple media outlets is a key reason why the sales of this movie are getting such widespread attention. While the record itself may be increasingly common, this particular instance stands out as it was achieved without China being part of the picture. China accounted for $99.15 million of Jurassic World's opening weekend sales, roughly 18–19% of the global total, for example. Basically just playing with numbers at this point, but that shows how monumental the sales, and by extension public interest, have been. This particular blurb serves as the most viable way, in my opinion, to reflect the huge attention the movie has received. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
List of highest-grossing openings for films#Biggest worldwide opening weekends since 2002 shows the record was broken in November 2003, December 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, June 2015. It's the second record this year but only the fifth in the last decade. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I happened to be in Leicester Square in the aftermath of the premiere – lots of people wandering around with light sabres, &c. But such premieres are routine events and their box office records tend to be an artifact of inflation. There's also a trend of global releases to beat piracy and so first-week sales are not comparable over time. As for it being in the news, that's a consequence of marketing and promotion but Disney doesn't need any more free publicity. The clincher is that Wikipedia has an overt policy of publishing spoilers without warning readers. Let's not go spoiling childrens' Christmas, please. Andrew D. (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose So far this is not the highest grossing film of all time, like Avatar. If this happens, then yes, but so far it's a vanity fair feeding on media hype. Brandmeistertalk 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait to see if it breaks the total takings record. First weekend is just marketing puff. If/when it breaks the overall record then we can post (though ticket price inflation makes that an ever-easier target). Modest Genius talk 11:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Good point. This film has been hyped to the stratosphere. It remains to be seen whether it has "legs". I recall when the first film came out, in 1977, it ran in our local theater for at least six months. That's some serious legs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - very noteworthy and fun news. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    There's no denying that it's of note, but since when did "fun news" become part of the ITN process? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
A fun-duh-mental misconception, to be sure. Sca (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for total revenue record. That is a more important metric, in my opinion. Mamyles (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK does these kinds of human interest/record event hooks. If the total is going to be proposed, then the opening weekend certainly isn't worth covering now. -- Callinus (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2015 (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] FIFA bansEdit

Articles: Sepp Blatter (talk, history) and Michel Platini (talk, history)
Blurb: Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini, the suspended presidents of FIFA and UEFA respectively, are banned from association football for eight years amid the 2015 FIFA corruption case.
Alternative blurb: Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini, the suspended presidents of FIFA and UEFA respectively, are banned from association football for eight years amid the 2015 FIFA corruption case.
News source(s): New York Times

Nominator's comments: I can see that dissenters will be well within their rights to see this story as the nail in the coffin for something we've known about for ages now. But it is the top story on the New York Times, which suggests a reach beyond the sports pages. The (suspended) chief executive of the global board for the world's most popular sport, and his equivalent in said sport's wealthiest and most influential continental branch, have been banned from that sport for eight years. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support obviously. Important scandal, involving the most important bodies, of the worlds most important sport, and they're both from Europe, the worlds most important continent. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, Blatter's article is almost good to go (although the update is minimal right now) but Platini's is woefully undereferenced. It might be that 2015 FIFA corruption case is a better target. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support corruption case article rather than individuals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The corruption case article would probably be a better target, but it doesn't seem to have been updated. Latest is says on Blatter and Platini is their 90 day provisional suspension. Also, the blurb should start 'in football' or something to make the sport clear. Modest Genius talk 14:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    It was updated several hours ago to say "On 21 December, the FIFA Ethics Committee banned both Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini for eight-years from all football related activity..." but that's pretty much the size of the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just FIFA's internal punishment, while significant, akin to the type of penalty that Tom Brady got from Deflategate. There are still ongoing investigations by world authorities as to wrongdoing that could see worse punishments (fines, etc.) that would be the ITN point of news. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not really a penalty akin to Brady's, he had four games suspension, these guys are getting 8-year bans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about the size of the ban, but the scope. This is FIFA telling FIFA members what they can't do. There's still legal issues on this case that have much more weighty results that would be the proper ITNC. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Easily passes the notability threshold. And I don't see the resemblance to the Patriots "Deflategate" case. Here we're talking about top level executives being banned for years. --bender235 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The ban is by the organization they were part of, so it's all internal proceedings and nothing to do with the external ongoing legal case, which is of significantly more importance and interest. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I think that's subjective. The fact that Blatter will not be president any longer and that strong favourite Platini will also not be able to run for nearly a decade, that's interesting. The "external" legal aspects surrounding Platini and Blatter may well fizzle out to nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Affects a sport of exceptional international notability. "Deflategate" huh? Why the comparison to a parochial regional sport?--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • It's only parochial because the US has one country and Europe has 50 countries even though you need territory near Chelyabinsk to even equal our size. Also, 15-20% of one NFL team's attendance lives in Canada despite it being like rugby league region Brits attending union in the union part. (this only counts games in the US, they also played regular season games in Toronto with a higher percent of Canadians). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The comparison is to basically say this is not a legally-binding restriction, only contractually. It is a group setting a contractually-related restriction on what two people that belong(ed) to that group can or can't do. Whether that group was NFL or FIFA, it is primarily an internal matter, even if it happens to be something that reflects a sport across 50 counties. Moreso on the FIFA case because we also are fully aware of a larger legally-binding investigation that is going on that may be much more damaging to FIFA and/or individuals involved, which the results of that investigation (even if it ends up with FIFA being cleared of wrongdoing) is the normal place we point ITN stories. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support regarding notability. FIFA is a major international organization, with the budget and political clout of a small country. This is effectively an impeachment story. --LukeSurl t c 17:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
wait theyre surely going to appeal it to CAS...Balatter has indicated as much (implicitly)Lihaas (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you realize how long that will probably take?--WaltCip (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Whats your point?
This decision is not yet final until the appeals procedures are done. (and it wont be more than sa few months...itf it taken)Lihaas (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
In the unlikely event it's overturned, ITN could post an update. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
An overturn would be phenomenally notable. Probably in the same league as Dzokhar Tsarnaev having his death sentence quashed '''tAD''' (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Important development in a scandal involving one of the most popular sports in the world. Relevant to many readers. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Very big news. I don't find Masem's argument convincing, for the reasons given by TRM and LukeSurl. Neljack (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a big deal for the world's biggest sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support not often that the (former?) head of an international sport organization is banned from the sport. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted the altblurb given that Platini's article is sub-par for being highlighted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Shall we use a photo of Blatter or Platini? I can't report the current photo as error yet. --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose Neither the blurb nor the votes cast here explain notability. Who among our readership does this impact? Do FIFA fans watch association football for these guys? Does their ban somehow put a new spin on a story that we've now posted updates to several times? The majority of support votes cast here seem to be explaining the notability of soccer, which seems hardly relevant to the notability of this particular story given that it's not fundamentally a sports story, but a business/legal one. Potatoes are also very popular internationally, but I doubt that would be seen as a good reason in and of itself to post the firing of the CEO of a potato distributor (which might be notable for other reasons, but not because Americans and Europeans alike love potatoes). The blurb certainly doesn't clarify why this matters; as it reads, they were already suspended, now they're told not to come back (for eight years? Wouldn't most people be told to go away indefinitely?)? So what? No impact on anyone except those two individuals is evident from the blurb. - OldManNeptune 07:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well these people have or could have been responsible for deciding the locations of World Cups which is obviously important to hundreds of millions of football fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, though this certainly isn't obvious from the blurb - and it's maybe the first reason why this matters that's been brought up. It's not that I could not be convinced that this is notable, but that no good reasons seem to have been given. Indeed, though I support sports being ITN, reasons like "FIFA has a nation-sized economy hence this is practically a head of state"...do not lend an air of credibility to an argument. - OldManNeptune 07:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It's rare for a sport's main guy to be driven from office. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - In my opinion Blatters and Platinis names should be highlighted in the blurb posted as well. It is them the story is about.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose, this is only a step in the "process"; there will be bigger events down the road and ITN shouldn't be giving a blow-by-blow. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

December 20Edit


[Posted] 2015 Shenzhen landslideEdit

Article: 2015 Shenzhen landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Shenzhen, China, 85 people are missing after a landslide destroys 33 buildings.
Alternative blurb: ​In Shenzhen, China, after a landslide destroys 33 buildings, seven are rescued, while 85 people are missing.
News source(s): (CNN), (BBC), CCTV news

 Jenda H. (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support if and when the article is expanded. A major disaster. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvements. This disaster is generating international headlines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the article meets minimum requirements now, though the story is still developing. Most recent BBC news report [9] put the missing figure at 85. --LukeSurl t c 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements Very similar to the mine waste landslide a month-some ago, and definitely getting attention. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support On improvements, per BorgQueen. I have to imagine that 85 missing means a significant fraction of those are casualties, as well as significant property damage. - OldManNeptune 07:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is ready to post. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. I have shortened the blurb, and reduced the missing to 'more than 70' as estimates seem to vary. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 World Women's Handball ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2015 World Women's Handball Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In handball, Norway won against the Netherlands to gain their third title.

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you provide news sources indicating this is in the news? I'll also note for the record only that the men's tournament is ITNR, but not this one. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable international final for this tournament.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Another editor has 'noted for the record' that this women's event is not on WP:ITN/R, although the Men's event is (this means that the Men's event automatically gets reported in In The News, but the women's event need not be mentioned, as is also the case with many other sports). I also note for the record that we are asked at the top of this page "Please do not... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R", though "noting for the record" presumably does not officially count as opposition. The same editor also asks whether there is any evidence that the item is in the news. I expect there's plenty of news about it in Norway, and probably also the Netherlands and some other countries, but not much in the English-speaking world, where there is little interest in handball (either men's or women's - and where I come from, 'handball' refers to a completely different game, Gaelic handball). As such, the inclusion or rejection of this item (as well as the arguable double-standard in WP:ITN/R for this and many other sports) seems to call for comment from the 'experts' in such areas as Wikipedia's policies on gender equality and on countering 'Anglo-centrism'. As I know little about either of these policies I have requested comments from the Gender equality task force here, and I would have asked for a similar comment from their 'Anglo-centrism' counterparts if only I knew where to find them. Meanwhile, in the absence of such comments, I currently know too little about these policies to use them as grounds for either supporting or opposing this item (and I have too little interest in either handball or ITN to support or oppose the item on other grounds).Tlhslobus (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Currently no text update in the article covering the final (and also the "road to the final" is basically a list of game statistic charts). SpencerT♦C 20:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is currently in no better condition than the men's equivalent, which failed to make it to the main page earlier this year. BencherliteTalk 08:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article contains basically no prose. We ordinarily look for a "final" summary if not a final article. The target page is far from suitable for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Slovenian same-sex marriage referendum, 2015Edit

Soft close with consensus against posting (8 vs. 3). If something crops up that makes this event more notable, feel free to reopen the nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:40, 21 December 2015 (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: Slovenian same-sex marriage referendum, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a referendum, Slovenia rejects the recognition of same-sex marriage.
Alternative blurb: ​In a referendum, Slovenia overturns an amendment to the Marriage and Family Relations Act, rejecting the recognition of same-sex marriage, following the court decision that such a referendum are legal, despite the legislature banning the referendum on the grounds that "it would violate constitutional provision which prohibits popular votes on laws eliminating an unconstitutionality in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms".
Alternative blurb II: ​In a referendum, Slovenia overturns an amendment to the Marriage and Family Relations Act, rejecting the recognition of same-sex marriage.
News source(s): Reuters Associated Press
 '''tAD''' (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose so the status quo remains? Nothing changes? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sure I would see a reason to post this if a small and classically-liberal member of the EU voted yes, either. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really that notable; per Medeis. SpencerT♦C 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending update needs a tense change. Maybe another line of prose in the results section? There is no such thing as a "minimum update" and I don't know what words can reflect that the tables don't. The story is interesting: A bill legalizing is opposed by a referendum. The referendum is opposed on the grounds that such referendums are unconstitutional, but is then upheld by the constitutional court. Fascinating. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    What? The legalese is fascinating? How is that of any interest to our majority readers? Suggest an alt-blurb that covers your fascinating insight otherwise the story is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Done, thanks! It was hard to fit the nuance of the legal wrangling around LGBT rights in Slovenia into a blurb, a clause that I've not seen applied to other stories (such as the merger or the municpal election in saudi arabia), nor am I seeing any requirement for an ITN nomination "be of interest to the majority of our readers", but since you insisted, I filled it in! --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
      Oppose because the alt blurb isn't a blurb, it's a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
      • So what then? You suggested I pitched a blub which explores what makes the story fascinating, then opposed because it's too long. Could you maybe help me? Also whats with the "your fascinating insight" statement? Why are you commenting on me? Why is it ok for you to attack me like this? --68.115.239.114 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that blurbs are just that- blurbs- and are short. Your proposal would take up most of the ITN box and is far too detailed. That is not meant as an attack, it is just a fact. Do you have a shorter one to propose? Not every detail needs to be given. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm fairly over it at this point, it's an obvious WP:SNOW close, and the hostility palpable. Jayron recently highlighted that "is of interest to or readers", or "smaller than Ireland" or whatever, while in good faith, are not criteria for posting. I also think that "nothing happened" is an over simplification, since what actually happened was a national referendum to defeat a bill which had previously legalized same sex marriage. I think maybe ITN has become mired in "precedent" and unwritten "rules", leaving it ok for a stale story about municipal elections to stay around for five days. The standby argument "if you don't like it, improve and nominate stories" don't prove out when someone does and it's shot down within hours as "booo, nothing happened". shrugs maybe it's better this way? I don't know. Thanks for trying to help 331dot. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and Medeis ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting the status quo; given that this is in Europe I'm not sure it would be notable had SSM been permitted. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • How are Ireland's and US's recognitions and Slovenia's rejection different in terms of newness and newsworthiness? George Ho (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Ireland legalized SSM by referendum, which had not been done before. The US doing so (by a court ruling) was the end of a years-long process in a large country, which was newsworthy most of the time. Europe is friendlier to SSM so even if Slovenia had legalized it, I'm not sure it would be notable. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Slovenia is too small of a country to make its issue on SSM newsworthy? If not, how is Slovenia not on the same scale as other countries? George Ho (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that other countries(such as Ireland) beat Slovenia to the punch. SSM is common in Europe now. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Western Europe, yes. Eastern, no, including Russia. Look at the map. George Ho (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Slovenia is an EU member where pro-legal SSM is common. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
How does being an EU member outweigh geopolitics? Is SSM new or interesting anymore? George Ho (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it does but the point that outweighs that is that this is not in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
──────────── I don't want to oppose this just because of the status quo or not being in the news. But I can't overpower the majority here or influence it. I really wish they supported this instead of UK coal mining. We can feature Slovenia's legalization of SSM if it happens... George Ho (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous opp's. Sca (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A referendum was involved. Even if the result is keeping the old status quo, it's still a noteworthy piece of news. Compare e.g. Scotland's independence referendum. The status quo was maintained there too. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
A part of a country wanting to be its own country and failing in the attempt is a very different matter. That also got much more attention than this. News coverage of this from what I can see seems limited, as well. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Referendums are rare by nature, and only called when the matter is of great national interest, so I don't agree that the independence referendum is that much different from this one. What you see of news coverage may be limited, but that might be because of where you are geographically. We regularly feature things which don't appear in local news: of the currently-featured items, did you see much coverage of the Burundi unrest, for example? Banedon (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Referendums are not rare where I come from(I've written articles about a few, if you wish to look at my userpage) though I concede none are national. I understand news coverage is somewhat geography-dependent, but I'm not seeing this in many outlets at all, and where I do it is buried. I did indeed see the Burundi situation. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
If we believe the referendum page, there have been ~500 referendums since the 18th century of which some 60% was held in Switzerland. There are ~200 countries in the world, so unless you're from Switzerland, they are rare once-in-a-lifetime events. Burundi unrest was an example as well: I did not see it in local news. Banedon (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Coverage or no coverage, huge or not, we should not avoid posting this, like mainstream press has treating news from such countries. Also, attention is needed. Even as a status quo, one small country's rejection to SSM may influence other countries, big or small, to follow the same path. Other countries refusing to recognize per referenda or court ruline is newsworthy, even when the press doesn't emphasize it that much. George Ho (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Put it in a letter to the editor. Sca (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This is In The News, not "Things Some Wikipedia Editors Think Are Important". News coverage is very relevant; we are not here to right wrongs or otherwise draw attention to issues. Please provide evidence of your claim that this rejection will influence other countries 331dot (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It really sucks, George. But you don't get to push this through just because it affects a group of people you identify with. If it gets coverage, it'll likely get in. If quick enough, anyways. Correctron (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if this had passed, I don't think we should be posting every country which catches up with the zeitgeist on this issue. Gay marriage is now the norm in liberal democracies. The fact that the change failed just makes it even less noteworthy. Modest Genius talk 14:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
In terms of Earth size, the area of liberal democracies in Europe is... small, no matter how many countries... Or maybe I was measuring areas of the continent accepting SSM. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose as per TRM and others. Something might change in the future, but for now nothing has changed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 21 December 2015 (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] Spanish electionsEdit

Article: Spanish general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), gains the most seats in the Spanish general election.
Alternative blurb: ​The People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), gains plurality in the Spanish general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Spanish general election, the ruling People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), loses one third of its seats, but remains the largest single party.
Alternative blurb III: ​Following the Spanish general election, the shape of the next government remains uncertain as the ruling People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), loses one third of its seats, but remains the largest single party.
News source(s): RT, RTE, Sky News

Article needs updating

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: Based on exit polls. Fuebaey (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Clearly notable. Suggested an alternative blurb using "plurality." --bender235 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR so notability not in question, article is half-decent, could use some dab fixing etc, but nothing major. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is lacking a results section - there is a blank table for the Chamber of Deputies and no table at all for the Senate results. Neljack (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely worthy of the main page, I just question the blurb. The results of the election are inconclusive and we'll probably see a week or so of negotiations before a government is formed. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The suggested headline (The People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), gains the most seats in the Spanish general election.) is technically correct but completely misleading, as it gives the impression that losing a third of your seats is a victory. Might I suggest something like: In the Spanish general election, the ruling People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), loses one third of its seats, but remains the largest single party. Or alternatively: Following the Spanish general election, the shape of the next government remains uncertain as the ruling People's Party, led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured), loses one third of its seats, but remains the largest single party.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, if necessary for the sake of keeping it short, we can drop ", led by Mariano Rajoy (pictured)," - it's not news who the current PM is, and anybody who wants to know that can check the article.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Done that for you, Tlhslobus. George Ho (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, George Ho. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Support posting ASAP, preferably with altblurbs 2 or 3, but I don't want to see a delay caused by a dispute over the ideal blurb. At least in my opinion, the article is already sufficiently ready to be posted, and any further delay over relatively unimportant technicalities does a disservice to our readers (of a kind which has seriously irritated me in at least one previous election). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - seconded. I'd prefer blurb 2, but any of the blurbs is better than none. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Roentgenium111, just to clarify your stated preference for our admins, by "blurb 2", do you mean alternative blurb 2, or alternative blurb 1 (which is the second blurb, the first blurb being the original blurb, without the 'alternative' tag)? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I meant alternative blurb 2. FWIW, I wouldn't mind dropping the "Rajoy" part from it, either.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: What are we waiting for? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb 2 and used the picture so we have a more recent image than the December 15 nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

December 19Edit


[Closed] RD: Greville Janner, Baron Janner of BraunstoneEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 21:39, 19 December 2015 (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: Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News

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: A baron and well renowned figure in Holocaust education in UK. Former MP. Article in good condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - We shouldn't give this pervert any publicity whatsoever, especially not by featuring him on the MP. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the nomination, but my understanding, @Mjroots: is that WP:BLP applies here, and such accusations are out of line. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Publicity concerns are also irrelevant; we don't censor content because it might given bad people attention(speaking generally and is not necessarily a comment on this person, per BLP). 331dot (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The accusation is well-founded. The only reason he escaped prosecution in the first place is that local CPS officers failed to consult with their seniors before deciding not to prosecute. A later attempt to prosecute failed due to him developing Alzheimer's Disease, although a trial of facts was scheduled to have been heard in 2016. I still say that we should not give this person the publicity of appearing on MP. There are far more worthy candidates currently being discussed. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If we post people like Osama Bin Laden, I don't see why this person shouldn't be considered. Again, publicity concerns are irrelevant. Almost every article subject or person here is offensive to someone; very little would be on the MP if we start getting into that sort of debate.331dot (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Bin Laden was at the top of his field, and internationally known. I doubt that Janner was widely known outside the UK. Given the comments above and below, further Oppose on the grounds that he is not notable enough to appear on RD. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on the grounds that this person does not appear to meet the bar for RD. !Votes which are based on personal feelings about this individual should be discounted. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Agree, even child molesters may meet RD standards... well, not blurbs. However, he was just a low-level politician, even when he served many years as one. George Ho (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whether he did the crimes or not is irrelevant, as we would also include Gaddafi, Bin Laden or Kim Jong-il in recent deaths. However, Janner was an MP who was active in British Jewish affairs, not a major political or religious leader. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as this person does not seem to meet the RD criteria, one of the only things that really matters for this discussion's purposes(aside from quality and news sources). 331dot (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2015 (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] RD: Kurt MasurEdit

Article: Kurt Masur (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Well known classical music conductor. Former music director of the New York Philharmonic and the Orchestre National de France, and lead conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support world-renowned conductor of, among others, London and NY symphonies, large number of accolades, good article, small role in end of Cold War. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Top of his field and had many accolades. μηδείς summed it up well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with some referencing improvement. As Medeis writes, he was among the top classical conductors internationally. The article is sadly brief but gets the main points across; some improvement to the referencing would be ideal, particularly in the section on awards. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article upgrade since ITN nomination is enough to convince me to support; the subject is clearly notable and deserves an RD. Suggest a prompt posting is in order. Jusdafax 10:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – "What we remember most vividly is Masur's profound belief in music as an expression of humanism." – NY Philharmonic President Matthew VanBesienSca (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jimmy HillEdit

Article: Jimmy Hill (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC

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: Hill was a highly prominent football personality, who took a wide range of roles in his career. His death might even warrant a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability, article needs serious work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD based on notability - however I agreed with TRM that the article needs some tuning. Miyagawa (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support subject to quality. Biggest chin in football for a generation or more. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure the article currently makes a strong case for his significance for someone who didn't already know who he was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's true I think. The BBC put it well, with "Football pioneer Jimmy Hill dies" and "the man who revolutionised football". Would be good to reflect that in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Excuse my skepticism, but would that be the same BBC he served with such distinction for a quarter of a century, hence not a source independent of the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.43.251 (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, the Indy asks "How the former Match of the Day pundit changed football forever" while The Guardian leads on his demise with "the punditry trailblazer who wore hostility as a badge of honour" and the Telegraph headlines with "footballer and Match of the Day legend ... World of sport mourns...". I think even you could easily find such independent acclaim if you'd spent a moment trying. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    The current version does a bit better at establishing his significance, though since the press appears to be a bit more emphatic, the lede probably could too. That said, support RD on significance. Learned something today. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • suppoeet RD when article is ready--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD pending article improvements. Modest Genius talk 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Per Mjroots --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD when the article is ready. Hugely influential figure in his field. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD... 'In the words of the old song, it's a long time from May to December but, you know, it's an equally long time from December to May." 86.190.2.248 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've added a reference and removed a tag from a section. I've also tweaked the lede slightly. Suggest this is ready. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mother Teresa to be saintedEdit

I believe we agree that it is premature to post this now but remember to nominate it again when the canonization takes place. --Tone 12:30, 19 December 2015 (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: Mother Teresa (talk, history)
Blurb: Mother Teresa will be posthumously canonized as a saint following Pope Francis recognizing her intercession in a second miracle.
News source(s): WAPost, NPR, CNN

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I recognize the importance of this but I'm not of that religion so I would appreciate any necessary corrections in the blurb. While the canonization date is not yet set (it is expected to be on the anniversary of her death in Sept next year), this seems to be the point of news to start with. MASEM (t) 03:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait? I dunno, I'm not of that religion, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If posted the blurb shouldn't treat the miracles as real because only believing Catholics think that. That the two miracles never seem to not be a medical cure unless it's the 1400s or something is telling. Not even devout Protestants believe in praying for medical cures to deceased good people. But it's a religion so don't say that they're fake, obviously. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Oh, boy. I initially want to oppose this, but the postings of posthumous apology and pardon given to Alan Turing gave me second thoughts. If we made Turing's deserved pardon ITN, making this woman the "saint" can be ITN also. Somewhat predictable, but at least this is more newsworthy than exoplanet naming and deep coal mining in the UK. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't look at the tense very well, so changing to wait until this actually happens. George Ho (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Isn't canonization always posthumous? I don't think we need to state that in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this will be genuinely headline news when it actually happens. While it's noted variously at the moment, the pomp and circumstance that will no doubt surround the canonisation itself means I would support the event itself rather than this, the announcement that the event should be taking place in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. As TRM states, this will be big news when it actually happens(even though it also is now) so we should wait until it does. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2015 (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 18Edit


RD: Léon MébiameEdit

Article: Léon Mébiame (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Agence Gabonaise de Presse (fr)

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: Long-serving Prime Minister of Gabon in 1975–90. Before then, the Vice President of Gabon in 1968–75. Afterwards, he had been a politician in other fields. I could say authoritarian political figure, but that would be one-sided. George Ho (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability, oppose on article quality, we don't do stubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not exactly a stub (plenty of citations and the coverage of main aspects) but I agree that the quality is not great.—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    My mistake, I must have mis-read "This article about a Gabonese politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Shall I remove the stub notice, Rambling Man, even when the article hasn't expanded yet? George Ho (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    Not unless you think it's no longer a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    I found more sources about him online. They turned out inaccessible. Also, I could not find new info about him. Making it a stub means that expansion is needed. However, that would encourage adding unverifiable info. --George Ho (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] End of deep coal mining in UKEdit

If there is an error with the blurb, take it to the appropriate venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom (talk, history) and Kellingley Colliery (talk, history)
Blurb: Deep coal mining ceases in the United Kingdom with the closure of Kellingley Colliery.
Alternative blurb: ​Deep coal mining, which had powered the industrial revolution in the UK, ceases with the closure of Kellingley Colliery.
Alternative blurb II: ​Deep coal mining, essential to the British industrial revolution, ceases in the UK with the closure of Kellingley Colliery.
News source(s): Guardian, NUM News

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: Deep coal mining in the UK was one of the cornerstones of the industrial revolution and the UK's subsequent dominance in the 19th century. The closure of the last working pit seems like a significant event. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Articles are interesting and of high quality. Event is clearly happening within the time frame of ITN, and reported in news sources. --Jayron32 12:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Something a bit different for ITN – the success of films like Billy Elliot and Pride show that this is a topic that people are interested in. Smurrayinchester 13:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, just some more text would be helpful. --Tone 14:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, though perhaps leaning more on support, as there still remain open coal mines; this is just the closure of the one that required underground excavation to get to. I do agree that that end of the coal industry in the UK in general is a major story, but I'm not 100% sure if this is the right point. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • If there wasn't much non-deep coal mining in Britain's Industrial Revolution then that would matter less, wouldn't it? Now was there much non-deep coal mining? I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Using our articles, deep coal mining peaked in the 40s at 287 million tons/yr, while currently open pit mining is at 10 mill tons/yr. I have no idea how much this last deep coal mine was producing but I doubt is it is much more than 10 mill tons/yr. My point, and I welcome arguments to it, is that coal mining still occurs in UK, just not by sending people underground to get it. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Additional comment based on what I'm reading below and what's in the article: The article does not reflect how "important" the deep coal mining industry was to UK nor do I have a good handle to judge. I'm looking for a monetary figure, for example, that relates to how many millions or billions or trillions of pounds (GBP, not mass) that the industry was valued at its heyday. I look at this as the end of a business model that isn't sustainable in the present environment, much like the closure of the last Blockbuster signaled the end of the video rental market. It's a milestone, it should be documented, but that Blockbuster event would definitely not be ITN given that its value was only about $8.4 billion at its height (a small drop in the bucket overall). If there was a better sense of proportion as to the impact. (The only numbers on there that are close to this is the employment graph that shows it used to operate 1+ million employees... but so do a lot of other industries). --MASEM (t) 01:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      •  
        Rainproof purple clothes for instance were expensive as shit before coal because it took 12,000 rare snails just to color the edges. If you had a purple shirt before coal you be pimpin'.
        Without coal, no Industrial Revolution (the first oil well wasn't drilled until 1859 and the other two fossil fuels remained bit players for long after that). Not only was coal the fuel but it was also needed to escape the Iron Age and make colorful clothes affordable and invent modern food coloring. (steel is much stronger than iron, the coal was heated in the absence of oxygen and turned into coke to add to the iron, and the witch's brew of tar and gas left over was separated into dyes etc. (many of which are now banned for causing cancer)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Of course coal was important to the industrial revolution but at its highest point was in the 1950s, not the industrial revolution. England is not abandoning any coal mining. I'm asking specifically how significant the industry is to UK. Technology marches on and things change all the time, why is this so important? Right now, again, it feels like the ceremonial who's turning off the lights on an already empty party, and not ITN worthy. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Your claim that production peaked in the 1950s is wrong. It's been falling for like 110 years. Deep mined coal made Britain the most advanced nation in the world for most of the past 300 years and the UK is the country that started the whole industrialized thing so it's symbolic that the old fuel is now obsolete (or at least the way the vast majority of it was mined is). Apparently deep coal mining is just stereotypical coal mining of underground seams, I didn't even know that deep coal just meant underground and didn't have to be deep at all. So surface mining is and was very minor. About the 1.25 million workers in the mines That was in 1914 and would be a huge percentage of the workers in Britain. How many humans did Britain even have in 1914? 30-40 million probably? And women didn't work in them either then so that was a huge employer. Lastly, post because it's interesting and encycloped-y. It's much more timeless and "people would still care in 10 years" than many of the things we post. (not without an acceptable update of course) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - article is good and well sourced. notable topic.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Amazing what happens when a country elects a new-look, progressive government. Wait, it didn't? That was Canada? Oh well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose UK is nowhere near the biggest CO2 producer, so I don't see how will this impact the world. How is this any more relevant than naming of exoplanets? Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 production, nor is the "impact" on the "world" significant. This is the end of an era, as suitably noted in the nomination. If !voters can't be bothered to read and/or understand that, then their !votes can be justifiably discounted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Technically it does have to do with CO2 production, as stated by the article: the UK has been transitioning to renewable and cleaner resources for many years, so the need for coal as a power source has been greatly diminished. And based on the graphs in our article on this, this era was over in 2012-ish, this is just the last deep coal mine closing, and mostly a symbolic aspect. There's still other types of coal mining in the UK but far from the capacity in the 40s. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't worry, he would have said oppose if I had voted support. Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I think the rambler was right: The shutdown, targeted for next Friday, represents a victory for advocates of reducing carbon emissions after world leaders gathered in Paris to discuss how to combat global warming, with coal in the cross hairs. It also reflects a glut of energy on world markets, from crude oil to natural gas and coal itself. I am sure a rambling old man knows more about this than WSJ does. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support given historical importance of British coal mining. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – Historically interesting, although first target article contains only 15 words on the closure of Kellingley, the impetus for this nom. (Of course, there's more at Kellingley Colliery.)Sca (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
PS: Coincidentally, German Wiki carries an ITN item today on the closure of the second-to-last deep coalmine in the Ruhr. Sca (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Systematic Systemic bias alert. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Systemic. Not systematic.--WaltCip (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
D'oh. Thanks, you're right. Needed more coffee this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Good morning, coffee cup, gimmie back my brain." (Slight modification to lyrics.) Sca (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has nothing to do with "systematic bias". The issue is that it is an pragmatic economical decision based on relative costs, not a "fact" as if coal has gone extinct. Were there a need due to something like a war, it could resume. Again, a perfect DYK story if it meets their current requirements. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news - see the BBC, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Many mass shootings in the U.S. are "in the news" and yet that's not enough for some. Why should it be enough for a story with as little significance as this? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Muboshgu, you sound dead Brassed Off. 217.38.184.195 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Mass shootings in the USA are literally an everyday event. The item in question is the end of an era; something happening after centuries of history. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Also coal mining still continues in the UK, this is just one type of mining that's no longer being conducted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any idea at all of the significance of deep coal mining in British industrial economic history? 217.38.184.195 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It was significant, no doubt, but technically from our article, the industry was dead 3-4 years ago - this story is basically who's the last to turn the lights off. --MASEM (t) 21:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did we have this at ITN 3-4 years ago? If not, then now is an appropriate time to cover this; while it is actually in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • That wasn't an event. There was no announcement. Maybe we are indeed 3-4 years late. But this is the historical event. 217.38.184.195 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Arguably, a symbolic event. Like the last steam locomotive. Sca (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not on quality but on the scale of newness. The decline of coal mining in the UK already happened years ago since Thatcherism... Oh wait, that was before Thatcher... on global or significant scale. The Great Smog and the Clean Air Act 1956 resulted in collapse of the coal and steel production, and Thatcher's privatization of the coal industry didn't improve the industry. Coal is a dirty energy, yet China is still doing it. The "end" of the industry in the UK has been predicted, but the actual end is not "new". We can wait until either China or the UN or another intergovernmental organization (IGO) declares the end of coal mining around the world. --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - the problem is that while I can see this as significant if it signifies the end of an era, the blurb doesn't give any indication of this, and I can't think of a way to express that significance in the blurb without editorializing. Banedon (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe something like altblurb? Banedon (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - Interesting articles that are of good quality that signify the end of an era in British history, with international implications as renewable energy, uh, picks up steam. Clearly in the news, and in my view ITN-worthy per above supporters. Jusdafax 14:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2 – Offered above as a refinement of Alt1, as "mining" does not per se "power" anything. Sca (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Coal does, on the other hand. Banedon (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Coal mining in the UK has been dead for years. This is just pulling the plug. Fgf10 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Toppling the tipple? Sca (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support main blurb. The end of an entire industry is significant. Further details on the significance of coal mining in Britain can be found in the article. The purpose of ITN is to provide links to quality Wikipedia articles that are relevant to current events and this fits the bill. Good article. A current event connected to a broad and important historic topic. This is what Wikipedia can do well, as opposed to simply mimicking BBC, CNN etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
To make my above support broader, I'll support any of the blurbs. Jusdafax 15:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Thousands marched at Kellingley to commemorate the end of deep coal mining in the UK and, specifically, Kellingley's last shift the day before.[1] 217.38.107.11 (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Fgf10. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Five of the six current ITN items are stale (more than 7 days old). This item is actually in the news, and not many people seem to dispute the articles are of sufficient quality. It doesn't have wild unanimous support, but there are more supports than opposes, so I'll post this. I went with the initial blurb, as there wasn't wide support for the alt blurbs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Can it be pulled out? Although WP:NOTAVOTE is now an essay (formerly a guideline), what about arguments themselves? --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it can be pulled, but why would it be pulled? What's your argument other your own position? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    As said, even with more supports, the posting administrator hasn't commented on arguments. More like a supervote? George Ho (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    There's never been an obligation to comment on arguments here, admins are trusted, as they are across all of Wikipedia, to gauge consensus. Perhaps that's your next RFC here, since you seem to have so much time to spend complaining about the process? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    If my counting is correct, the tally is 12 support vs 9 oppose (incl. 2 "weak" opposes). Consensus is there, if ever so slightly, and arguments on both sides have merit. Those supporting weight the symbolic nature of the event in terms of history along with the article's encyclopedic value whereas those opposing weight this as a procedural event in the very long decline of coal usage. It boils down to which side you view it from. I'm fine with this being posted despite my vote being against it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    I explicitly oppose the blurb in its current form, because it doesn't give any indication of the significance of this, and it may lead to someone complaining of pro-UK bias in ITN similar to what happened when Mt. McKinley was renamed to Denali. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Banedon has a point. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    Someone will always complain about something or other. Meanwhile, thousands of people will read the articles, maybe becoming a little more knowledgeable than they were before, and feel no need to complain at all. Stephen 03:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    It should note how it is important.Correctron (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2015 (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 17Edit


December 16Edit


RD: Peter DickinsonEdit

Article: Peter Dickinson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Award-winning British author of mostly children's books and detective stories and poet. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, on referencing improvement. He won just about every major award as a British children's author, and his work was adapted for television. As ever the article needs some tlc on the referencing front. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning oppose a reasonable notable individual in children's writing, but the article is under-referenced and currently unsuitable for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

December 15Edit


RD: Harry Zvi TaborEdit

Article: Harry Zvi Tabor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): YNET (he)

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: Award-winning Israeli physicist, also deemed the father of solar energy in Israel. George Ho (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Notable enough and article shows that, particularly considering the modern importance of solar energy as an alternative source. Brandmeistertalk 20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose some significance in a niche field in one country, article is weak and under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Licio GelliEdit

Article: Licio Gelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Telegraph 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: One of prominent figures in Italy. A fascist volunteer, a financier, and most influential individual in politics. George Ho (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose According to the article, "chiefly known for his role in the Banco Ambrosiano scandal", with some other obscure activity. I doubt it's RD level. Brandmeistertalk 17:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've got three live RD listings and five nominations, this doesn't really leap to mind as being in the top of a field. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Exoplanet namesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:32, 20 December 2015 (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: Exoplanet (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The IAU announces the first batch of exoplanet names.
Alternative blurb: ​The IAU gives first proper names to exoplanets.
News source(s): CBC, phys.org, space.com, MirrorDaily, TechTimes, ScientificAmerican, Science, [10]
Nominator's comments: Exoplanets are named by the IAU for the first time. Fdfexoex (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Less an ITN and more like a DYK (though I don't know if that article qualifies for a DYK slot). Regardless, naming of things already discovered isn't really significant, it would have been their discovery that would have been ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with your oppose but on the ITNR list we note that both the discovery and naming of new chemical elements merit posting. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
There's probably two very good reasons why that's not a good analogy for this situation 1) the naming of an element occurs commensurate with the confirmation by the IUPAC of its valid discovery and characterization; which is different from the peer-reviewed publication of its discovery by those who did the discovery directly. So it isn't just the naming which is significant, and naming does not occur in a vacuum. That's different from the planet issue; the planets are positively confirmed, and the naming is an arbitrary thing. 2) There are over 2000 confirmed exoplanets, and we're discovering new ones at a pace more than one per day (though, of course, not steadily. These things tend to come in large batches). We have 118 discovered elements (of which 114 have gone through the formal characterization and naming procedure by IUPAC); with new elements being discovered and/or confirmed about once a year or less often. We can often go years without any news in this regard. The rarity itself is what makes it a newsworthy event; about 10 years ago, exoplanets could have been in that category, but thanks to advances in science, it has gone from a rare once-in-while thing to a common occurance. --Jayron32 16:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
To add, there is a potentially boundless number of exoplanets to be discovered (though obviously would require better astronomy equipment), while in terms of elements there is likely a finite bound, based on the fact that the 100+ atomic weight elements are very unstable (very short half-lives). To be able to hold and stabilize a 100+ element long enough to quantify and verify its existence needed to be naming is a significant event. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
True, but this nomination isn't for an individual exoplanet, but for all of them. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This nom is the first set of official namings. If no chemical elements would have name and hydrogen would suddenly get an official name, that would definitely be newsworthy. Nergaal (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm having a hard time finding information about the nominated new event in the article. I don't see a list of the new names for example. What has been updated? (or hasn't it?) Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The list of new names is at Exoplanet#Proper names Fdfexoex (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. MurielMary (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The facts that this is apparently the first time exoplanets are being named, and the size of the batch being named (200+) mean that this isn't necessarily setting a precedent. I have no qualms with this being posted and subsequent namings being considered in a vacuum again. Plus, you know, Dagon. GRAPPLE X 16:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it seems "interesting" news rather than "significant" - according to the criteria on significance of events for ITN, there is mention of "in-depth coverage" from a number of news sources. Are any other sources reporting this, other than the one in the nomination? MurielMary (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with user Rapple, first time a exoplanets are being named. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Facepalm absurd bureaucratic overcreep by the IAU. Why not name all the galaxies, while they're at it? Even Gene Roddenbery was happy with calling planets by their star name and a number unless someone had been there. DYK, yes. ITN, no. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    Plenty of astronomical objects have common names even though nobody has been there before, e.g. Saturn, Andromeda, Orion (constellation), etc. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You have missed my point. The IAU and what army? Since you mention Saturn (rather than Georgium Sidus), what do they call Saturn in Malay? This is basically a bunch of self appointed bureaucrats giving "official" names to things they will never visit because that's what bureaucracies do. I won't even go into the amateur anglo-occidento-centric fanboyism of it all. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Planets named Quixote, Pancho, Rocinante and Dulcinea? This sounds like an entry from National Lampoon. Or from the same geniuses who decided that Pluto is not a planet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Baseball Bugs, there's a reason why the names are so stupid. It's because this happened. While the link exaggerates this is how the names were actually chosen. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
      • But only slightly. I'm surprised they didn't go for Santa's reindeer, or Snow White's dwarfs. Or, the names of the guys who decided Pluto is not a planet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, but the general public is to blame for this, too. And the reason why Pluto was demoted is because Eris (discovered 2005) is more massive and about the same size so would have to be a planet too. Or if you say anything round from gravity is a planet so Pluto can stay then Ceres (the asteroid), Makemake, Haumea and Eris are planets and Orcus, 2002 MS4, Salacia, Quaoar, 2007 OR10 and Sedna are nearly certainly planets and there'd be 97 known things which are at least probably planets and 398 bodies which are at least possibly planets. Pluto was thought to be much bigger for many years (Earth-sized at first) until we learned the Neptune pull was human error instead of Pluto's gravity (the prediction worked by sheer coincidence). The IAU is still the union of astronomers worldwide so they get to name (the "Pluto is a planet" astronomers were in the minority and got outvoted). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
          • It's not unusual for bureaucrats and politicians to redefine a word to make it match their biases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Ya, I'd just call dwarf planets a class of planet instead of saying that dwarf adjectiving "planet" is not planet by definition. Sometimes, words have multiple meanings. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
              • Scientists ought not be using ambiguous terms. And they've gone way beyond what the word "planet" actually meant, which is "wandering star".[11] The term "asteroid" is likewise dubious, as it means "star-like", which they ain't. The alternate term "minor planets" is only slightly better. And "comet" means "long-haired star", which is also wrong. And classifying makes sense. They do call Mercury, Venus, Earth/Moon and Mars "rocky planets", while Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are "gas giant (planets". The rocky planets are tiny compared with those, yet they're not called "dwarf" planets. Why? Maybe because we live on one of them. Although we've known for centuries that we are not the center of the universe, we still act like we are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you more expert than the IAU? Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    As far as you know. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I demand you explain how astronomical expertise and giving absurd names to planets are in any way related.--WaltCip (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I was referring to the snide expression "... the same geniuses who decided that Pluto is not a planet". Also it's rude to demand something. Banedon (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - this is not a big deal: the exoplanets already have names, just technical ones. But it's something. Banedon (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Full support I was initially skeptical, but this is the first time exoplanets are officially assigned non-technical terms. Some dames might appear funny, but it is in no way different from say Makemake or Meitnerium. There are over 1000 accepted well-established exoplanets, and if all of them are going to be named, some will get weird name. This is the first step. We don't need to post future namings, but we should definitely post the first ones. Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this is trivia, DYK is appropriate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Okay, stars have been named since time immemorial. This is the first time though that planets outside of our star system have had names, planets that are actually small enough to have life and worlds that humans could live on with a gas mask at most that we can't go to for centuries. That planets are being given names that are not like ROXs 42Bb for the first time is something that'll never happen again. I wish the names could sound more planet-like though. Vulcan, Cardassia, Romulus, Osiris IV, Coruscant, Arrakis, Helion Prime, Rigel 7, Crematoria (for a planet that melts near noon, now those sound like planet names. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added altblurb to show what exactly we are looking at. Brandmeistertalk 09:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as trivial. Discovering these things was significant, but finally running the first batch through an official naming process is not. This is equivalent to the first official names of surface features on Pluto, and I'm sure we won't be posting that when it happens (probably during 2016). Modest Genius talk 13:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
you are comparing an actual planet to some cracks on a dwarf planet. Nergaal (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
We know more about Sputnik Planum than the vast majority of exoplanets, including most of those receiving names here. I don't see why size or distance are relevant. Modest Genius talk 20:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: These names are bad, and the IAU should feel bad. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • But still better than exoplanet Kardashian or star Lady Gaga (pun) in case they decide to purchase a name. Brandmeistertalk 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - For the first time in human history we have named planets outside our solar system. International news, and ITN-worthy. The quality of the names is irrelevant. Opposers are mostly saying they don't like it. Jusdafax 05:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not science. Names are not important. Also, the objects are barely measured, let alone sighted, and just the other day it was reported some might not be planets at all, but brown dwarf stars. Abductive (reasoning) 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] US schools terrorist threatEdit

snow close, almost immediately identified as a prank, no actual event occurred μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Numerous school districts were emailed terrorist threats mentioning Islam today and the LA public school system closed all 1,124 schools (640,000 children) for one day while it searches them. (The San Bernardino attacks were in the same broad metro area) He did claim to be a student in each of his many boilerplate emails though (one to each city's school district) so one at most could be real. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This can't be considered without an article. May I suggest Los Angeles Unified School District? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure. LAUSD doesn't seem such a bad article (but it's only one sentence now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It seems like the media have not yet confirmed anything important regarding these threats and all the information presented here consists of suspicions on the border of a conspiracy theory. That said, one cannot even rule out the possibility that someone wanted to have fun by raising a false alarm.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Yes, it is an unusual reaction, I'm confident it will play in the US news cycle for several days compounding on the SB attack, but unless it was shown the threat was really credible (and right now I'm not seeing that in the news), this is just a knee-jerk reactions. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that even some other parts of the US deemed this to be a hoax, forget it. If the kids in New York are attacked, we can revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2015 (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] Soyuz TMA-19M/Expedition 46Edit

Articles: Soyuz TMA-19M (talk, history) and Tim Peake (talk, history)
Blurb: Soyuz TMA-19M is launched to the International Space Station
Alternative blurb: Tim Peake becomes the first British ESA astronaut with the launch of Soyuz TMA-19M to the International Space Station

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

 Smurrayinchester 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle original blurb, oppose any mention of Tim Peake. He's not the first British astronaut (see Helen Sharman and Category:British astronauts) and there's no reason to single him out. Nor is he the first UKSA astronaut - the UKSA does not train astronauts, he's flying with ESA. The mission itself is routine, but we're in a quiet period and it wouldn't hurt to put it on ITN. ISS crew rotation flights continue to qualify as ITNR, for reasons which elude me, but there you go. However the article is rubbish - one paragraph plus a table. If someone turns it into something we might want to feature on the MP then it would be suitable. Modest Genius talk 11:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
When was the last routine ISS flight that we posted? 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
No idea. I've repeatedly argued that ITNR should be written in a way that excludes them, but consensus has consistently been against me. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The BBC calls Peake the "first official UK astronaut". [12] 331dot (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Strange definition of 'official'. I don't think we have to follow media claims if they are blatantly untrue and contradicted by numerous other sources e.g. this Independent article specifically on the topic. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Well that article isn't "numerous other sources" and it doesn't "contradict" anything that's being said, and the BBC aren't saying anything that is "blatantly untrue". Other than that, everything you've said is right. Just tonight, we have the BBC saying "Tim Peake is the UK's first official astronaut and the first British astronaut to go to the International Space Station. However, he is not the first Briton in space. According to the British Interplanetary Society, he is the seventh person born in the UK to have left the planet." per this article. Hopefully that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth arguing about this tangential point, but I stand by my comments. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fine with me; just pointing out where the claim came from. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per Modest Genius. Launching of spaceflights is significant and also a fine ITN material. I oppose mentioning Tim Peake in the blurb, as he is not the first British in space.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle and I think this is one of those rare cases in which we can say that the so-called reliable source is false in its assumption that Peake is the first British in space.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - but agree that the article is extremely short and needs proper expansion. Neutral on the other issues. Jusdafax 14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and almost ready to post. Right now there's everything in there that's relevant. And it's sourced. And the whole "first British astronaut" thing isn't relevant, so I'd say we're pretty much good to go per ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, it's ITN/R so the conversation stops there. Regarding Time Peake in particular I'd let it through given the amount of interest it has created, only Helen Sharman previously is unambiguously British as opposed to riding on the coattails of another nationality. "British funded", "state-sponsored" astronaut or some equivalent formulation would succinctly and correctly disambiguate the situation, readers can always click through for more. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 09:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

December 14Edit


[Posted to RD]: Lillian VernonEdit

Article: Lillian Vernon (businesswoman) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes ABC news NYTimes article repeated in San Francisco Gate Bloomberg Business CNN Money Washington Post

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: Woman who fled Nazi Germany as a child, built up catalogue shopping empire in the US. MurielMary (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements Importance seems clear, there's a couple sections of the article (the Lillian Vernon House, and Awards) that need a tad more sources or CN's removed, but it is not too far away. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, have fixed. MurielMary (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets DC2 as important to her field. Article seems OK to me at this point. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support important to hr field indeed. Article is decent. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 14:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

December 13Edit


[Posted] RD: Benedict AndersonEdit

Article: Benedict Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New Republic Associated Press

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: Renowned academic and political scientist best known for Imagined Communities. Quite a background: born in what was then the Republic of China to parents from Ireland and England, raised in the United States, studied in Ireland and the United Kingdom, lived in Indonesia and in the United States during his exile from that country. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the books seems like it might be interesting. I won't support, but I'll withdraw my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most distinguished political scientists, a leading scholar of modern Indonesian history and nationalism. [13] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Imagined Communities has been highly influential. Neljack (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support clearly notable having written "perhaps the most read book about nationalism", but the article needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support provisionally, noting that several of the sections entirely lack citations. OTOH, fixing "I have not heard of him" is one of the things the feature should be about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, Smerdis, but you can't simultaneously embiggen the mind of the smallest man while killing the human spirit at the same time. The article's expansion, however, is worth support. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: There's a big fat orange level maintenance tag at the top of the article, right now, had it not been there, I'd have already posted this. If it were entirely invalid, I'd have removed it, but there are sections that lack references, mostly dealing with summaries of his works (which are tacitly assumed to be referenced to the work itself). If someone else who knows the subject more intimately can decide to remove the tag, OR can fix the problems so the tag is no longer justified, I would post this. But I cannot do so now, no matter how many pile on supports we have. --Jayron32 15:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've re-written/sourced what I could from what I could find and removed the tag. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted good work on the updates Patar knight. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

December 12Edit


[Closed] RD: Evelyn LiebermanEdit

no momentum towards posting μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2015 (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: Evelyn Lieberman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Statement from the White House NY Times Washington Post NY Times article repeated in Boston Globe

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: Known for her role in the Monica Lewinsky affair, but also had a much wider influential career in government in Washington; head of broadcaster Voice of America; more recently, chief spokesperson for the Smithsonian. MurielMary (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet any of the Recent Deaths criteria, from what I see. The event she is associated with clearly makes her notable enough to have an article, but it doesn't mean her death merits posting. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] UFC: McGregor defeats AldoEdit

Duplicate nomination; already nominated below Banedon (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2015 (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: UFC 194 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In mixed martial arts, Conor McGregor defeats José Aldo and becomes the UFC Featherweight Champion.
Alternative blurb: ​In mixed martial arts, Conor McGregor defeats José Aldo in 13 seconds and becomes the UFC Featherweight Champion.
News source(s): [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Aldo was the reigning champion in the UFC Featherweight division and had not lost in over a decade (and was undefeated in the UFC). He was widely regarded as one of the best MMA fighters of all-time. McGregor KOed him in 13 seconds. The hype and trash-talk surrounding this fight was unprecedented in MMA. McGregor became a sensation in Ireland and throughout the MMA community (and beyond) for his trash-talking and his knockout power. He is widely regarded as one of the most marketable figures in the UFC, and this will only catapult him to even more popularity. I believe this fight should be posted because it also marks a shift in the MMA world. Ronda Rousey was KOed not so long ago, and now Aldo's reign was taken down by McGregor. ComputerJA () 07:50, 13 December 2015 (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] Women in Saudi Arabia vote for the first timeEdit

Articles: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (talk, history) and Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Saudi Arabia, women vote for the first time in elections.
Alternative blurb: ​In Saudi Arabia, women vote in municipal elections for the first time.
Alternative blurb II: ​Saudi Arabia holds its first elections open to women.
News source(s): BBC Reuters Fortune

Nominator's comments: Not sure which article is best to update for the target (maybe both?) - Women's rights in Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2015?? MurielMary (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending updates. I have added my suggestion for an altblurb though I'm sure someone else may do better. I don't know if this would be ITN/R for elections, but either way this is certainly worthy on its own merits. - OldManNeptune 01:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    • ITN/R in regards to elections is for elected officials (head of state), not voters, as far as I'm aware. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates and target article – Easy support from my viewpoint, big change and a huge step forward for this part of the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Saudi Arabian women voted for the first time on Saturday in local council elections and also stood as candidates, a step hailed by some activists in the Islamic patriarchy as a historic change, but by others as merely symbolic." (Reuters). Definitely not news. zzz (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are also people who think it is "historic change" (same quote). Any kind of change has to start somewhere. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, a small step maybe, but an important step in a country with such heavily curtailed rights. LjL (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
ALTBLURB/wait local election when notable in such instances are important (see longest elected communist govt losing power in Bengal 4 or so years ago). Still wait to see the results and the first women elected.Lihaas (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Cyclonebiskit. Banedon (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support even if this is only at the local level, major change in a country that has traditional prevented this right. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support being given the franchise is a huge event, especially for this culture, whereas legalizing gay marriage federally in the US was merely procedural in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
What does the USA have to do with anything? The fight for same sex marriage rights was and remains extremely difficult. I'm not saying that this event isn't significant, I'm just wondering what the USA has to do with it. --166.172.58.234 (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC) 166.172.58.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support per Medeis, a big step forward for women's suffrage. -Zanhe (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Global news, INT-worthy, and as noted above a small but highly significant step. Jusdafax 06:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment have added another altblurb and updated the article Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2015. As the newsworthy point is that women could vote, which has now happened, it doesn't seem necessary to wait for election results to be posted. MurielMary (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: BFD. Not like Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of a democratic transformation, but this is a big step for arguably the most regressive country in the world in terms of its treatment of women. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - new world wide. and ITN worthy for it being a big step forward for women in this backwards country.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Whatever the view on forwards or backwards, it's a big step away from where it was. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, December 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and could we consider mentioning the facts that some women candidates were elected? [19] HaEr48 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Ideally, I'd wait for the results to be in if it was a classical election article, but here the focus is different so the article works. --Tone 09:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times reports that 20 women have been elected to local government seats: [20] Can the blurb be updated with some numbers? 217.38.114.189 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Take it to WP:ERRORS which will likely get more attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
PULL This article was so not ready for posting. Has anyone even looked at it? Correctron (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
S/He does have a point: where is the five sentence update? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Approximately half of the text in the bolded article Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2015 is about the voting by and for females, which is the relevant newsworthy fact for this story. --Jayron32 02:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Then why does the article state repeatedly the elections are being contested? The blurb is after the fact and the article must reflect that. Where is the update? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you reading the linked article? It is all written in the past tense. I don't know what article you are reading, but the one highlighted on the main page is adequately updated. If another article is not, you are also allowed to fix it. No one here will stop you. --Jayron32 05:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] COP 21Edit

Articles: 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (talk, history) and Paris Agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A deal is agreed at COP21 to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures by 2°C (3.6°F).
Alternative blurb: ​XXX countries reach a deal on the next legally binding greenhouse gas treaty.
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The deal is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions. Jolly Ω Janner 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  • This should go up once the update is there. --Tone 19:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Article needs heavy updating and this applies even more to Paris Agreement, which should be linked in the blurb as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements, blurb should be "attempt to limit" since we have no idea how well humans can actually control it. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Can we get a conversion in to Fahrenheit for those of us who don't follow the SI system? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on an increase from 14C to 16C, it should be 3.6 °F. Jolly Ω Janner 20:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Why is "14C to 16C" significant? 1K=1.8°F so 2K=3.6°F however you cut it.20:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
        • They aren't significant. Jolly Ω Janner 21:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (when ready) – Theoretically significant agreement and a major international diplomatic event. Sca (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support significant agreement. international event. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a landmark international initiative that warrants a place on the front page of Wikipedia. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 00:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a significant international agreement. Updates look sufficient to post. I recommend including Paris Agreement in the blurb, and have linked it as such. Mamyles (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The blurb might as well say they defined pi as 3 while they were at it. An altblurb reflecting facts, not wishes, is in order. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I also strongly recommend the main blurb over the alt blurb. Mamyles (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This is why I mentioned we should add "try to limit" to the main blurb, as that's how the BBC reports it. Laws can't change fundamental laws of nature regardless how much some politicians would want that. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the main blurb to say "attempt". Jolly Ω Janner 03:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why single the US out? It only contributes 15% of greenhouse gas emissions.
China too I suppose. Two largest.Lihaas (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Combined, that's still less than 40% of the global total. I think this proposal is just silly. Jolly Ω Janner 04:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, given that, as long as the worst polluters buy into it despite stonewalling by the US, then all should be well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Undo...the bold article already links to he same thing.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a landmark deal. Post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. Don't delay, post today. Jusdafax 06:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

comment Shouldn t it be: limit (...) to 2 degrees, instead of by 2 degrees? L.tak (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Shaheen-IIIEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 22:35, 13 December 2015 (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: Shaheen-III (talk, history)
Blurb: Pakistan successfully test fires medium range nuclear-capable Shaheen-III ballistic missile just days after hosting peace conference.
News source(s): Times of India, Voice of America, Toronto Star, Deutsche Welle

Article updated
 198.16.164.205 (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the first time the rocket has been launched. Unless this leads to other conflict/issues, the launch itself just doesn't have that much international impact (correct me if I'm wrong). SpencerT♦C 17:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't seem like the test had anything to do with the peace conference; and as Spencer states, this isn't the first test of this rocket. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose