Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2014

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


February 28Edit

February 2014 Mt.Gox shutdown, theft and bankruptcyEdit

Article: Mtgox#February_2014_hacking.2C_losses.2C_shutdown_and_bankruptcy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Mt. Gox claims a loss of $473 million worth of the digital currency Bitcoin, files for bankruptcy and Shutdown.
News source(s): (Reuters)
Article updated
  • Strong oppose This is just a bankruptcy, all other is still so far officially unconfirmed speculation – especially that the customers' money was stolen or lost. Mt.Gox was not even close to a large enough company for its bankruptcy alone to be featured on ITN. It's actually completely expected that many startups do fail. --hydrox (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Bankruptcy or Crime? When a normal business goes bankrupt, the physical assets and the coins in vaults and cash on hand still exist. This seems (without my saying it definitively is) more like a theft where the "assets" have simply vanished. This is a unique top-of-its kind story, that will have plenty of educated readers seeking out news here.
Support. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Why?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
His reasoning (on which I have no opinion) is in the rest of his comment, i.e. the last sentence of the immediately preceding line. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose - I do think we should be covering more (=some) business stories, but I don't think this is it. If it wasn't about bitcoins, I doubt anyone would even remotely consider a bankruptcy of this level important. MtGox's incompetance allowed theft to go unnoticed for years which is interesting, but really not all that unusal of a way for a smallish company to fail. If criminal charges come out of this, I would probably support, but that seems unlikely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
weak support it could have repercussions for the nascent Bitcoin industry. Been around the news today (well bloomberg anyways)Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bitcoin is a novelty, not a industry of real economic importance. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to argue that an industry that had a $14bn market cap a couple months ago and still has a $7bn market cap after this major collapse isn't important.  — TORTOISEWRATH 02:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
These are very arbitrary dates. The increase to the peak price happened after MtGox started having major problems, and the drop after they revealed the loss was far smaller. This affected only 6% of all coins in circulation; not quite catastrophic for what's still an experimental toy currency at this point. E4FZq (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
$14B is microscopic for an industry (and the value of all bitcoins is not the industry market cap either, just as the value of all USD in circulation is not the market cap on the US gov't. The market cap of the bitcoin currency exchange "industry" would be teh market value of all currency exchanges, a far smaller #.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; not an unusual occurrence, a new business having difficulty. Also not terribly important to the economy. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This story has been in the news several days. As a computer virtual currency story I feel it is of interest to the average Main page reader. Good call for the ITN feature. Jusdafax 01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Just because it's "only" $473 million doesn't mean it isn't significant; if the world's largest bank of any fiat currency went under and took everyone's balances with it, certainly that would be considered newsworthy; why should this be any different?
    Because the largest bank of fiat currency holds probably $100 billion, not 0.5% of that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    I looked it up - the largest bank in the world is either BNP Paribas ([1]) or Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ([2]) and has US$3 trillion of assets either way. So, the amount lost here is 0.0015% of the world's largest bank. No doubt $450M banks fail on a weekly basis somewhere in the world (and other businesses worth $450M fail constantly). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, quite an unusual business and technology story, and it's already making some political waves, particularly in the U.S.[3]. Nsk92 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready this is well updated and a nice majority support. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You're in a real vote counting mood today, aren't you? HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Relatively small amount in larger business world. Also, this presumes the worth of bitcoins which still are arguable up in the air. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Mt. Gox is the leader in the BitCoin movement, which has been receiving a lot of curious press recently, and for it to go bust is quite notable. --Tocino 08:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose drop in the ocean. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think that the currency was widely used enough so that this bankruptcy really exerts major changes in the business world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A blurb about play money? Seriously? (I'll buy New York Avenue for 200 bitcoins - and can I put a hotel on it now, or do I have to wait till my next turn?) (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a tiny amount in the business world and impacts a small number of people. It's received some coverage, but more as a curiosity. Also, the bankruptcy itself doesn't seem notable, and the full circumstances of the loss of bitcoins (the notable part) are still unclear. E4FZq (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Unclear. I think that the actual events leading up to this bankruptcy are so unclear that the Wikipedia article will not be helpful to the average reader. Abductive (reasoning) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying the article is unclear, or that the average reader is too stupid to understand it? The whole purpose of an article is to explain the topic to the reader. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No, the article is doing the best it can be while hewing to proper sourcing. What I meant was that the situation is unclear. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Occupation of Crimean airportsEdit

Things have moved on substantially, and we have other Ukraine-related nominations so this one isn't going to make it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Ukrainian revolution (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution, Russian naval forces allegedly occupied both the Sevastopol and Simferopol airports on Crimea.
News source(s): (BBC News), (CNN), (New York Times), but in contrast (Russia Today)
  • Nom. Much speculation at this point, but still noteworthy. --bender235 (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if confirmed If there is indeed Russian military occupying parts of Ukraine, we should post it. But at this point, these are only mere accusations, and as such not widely reported. --hydrox (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thats what the crimean protests article is afor . the events in crimea, you said no to that . Its also the main article for this vevent.
Hencew i proposed an update with that linkLihaas (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
If you read my comment, I said that there weren't enough serious events yet and we should monitor the situation. Clearlty, Russian military overtaking the Crimea would be serious enough, but so far Moscow has not made comments and claim these are not their troops. --hydrox (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed blurb. The proposed blurb links to the wrong article. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution is over. The 2014 Crimean crisis is what this issue is referring to. Also, it's not confirmed that Russian troops are actually there. They could be native Crimean militias, formed with the help of Russia and with Russian equipment. Finally, the proposed blurb makes no mention of the protests in favor of increased autonomy/integration with Russia. --Tocino 08:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support something being posted as soon as the situation clarifies. It seems to me that a blurb such as Russia seizes Crimea from Ukraine or Russia invades Ukraine must be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 15:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but Another Blurb (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

February 27Edit

[Ready] Optic NerveEdit

Article: Optic Nerve (GCHQ) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Documents leaked by Edward Snowden shows that the secret GCHQ program Optic Nerve has collected webcam images in bulk from millions of mostly non-suspect Yahoo! Voice users.
Alternative blurb: ​Documents show that a British Government Communications Headquarters program, Optic Nerve, has collected webcam images in bulk from millions of mostly non-suspect Yahoo! Voice users.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I am not aware of any other examples to such mass collection and storage of webcam traffic, which most users would normally consider quite private. It is of course analogous to the NSA's bulk telephone conversation collection. Thue (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Most importantly, I'm not yet seeing widespread, top-story coverage of this. I was prepared to simply restate my usual objections to Snowden leak stories (the leak is over and done with and being artificially lengthened for maximum publicity, not being a Snowden ticker, etc.) but 1) I haven't seen such a story in a bit and 2) most nominated stories AFAIK seem to involve the NSA and not the GCHQ. Further, photo collection is a different animal than phone conversations or their metadata. I could potentially support this or at least not oppose it if wider coverage is out there. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I have always considered the "Snowden ticker" extremely poor form. The stories based on the Snowden are individually extremely notable, and can't be dismissed as a "Snowden news ticker". Snowden-based stories have been way underrepresented ITN compared to the media at large because of this bias. Thue (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There is already plenty of other news-stories based based on the Guradian article. As for independent stories, don't expect any, since the Guardian story is obviously based on secret sources. Thue (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • (EC)That is, of course, your prerogative. Wikipedia is not for righting wrongs which is part of the reason I am skeptical of these types of stories, which have been in the hands of the media since he leaked them and he has an interest in maximizing publicity for his cause. As I said, though, I could support this if there is more extensive media coverage. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought the whole point here was that the sources were leaked and no longer secret. The Guardian could release them just as WikiLeaks has released theirs. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is apparently important:

• Optic Nerve program collected Yahoo webcam images in bulk • 1.8m users targeted by UK agency in six-month period alone • Yahoo: 'A whole new level of violation of our users' privacy' • Material included large quantity of sexually explicit images

Assuming we have more than the Guarniad as a source. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The story is based on secret leaked documents, which very few people have access to. Asking for a second source is like dismissing Watergate because Deep Throat was a single source... Thue (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I change my vote to an oppose from a strong support? (Thue has changed his comment without noting it, after it was responded to: [**The story is based on secret leaked documents, which very few people have access to. Asking for a second source is silly... Thue (talk) 5:14 pm, Today (UTC−5) diff].) Are you aware the update requirements ask for at least three sources? μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Just for the record, I changed my comment before it was responded to: [4] Thue (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Your comment is silly whether or not it is in support of my nomination. Stop being childish. As for ITN requiring three sources, that sounds insane, I have never seen it enforced, and it would have stopped ITN from reporting on many stories such as fx Watergate. Thue (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Three sources would mean 3 newspapers reporting on it, not 3 independent verifications... That said, of course people may raise concerns that especially damaging stories require especially strong sourcing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Well certainly stories that will be damaging to living people's reputations requires particularly strong sources, per BLP, but I don't see that there's a BLP issue here. Neljack (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all snowden related leaks Simply because its all been given to media for a year and being released at a slow pace to make it more exciting. if they release it at once people will forget about it a week after. These leaks have no end in sight and will keep coming. If the leak causes some major developments to take place then its a different thing -- Ashish-g55 00:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that one person out there agrees with me on that point. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There are two problems with that argument: (1) there is no evidence that it is being strung out - as I understand it there is a huge number of files to go through; and (2) even assuming that it is being struck out, what on Earth have our personal opinions about how the media ought to report this got to do with its significance, which is what we're supposed to be assessing? Its significance is not diminished by being released now rather than last year. Neljack (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • 1)The Guardian or anyone else in possession of the leaked information could release it all as they are going through it(it would also speed up going through it); the only reason not to is to maximize attention. We also know already that the leaked information is all about some embarrassing/shocking government activities; that is no surprise to anyone. 2) We make that judgement with most every event nominated(X event is a tabloid story not worthy of posting, X event is a local story, etc.) so if we aren't going to do that here, we need to open up the nominating criteria. Further, we aren't here to right wrongs as Snowden and his allies are out to do. When something changes because of a leak (a new law, a government falling or leader resigning, etc.) I would be much more willing to support something like that. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Breaking News: Governments spy on people!" No. Sorry. I already knew that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Breaking news - yahoo failed to adequately encrypt video streams of users. You probably didn't actually know that. Now covered by many international news outlets (Spiegel, Australian newspapers/BBC) (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I did know that. I wasn't surprised. And I don't understand your point. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the scale and, as the nom points out, the high expectation of privacy in webcam traffic. Neljack (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I remember being advised in the early days of email 25 years ago that it was as secure as sending a postcard. Do people really think things are better now? HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support an interesting and wide-impact story. The article is in a reasonable state (a note, once again, regarding references, the instructions on WP:ITN clearly state the "decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective" and then goes on to provide recommendations, not requirements). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An almost ridiculous story. Unfortunately after all the surveillance leaks, people have come to a point were they aren't suprised about anything anymore. --bender235 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark Ready better sourced now, consensus in favor. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question switching to Oppose How many Snowden related blurbs have been posted in the past? AgneCheese/Wine 17:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I went in search of my own answer and so far I've found:
If this one is posted that would be 4 articles in 7 months, perhaps a bit of overkill. While I don't dispute that there is newsworthiness in the over-arching Edward Snowden saga, I do question whether each and every revelation that eventually comes out is ITN-worthy. If we keep up this pace, then we can expect to post another 5 more Snowden articles by the end of the year. Again, that is a bit of overkill. I'm going to switch my comment to oppose for now and suggest we utilize restraint until something overwhelming newsworthy (like, perhaps, a plot from one government to overthrow another) from the Snowden leaks come out. AgneCheese/Wine 18:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose I don't see this making big news; Wikipedia seems to overemphasise Snowden/mass surveillance related news compared to media outlets. Iselilja (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly support removing Snowden from the burb, but the story stands on its own without him. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I removed the "ready" tag. I don't see a consensus to post at this time (althoguh one could easily emerge). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
We've got six supports, four opposes and a weak oppose. The opposes are all but one based on an ideological opposition to Snowden posts, not the merits of this npomination. It has also been five days since the last update, and this is a well-updated unchallenged article, better than any other current nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting view of consensus since it looks to be pretty even for/against (though I guess you are personally giving more weight to the support arguments who seem to merely be supporting this because it is an "interesting" or "ridiculous" story). Outside of those personal views, I don't see any hard evidence for the overwhelming newsworthiness of this story apart from being another sensationalist Snowden story. Even CNN International currently has this story (as of 7:43 PM Friday, February 28, 2014 (GMT)) "below the fold" buried below stories on Ukraine (which we have posted on ITN), Uganda's anti-gay law (which is being rejected for posting on ITN), Anne Frank's vandalized diaries restored and Turkey's wire tap war (none of which have even been nominated for ITN). It's clear that the only reason why this story is getting any play on ITN is because of the Snowden sensationalism. Compare the Google News Search for "Optic Nerve" webcam getting 5550 hits while stories on Uganda "gay rights" and Uganda "anti-gay" getting 20,800 and 142,000 google news hits, respectively. I don't dispute the validity of the oppose arguments below with the consensus against posting the blurb on Uganda's bill on ITN but it is hard not to be unimpressed with the arguments for posting the weaker, less newsworthy Snowden story. Is it because what happens to LGBT people in Uganda doesn't personally impact anyone on ITN while folks here believe they may have a reason to be worried about what their own webcam could have caught them doing? Still doesn't seem like a valid reason to support posting. AgneCheese/Wine 20:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, this has nothing to do with Snowden. If the headline were Cameron gov't collect millions of private yahoo chat images there's be no objection. And, in fact, that's exactly what this is. As for Uganda, the policy there is precedented, and the British surveillance is unprecedented. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I stand by my assessment - I do not see any valid reason to disregard the opposes/view thier arguments as weak. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Arguably one of the most important global news stories of the week -A1candidate (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually no, it is not very arguable. In addition to CNN's low priority mentioned above, you can also look at the BBC homepage which is currently featuring much more prominently the global news stories about Ukraine, Mt. Gox, ISIS retreating in Syria, the Academy Awards and the West Indies vs England Cricket match with the Snowden story, again, buried below the fold in the Technology section. Yahoo news currently doesn't have it on its front page (even on its world edition). Even the UK Guardian, who basically own the story, has it buried below stories of seemingly more global importance/interest regarding the Academy Awards, El Chapo, Ukraine and Russia's escalation in the Crimea. Viewed impassionedly and unbiasedly, this story is kind of a yawner. The only "perk of interest" is the Snowden connection. AgneCheese/Wine 20:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The claim was that this was "arguably one of the most important global news stories of the week", not about the amount of news coverage it was getting - though that seems pretty substantial too. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb remove Snowden, since he is the informant, not the story, and not a participant. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment should this feature be re-named "In the Snow"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should create a new frontpage feature: "Did You Snow"? Formerip (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
      • You wouldn't think that was so funny if the leering image of a Ricky-Gervaisish looking wanker from Mi5 watching you and your bird rub one off cross country suddenly replaced her on your yahoo-chat enabled telly. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. SeraV (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb and suggest we post. Another twist in this fascinating spiral. Makes Daniel Ellsberg's revelations look second rate. Widely in the news, worldwide impact. Jusdafax 01:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
How many twists will we post here? It's only "in the news" because some foolish people didn't realise that governments spied on people. Sensationalist tabloid pap. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Kind of like when we didn't publish the 1.5 million taps of home communications by NewsCorp's News of the World? Oh, wait... Consensus is 61 to 39, and you can mntion the last time we published a story about Mi5 hacking people's Yahoo! sex videos. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You know that we don't just count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
So, you concede the comparison with the News case is embarrassing, as is the translation of 7 supports to 4.5 opposes into percentage terms, and would prefer to keep the focus on Snowden, whom no one supports as relevant to the nomination or blurb? That's alright. Six days without a new ITN item is probably also a good thing. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops, HiLo, sorry. That's now 8 to 4.5, or 64 to 36% in favor of posting. Keep in mind that's ignoring the irrelevance of votes, like those based on opposition to Snowden. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The NSA/Five Eyes story has run its course. "Spying on Yahoo! Voice" is receiving very little attention in mainstream media outlets. --Tocino 08:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am surprised at the relative obscurity of the story, as it seems like this is one of the more egregious violations of privacy. However, there just isn't a lot of coverage on this. I am only seeing this in UK sources, and even then, its buried deep in their main pages. Nothing on the main pages of Al-Jazeera, NYT, CNN, or Times of India. I will strike my oppose if such coverage picks up, but for the time being I cannot consider it to be something that we can reasonably expect international readers to be searching for. Teemu08 (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it won't, since the story broke like half a week ago. Why would any newspaper put it on their main page just now? --bender235 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

February 26Edit

[Posted] Federal Government College Buni Yadi attackEdit

Article: Federal Government College Buni Yadi attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fifty-nine students are killed by militants in Yobe State, Nigeria.
News source(s): New York Times USA Today Sky News The Guardian CNN Reuters ABC News Al Jazeera Yahoo News Los Angeles Times Channels

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a tragic event which is being covered widely in the news. Also, we posted a similar incident in Nigeria on ITN when many students and teachers were killed at Gujba College. Andise1 (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support when updated the proper word is atrocity, not tragedy. Scale speaks for itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep support the concept, article is way off the quality required. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the death toll. Neljack (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: This comes after similar stories of massacres in Nigeria in the last month that have not made ITN and definitely should be included. Perhaps get rid of the "while sleeping" part just to ensure readability? Brigade Piron (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I normally support concision, but I think the fact they were attacked at night is a notable part of the despicable atrocity. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
comment Boko Haram are alleged, not claimed. Same as the posting some days ago of such an attack that was voted down because it was only suspected. (removed BH from blurb).
Also the details for how and why are not relevant to the blurb. Tthats what the article is for. Just mention the deaths and where.Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"How" and "Why" are not even mentioned in the blurb, unless you assume that saying "killed" equals "how" which is clearly not true. Andise1 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
JC, okey, the point being the details.Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
How is explicitly mentioned: "while sleeping at a boarding school"Lihaas (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
How is that "how"? That is "where?". "How?" would be mentioning the way in which the students were killed. Andise1 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
'comment2 having seen the article it is awful and no wherenear ready (before a trigger happy admin posts it). Since there is no substantive content, this can link to the the list of terrorict incidnets page.Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No one said the article was ready to be posted. I created the article earlier because I knew it was a significant incident and I knew it would be better if there was an article created before I nominated this incident for ITN. I didn't have a ton of time to add a bunch of information when creating the article so I just put the basics in first. I will try and update the article with more information. Andise1 (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No issues, if you feel you can add enough go ahead. Was just bringing it ot attention.Lihaas (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lihaas, please do not redirect articles without gaining consensus to do so. If you feel the incident does not warrant an article (which it clearly does based on the news sources and the severity of the incident) start an AfD. Andise1 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I was being BOLD. You reverted (as is your right) and im not edit warring.
Still don't think itll warrant a page of itself as it may have high casualties but there are no repercussions (many incidents in that area have the same as its a continuing conflict).
If you look at the revisions for the article, you will notice that I was not the one who reverted your edit. Andise1 (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Also as note, I added "male" to the blurb as that is specifically the target since females were left alone.Lihaas (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've removed "male"--it's perverse to put it generously--add an altblurb if it's at all appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
That's why they were targeted, its the point of the attack. Especially if were going to put details like where they were killed (in bed, not the location. latter is important by consensus). On that ntoe , ive removed the former too.Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This borders on dishonesty, Lihaas. They were targeted because the weren't islamist fanatics, not because they were male. The fact that they were males was offered as a rationalization under the Boko Haram cult's ideology as to why it was okay to kill them in their sleep. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Dishoensty, really? Then have RS sources explicitly mentioned that the fmeales were sparwed. Were they all "islamist fanatics" and hthe men werent?Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - major attack, article now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That really is a great update. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

[Closed]Ukraine update: CrimeaEdit

Things have moved on substantially, so this is being closed in favour of the subsequent nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Crimean protests (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: In reaction to the protests that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, protests occur in Crimea in his support.
Alternative blurb: Armed gunmen occupy and raise the Russian flag over the local parliament for Ukraine's Crimea region.
News source(s): FP NYT liveblog

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: I created this article with basic information, it can be expanded. It does meet the update requirement though
Feel free to tweak away at the blurb. Lihaas (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I heard about one death in the news, but at this moment this doesn't look significant enough to bump compared to the currently posted developments. Brandmeistertalk 17:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This would be an update not a fresh posting. Ttacking on a nother linkLihaas (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The developments in Cimea are not yet substantial enough, but let's monitor the situation. --hydrox (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough , certainly as a stand alone update. Just thought it could fit as an update ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article could use a little work, but it seems that events in the Crimea have surpassed the events in Kiev as far as media coverage is concerned. --Tocino 02:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support now after further developments. Gunmen have now occupied the local parliament. The report that the Russian military has also taken control of an access route makes this very "interesting". I added an altblurb. Thue (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A region of a nation in open revolt (through occupying the local parliament) is a notable occurrence. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now — Yes, interesting, but still developing & unclear. (NYT calls it an "armed standoff.") Sca (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: Here's a report that sez two killed in Simferopol. [5] Sca (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Why wait? It is IMO clearly notable enough for ITN already, and I can't see how a development can somehow take make what has already happened un-notable. If there is a new interesting development, we can always update the blurb. Thue (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the actions of the parliament far outweigh the machinations of a deposed puppet. The blurb is fine and still second on the ticker--it can always be updated when Yanukovich is apotheosized. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — We should post if Russia or pro-Russia elements in Crimea make overt moves toward separation of Crimea from Kievian Ukraine (so to speak). Still unclear who's doing what, according to the talking heads Fri. eve. Sca (talk)
However, Putin on Sat. "asked" the Duma to OK the "use" of Russian forces in Ukraine "until the normalization of the political situation in the country" [6] — a phrase that has an eerily Soviet ring, IMO. [7] English-language Kyiv Post went so far as to state that Putin was now "set to invade Ukraine." [8] Sca (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Paco de LuciaEdit

Article: Paco de Lucia (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: A leading guitarist with international recognition. Good article. Iselilja (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD, the article is in an excellent shape. --Tone 09:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm shocked. Last summer I've seen him in Olomouc, his music was full of ageless energy. One of the best and most renowned guitar players in the world. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; the Influence section of the article convinced me he is very important in his field. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Seems to be a major figure in his field, and the article is excellent. It would be nice to see some reaction / tributes in the article, beyond the current one-setence update, but that's not a requirement. Modest Genius talk 13:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd have posted this already, but as of this minute, the only update to the article with regards to his death is the addition of a death date. No prose text has been added yet. Something, a sentence or two, is normally required. --Jayron32 14:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There was a separate Death section, now someone moved the update into another section. Should suffice anyway, I think. Brandmeistertalk 14:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That information was added after I wrote the above. Will be posting presently. --Jayron32 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. There's enough of a consensus to post and the update seems sufficient enough for an RD nomination. Hot Stop 16:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 17:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Widely regarded as not only the greatest flamenco guitarist of all time, but also one of the greatest guitarists. Neljack (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually this should be up in the main section not simply in the RD. As artists' notability is less linked to momentary extremes (such as by mass-murderers, politicians, sports people) but rather lifetime achievement, the only way to avoid ITN bias towards crime, politics and sport is to counterbalance with increased weight given to artists' obituaries. --ELEKHHT 01:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think the level of news coverage or the subject's overall notability would warrant a blurb in this case. RD is the proper location for 99% of the deaths we post, and it's correct here as well; it's what the section was designed for, after all. The full blurb vs. RD question is admittedly pretty subjective to begin with, and I don't think it has been codified or discussed in any great detail. I usually tend to disagree with a few of the death blurbs that have been posted, and I'd like us to be a little more selective in that regard. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I would say the level of news coverage in this case is really massive - all newspapers in my little country posted the news about his death immediatelly, and the situation was similar in other countries as well. The death of Philip Seymour Hoffman was posted as full blurb with a large support, yet I would say that career and achievements of Paco de Lucía in the field of guitar playing are far more significant. But it isn't a US topic and there's no sensational "drug overdose" etc., so the chance for a full blurb was little from the beginning. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Posting Hoffman as a blurb was a major mistake, which sets a bad precedent. I oppose a full blurb here. This is exactly the sort of thing RD was set up for - a notable individual, whose life and work was significant, but whose death does not have major repercussions. Stick with RD. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    There's nothing stopping you all from voting for a full blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    You are right, but I don't mind too much, that's not the most pressing thing. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Would certainly support a full blurb. An incredibly important figure in flamenco and guitar generally. And a great loss at such a relatively young age. Was still recording and performing. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, any suggestions? What about: Flamenco guitar legend Paco de Lucía dies at the age of 66? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I don't have a position on whether there should be a blurb, but the word "legend" shouldn't be used per WP:PEACOCK; it should just be flamenco guitarist. Iselilja (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Yes. I tried it :) What about: Spanish flamenco guitarist Paco de Lucía dies at the age of 66? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD per modest genius.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 25Edit

February 24Edit

Oldest piece of earthEdit

Articles: Zircon (talk, history) and Oldest dated rocks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists date the crystal Zircon to 4.4 billion years ago, making it the oldest piece of Earth to be in existence.
Alternative blurb: ​A zircon crystal is found to be 4.375 billion years old, pushing back the date of the formation of the Earth's crust.

Alternative blurb II: Scientists date a Zircon crystal to 4.4 billion years ago, making it the oldest piece of Earth yet identified.
News source(s): BBC CNN

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a significant discovery by scientists. Findings like this are obviously not common, which makes this notable enough for ITN. Andise1 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have tried to perk up the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 02:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Saw this in my local news outlet, and seeing it elsewhere too. Seems to be a significant discovery worthy of posting. 331dot (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Inquiry at least as of this edit the target article hasn't been updated at all. Is this truly about a change in the dating of the formation of the crust, or just the oldest found crystal so far? If the latter, I am opposed. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The paper is titled "Hadean age for a post-magma-ocean zircon confirmed by atom-probe tomography" (emphasis mine). One of the issues here is that this same zircon crystal was already described by some of the same authors in a 2001 paper where they already claimed it was 4.4 Gyr old using other dating methods. They applied a new dating method to (mostly) confirm the previous age as the oldest known zircon. That's interesting; however, I don't think a confirmation study really rises to the level of ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article has a bit of info way down in the text. I'd like to support but am puzzled by this one. Jusdafax 09:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iff the article is improved. Nergaal (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An interesting story and of excellent encyclopaedic value. However it didn't beat the previous record by a lot. This is the oldest thing on Earth; the fact that it didn't immediately revolutionise scientific theories is neither here nor there. Is there not a separate article on this crystal? If not, one should be created, as otherwise the History of the Earth article is not suitable for a multi-paragraph update. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Propose alt blurb 2.1: "Scientists date a Zircon crystal to 4.4 billion years ago, making it the oldest piece of Earth in existenceyet indentified." It Is Me Here t / c 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
That would have to be "yet indentified" rather than "in existence" which is a rather grandiose and unlikely claim. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. It Is Me Here t / c 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I have hacked it into the template for you. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there doesn't seem to be any actual significance here. As noted, the same crystal was dated to 4.4bya previously - this is just a confirmation of that date using another method. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per dragon's flight and thaddeus. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Harold RamisEdit

Article: Harold Ramis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ChiTrib

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: RD for sure. I don't think I can justify this for a full blurb, but I would support pushing this if there is agreement that a blurb could work. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD. Given his acting, writing and directing credits for some of the most famous Hollywood comedies ever, I'd say he's worth the RD. However, he lacks any Academy Awards or similar credits so I'd say a blurb isnt' warrented.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. His list of credits makes RD a no-brainer. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. I don't think this is in dispute here. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support For his credits. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD absolute shoe-in as highly influential comedic actor, writer, director and/or producer of SCTV, Stripes, Caddyshack, Lampoon Vacation, Ghost Busters, Groundhog Day, etc., usw. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready the article is in good shape and well updated, and support is string. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Just had to say it. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014Edit

Article: Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signs the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 into law, increasing the penalties against homosexuals to up to life imprisonment.
Alternative blurb: ​Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signs the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 into law, increasing the penalties against homosexuals to up to life imprisonment and requiring citizens to denounce them.
News source(s): BBC News. CNN, The New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think it's important for the laws regarding homosexuality worldwide. --Japanesehelper (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose might be newsworthy had there been a liberal policy in the first place--this is simply a new law, not a change of direction. The ITN/R listing seems to be in error as well. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Removed the ITNR listing. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this subject is not newsworthy worldwide anymore. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Not sure why people think this isn't newsworthy - it's certainly getting lots of international media coverage. It's not simply a new law, it's a significantly harsher one. Neljack (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
No one said it's not at all newsworthy--that's the criterion of notability which is required for inclusion in an article. But not everything that belongs in an article somewhere belongs in ITN on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually μηδείς both you and Nergaal said that it wasn't newsworthy. And newsworthiness certainly isn't the criterion for notability - see WP:NOTNEWS. Neljack (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If your point were to change anyone's mind your comment might make sense. But since it's just point scoring, do you seriously expect me to go back and say "might possibly be sufficiently newsworthy had there actually been a somewhat liberal policy or other position in the first place or any time before..." in order to avoid juvenile wordplay over the qualification of relative terms? Did you miss where Nergaal said "not newsworthy worldwide anymore? If this is going to be the level of discourse, it might possibly be time to perhaps consider the possible possibility of closing the nomination, maybe. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't trying to point-score, μηδείς, and I'm sorry if it came off like that. I was just trying to explain why I disagreed with the previous "oppose" comments, as I usually do when I'm the first support for a nomination that has already received several opposes. I wasn't really trying to convince you or other previous opposers, or get you to chance your comments; I was more trying to persuade those yet to comment. I did note that Nergaal had said "worldwide", which is why I noted that there was lots of international media coverage - similarly I noted that it is was a significantly harsher law in response to your comment that it was just a new law, not a change of direction. Neljack (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I am happy to accept that as a good faith statement on your part. μηδείς (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
comment ITN is for whats in the news, not what we like to see on the nfront page of WP.Lihaas (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Rien de neuf!! -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would be opening the floodgates rather. What makes this new law particularly more notable than lots of other new laws? GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. GoldenRing sums it up best. Regardless of our own opinions of the law, it is not ITN's job to right wrongs, and fundamentally this is just an adjustment of the penalties for something which is already illegal in Uganda. Personally I don't think this law should have been enacted, but that could be said of many laws in many nations. Modest Genius talk 18:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposse Disgusting law, but it isn't getting the coverage required for ITN and of course, no personal opinions should matter (as has been pointed out above). --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Getting the most coverage of any sub-Saharan news story of recent years - EU and US attempted interventions etc. I think this is worth posting. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose something that was illegal in Uganda under the risk of life imprisonment is now illegal in Uganda under the risk of life imprisonment. --Tóraí (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it the maximum sentence for homosexual acts under the existing law is 14 years imprisonment. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hazem Al Beblawi and his interim government in Egypt resignEdit

Articles: Hazem Al Beblawi (talk, history) and Beblawi Cabinet (talk, history)
Blurb: Hazem Al Beblawi announces the immediate resignation of the interim goverment of Egypt
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Just announced, further turmoil for Egypt. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment this seems very significant, but neither target article really gives much information (the cabinet article isn't even the required three paragraphs) and the BBC source sort of hints this may be a prelude to al-Sisi's running for president, but it doesn't say that outright. Can someone more familiar with the topic comment, and maybe link to a better in-depth source? I am predisposed toward supporting, but we don't really seem to have anything to inform our readers with yet. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As Medeis observes, it's not entirely clear what it going on (and we'll need more information for the update), but whatever the reason the resignation is undoubtedly significant considering the situation in Europe. Neljack (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I've updated the article with some basic information gleaned from the BBC article. It'd be nice to know what was going to happen next, but I think this is important enough to go up anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was an interim cabinet anyway. Importance of this is not clear; doesn't appear very dramatic in the sources I have read. The outgoing housing minister Ibrahim Mahlab is expected to become new prime minister and many of the other outgoing ministers are also expected to be back in the new cabinet. Iselilja (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the Prime Minister of Egypt had any real power, then maybe this would warrant inclusion, but even in stabler times, the PM of Egypt has always been overshadowed by the President or military rulers. --Tocino 07:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Daytona 500Edit

Article: 2014 Daytona 500 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In stock car racing, Dale Earnhardt Jr. wins the Daytona 500.
News source(s): ABC News

Nominator's comments: This is not an ITN/R event but I believe it is significant enough to be included in ITN. It is always a much talked about event, and one of the biggest races of the NASCAR season. Andise1 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment the article appears to be incomplete, lots of the results are missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this part is more interesting: "At 2:50 p.m. EDT, a tornado warning was issued for the speedway area and the grandstands were evacuated. The red flag lasted more than six hours as track-drying was delayed due to ongoing rain showers, making it the longest rain delay in Daytona 500 history" and would support a DYK, instead of ITN. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the Daytona 500 is more important (culturally)/well followed than the Cup championship and is the only NASCAR race casual fans follow. If only one of the two is posted (the Cup winner is ITNR) it really hsould be Daytona. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It may have an air of importance, but it is not a league championship in its sport. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib) 18:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Where does it say a sports item featured on ITN has to be a league championship? Andise1 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't believe we post the first MLB game, or the first NFL game, etc. I don't see a reason to do so here. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The first MLB/NFL game carries little extra significance over a random game. That isn't the case for Daytona vs. a random race. We do (correctly) post the Indianapolis 500 which is not a championship event, but is the most significant event in IndyCar. Motor racing can't be compared to team sports - there are no playoffs and the final points standings draw minimal public interest as compared the "big races" --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I might be wrong, but this is one of the three crown motorsports events in the year with Le Mans and the Monaco GP. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Nergaal. We should be posting the winners of the three crown jewel events. AgneCheese/Wine 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
If that's the sum of your support, you need to go and argue it at WP:ITN/R. It was discussed[9] two years ago and there didn't seem to be much appetite for it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The Super Bowl of stock car racing is noteworthy for the front page. Dough4872 05:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing any international coverage of this, and a quick Google news check seems to confirm that - you have to scroll a loooong way down to find a news source outside the USA, and then its specialist sports services. This is not ITN/R. That's not a reason not to post in itself, but it does mean that there has to be something particular about this Daytona 500 that makes it stand out (otherwise we'd just post it every year and it'd be effectively ITN/R). That doesn't seem to be the case here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another race in a large race calendar. Presumably if it's a "crown jewel" it ought to be considered at WP:ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Dough is not overstating the case. ITNR discussions can take place elsewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think Dough's support pretty neatly sums up the systemic bias that would result in this being posted. "The Super Bowl of stock car racing"? ITNR discussions can and indeed should take place elsewhere - and this should not be posted until either it's ITNR or someone can justify why this Daytona 500 is somehow much more significant than all the other ones. GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Usually an item has to go through ITN and be posted before it can be proposed to be included in ITN/R. Andise1 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's been proposed for ITN/R, there was no consensus to add it. With this amount of opposition to posting it once, I can't see it getting up for ITN/R now - though I realise that's slightly circular reasoning. GoldenRing (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already post the Indy 500 and the winner of the Sprint Cup Series every year. Two stories per year is enough given the worldwide popularity of stock car racing. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I would argue the Daytona 500 should be posted instead of the Sprint Cup winner. It certainly gets more attention at the very least. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Umm, the Indianapolis 500 is not stock car racing any more than the Daytona 500 is F1. Resolute 14:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x 2... The Indy 500 is not a stock car race. It is an open wheel race. For a syllogism for you: The Indy 500 is to the Open Wheel circuit as the Daytona 500 is to the Stock Car circuit: It is one race on the circuit, but it is the most important one, and historically it is more important than the series championship is. --Jayron32 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I indeed did not realise that they were different forms of racing (which was not clear from leads of the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500 articles). My mistake. Modest Genius talk 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure if this should be ITN/R or not, but unless it isn't I won't support or oppose. Well I couldn't oppose if it was ITN/R regardless...but I'll refuse to comment on something I know little about. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is certainly a culturally important race and probably after the Indy 500 the most recognizable car race in the US. I agree with above posters that the Daytona is culturally more significant than the winner of the Sprint Cup. It's hard to say though, I'm not a NASCAR fan. I'll remain Neutral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No currency outside the US whatsoever. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • See instructions above, which say in part "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." --Jayron32 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 23Edit

[Posted to RD] Alice Herz-SommerEdit

Article: Alice Herz-Sommer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Haaretz, Guardian, LA Times

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: A well known pianist and oldest Holocaust survivor. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support in principle but I'm wondering which of the RD criteria she meets (possibly #2); I further wonder if this would be better as a blurb(last known Holocaust survivor). 331dot (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be better as a blurb, but I think we should save it for when the last known Holocaust survivor dies. Formerip (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, she's not the "last known Holocaust survivor" as 331dot suggests, she's the oldest known survivor of the Holocaust, as FormerIP implies. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Indeed, that was an incorrect word choice on my part. My apologies 331dot (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Interesting person. FYI, she's in German Wiki's RD list. Sca (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I was thinking about a blurb too, but the fact that she was the oldest is in some way not that important as long as there are many younger survivors still living. To FormerIP: Yeah, but we are probably talking more than a decade before the last known survivor will die. Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the more diversity we can add to RD the better, this woman's death brings important information to our readers about the Holocaust etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mere longevity is not an accomplishment--this would make a much better DYK entry, it doesn't meet any ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mere longevity on its own is not notable, but longevity after an attempt to exterminate one's entire race would make them notable among holocaust survivors, which could be considered a field. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Please don't play that card. The Nazi's killed plenty of my relatives. I don't claim some sort of privilege because of that. The issue is she doesn't meet the ITN criteria, and nominating her as a minor pianist and an old victim of war is synthesis that makes her perfect for DYK but not ITN. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, μηδείς, but the context of the Holocaust casts a different light on this in terms of being noteworthy, IMO. Sca (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't playing any "card", nor did I intend any offense whatsoever, for which I do apologize- I was simply stating a fact. 331dot (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks, 331, I was not offended by your argument. I simply think it's clear she doesn't meet any of the ITN criteria, but is very suitable from a human interest standpoint for DYK. I suppose the best analogy is, would we post the death of the oldest falsely convicted gay black pianist? I just don't see victimhood as an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Just thought I should comment that describing holocaust survivors as "victims of war" could be taken as offensive by some. I'm sure it wasn't intentional. Formerip (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Being the oldest known Holocaust survivor is incredibly newsworthy and we are (thankfully) likely many years off from having the last living Holocaust survivor pass so I see little reason to wait till then. AgneCheese/Wine 02:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK - There are dozens of notable holocaust survivors still living, so there could potentially be dozens of people who die as the oldest holocaust survivor. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between a survivor living the longest and being the oldest. Some might live longer than this woman, but they can't be born before her. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • But she only became the oldest after the previously-oldest one died. Now someone else is the oldest living holocaust survivor, and when they die then someone else will be. Are we going to post them all? GoldenRing (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It'd be nice to see some rationale for posting when there is no consensus to post. GoldenRing (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It was posted per the pretty obvious consensus, so I didn't feel a need to comment... Most opinions were that she is important enough to list and the only 2 objections were both along the lines of "being old isn't an accomplishment". That is an opinion, not a policy argument, and thus has no more weight than the six people who felt it is a notable accomplishment (among other reasons for support). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Men's Hockey TournamentEdit

Article: Ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament (talk, history)
Blurb: Canada defeats Sweden to win the gold medal in men's ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics.
News source(s): NBC

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: Blurb probably needs help; medals just awarded. --331dot (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment In order to avoid two Olympic blurbs at the same time, I suggest merging this blurb with the closing ceremony of the Olympics. --Tone 15:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't object to a combined blurb but we may want to also note that's how it should be listed on the ITNR page. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the hockey final is not bigger than the acutal closing ceremony and should not be mentioned in the blurb in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This is ITNR; if you want it removed from ITNR then propose its removal; it is included because it is the top level of international play(as the regular world championships do not have the best players playing as they are all in professional leagues, they take a break for the Olympics). 331dot (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
IIHF World Championship is in the ITNR list too, right? Hmmm... –HTD 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The listing states that the Olympic tournament replaces the IIHF tournament in Olympic years. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes but we still list the world championship in non-Olympic years even if some of the best players can't play, unless their NHL teams were already eliminated and still wanna play some more hockey... –HTD 16:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Support not just be cause Canada won... But it is really the only game that people in Canada "really" care for and not any of the World championships... Which is evident by the very large % of population that watches Olympics hockey final -- Ashish-g55 16:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as stand-alone blurb (I would also lean oppose if combined with closing ceremony, but it would be better). I also wonder if it really should be listed on ITNR when this is the most recent discussion I can find... (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the discussion linked to by IP62 is very interesting, somehow avoided being closed and actioned (i.e. removal of this item from ITN/R). I would, however, be interested in independent sources claiming this to be the most prestigious hockey match in the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Also oppose a "combined blurb", quite why we need to conflate the end of a global sporting event with a single match of ice hockey is beyond me. For what it's worth, the ice hockey article has a single line of prose indicating the result of the final, and nothing more. I thought we usually expected some prose on how the final panned out...? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose singling out any individual Olympic event, unless something astounding happens (which Canada winning at ice hockey really isn't). The ITNR listing should be considered a mistake. Formerip (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It does not make sense to have a separate blurb for what is ultimately one small part of a much larger series of sport. It might be prestigious within ice hockey, but, of course, this applies to any other sport featured at the Olympics. The previous discussion recommends removing this from ITN/R, yet this was not followed up properly. For this reason, as others have written above, it would be appropriate not to consider this to be an ITN/R event. I believe this was done for a hurling event a few months ago. I would not object if it could be combined with the other blurb, but only as long as the other blurb remains concise (and I do not see how this is possible). (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd say this match has traditionally held greater significance than many of the other events (especially thinking back to those big USA v USSR world-super-power-battles of yesteryear). And it is one of only three finals to be held on the last day. p.s. but it's ice hockey, not just hockey. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't say the prior discussion referenced above reached an overwhelming consensus to remove it, which may be why it wasn't done(IMO); it is very easy to start a new discussion to so if that is desired. As of right now I have already said I would not object to a combined blurb. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Not overwhelming, but including the nominator, there were five in favour of it being removed from ITN/R with two in favour of keeping it (including you). It wasn't closed properly either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was just looking at past examples: In 2010, we were able to work it in because it was part of Canada's overall gold medal count.[10] In 2006, the consensus at that time was to have a subsection directly on ITN to list all the daily updates;[11] having an Olympics summary sticky link was not implemented until the 2008 Beijing Olympics. And of course, ITN did not begin until 2004. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. there was none new world record, just a gold medal like whichother of the near 100 gold medals in this multisport event--Feroang (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Feroang none of the other 100 gold medals are the top level of international play(as the best players participate in this and not typically the world championship). which is why this has been on the list. If that's not enough anymore, OK, but then someone should start a new discussion to propose its removal regardless of what happens in this instance. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • 331dot, not that I doubt it was true at some point, but can you point me to the RS that states that the hockey final is the "top level of international play", and are you sure, with things like the skeleton, the double luge, etc that their events in the Winter Olympics are not the "top level of international play"? [Above all else, the article is a wreck, and not worthy of ITN inclusion anyway, but that's yet another issue...] The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
An ice hockey world record? yes, 82-0 would have been quite a surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Point of order, it would have needed to have been 83–0 to be a world record... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
although world records can be jointly held!? .. even on snow, apparently! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I only know that for most other winter olympic sports(alpine skiing, curling, etc.), the same players participate as do in their respective world championships, but most pro hockey players do not participate in IIHF championship because they are too busy (and make more money) being pro hockey players, so it is not the best level of play if it does not have the best players. I don't have documentation on that so I respect and understand that you might dismiss that, but it's what forms my opinion. I know when to stop beating the horse, though. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean this horse? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Ice polo medal count anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep ITNR but do not post. A final between USA and Russia would have definitely been worth it, but, no offense, Sweden is neither of them. Otherwise, in years w/o Olympics it is worth posting. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Are you saying continue to post IIHF world championship, but not the Olympics? If Sweden had won I would think that would be more notable than Canada, the US or Russia winning(as hockey is more well known in those three). Just wanted clarification. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Nergaal was being ironic. Or else the irony is on him for giving a non-reason for not including it.:) Especially since Sweden was obviously better than USA who couldnt handle even making it to the final :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't ironic. I am pretty sure that the USA-Russia game received more coverage in the press than this final (for obvious political reasons). Sweden has been ranked as #1 by IHF for a while so the fact that it lost is somewhat notable. Otherwise, both Canada and Sweden have won a ton of titles anyways. Russia (after USSR) and USA on the other hand have not. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Didn't old "Ice Queen Putin" have something to say about a must-have ice hockey medal? chortle, chortle Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not a matter of ratings or press it is a matter of notability and if that is what should be measured then a final at the olympics are more notable than a semifinal. I am not convinced that the final of the Ice Hockey game should be featured at all at ITN as it is not really more notable than any of the other sports not mentioned.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you seen some of the games introduced at this edition? Some of the freestyle-something probes where there are about 15 athletes from like 7 countries, adn where the contestants "exercise" their sport for something like 15-20 seconds? You are saying that hockey with its almost-longest history at the Winter Olympics is not more notable than such medals? Nergaal (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment In any case, the article is really weak on the prose side - this needs to be improved before we can actually think about posting. --Tone 21:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to popular belief, the listing of an event on ITN/R does not mean that it will always be posted subject to the update and article quality being sufficient. The (templated) note regarding ITN/R at the top of this very nomination says: "Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it." Generally, not always. It has to be this way because of the principle that consensus can always change - ITN/R cannot override a changed consensus. And as TRM has observed this seems to only be listed because the consensus to remove it was never implemented.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this being the only Olympic event singled out for inclusion on ITN/R is a result of our systemic bias - we have lots of editors from countries where ice hockey is popular. Is this really a bigger deal internationally that the 100m sprints or the marathon? Even in the Winter Olympics, the alpine skiing and the figure skating probably have more worldwide appeal. It may be that the ice hockey is the biggest event in North America, but I'm pretty sure people from Britain, Germany, France or Italy would be more likely to mention the downhill skiing or the women's figure skating if you asked them what they regarded as the biggest event of the Winter Olympics.
Finally, the article doesn't even contain a prose section on the final. Neljack (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm closing this, but the rationale for having it was never "it's the biggest event", rather that it is the highest level of international play in the sport; a very different thing. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-withdrawal strong support. I was away this weekend. When I came back I was astounded to see that ITN hadn't posted the biggest tournament in international ice hockey, a hugely popular sport with worldwide interest, despite it being on ITNR. What's wrong with people?! The Olympic ice hockey is a huge event, rivalling the rest of the Winter Olympics put together. It should be posted. The article needs a prose paragraph on the final, but that's not why people were opposing it above. Modest Genius talk 13:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I've started a discussion at ITN/R, should you wish to offer your opinion there. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support also post-withdrawl, and I think this was withdrawn too quickly. This is the effective world championship of one of the world's major sports. We post the Rugby world cup, the Cricket World Cup and the Volleyball world championship. This is a comparable event within the sport of icehockey. It just happens to be part of the Winter Olympics.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Ice hockey IIHF gets posted every year. Your other comparisons are four years etc. This is silly and confusing to our readers because of an idiosyncrasy in our ITN/R. There's a discussion there, by the way, so you can keep this for 2018, where it'll no doubt be refused once more (unless it's USA v Russia!!!). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Denial of this entry is really just more of the idiotic stupidity that permeates ITN/C at times. Resolute 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I assume you're not passively referring to those in opposition to this as "idiotic"? But your method of argument is noted. Most of the world doesn't care about the ice hockey final. Why should we post it? And why, if we don't, are we all "stupid idiots"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Most of the world doesn't care about 99.9% of what we do post. If you're going to present an argument, present a rational one, please. Resolute 16:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't need to. The community already has. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Ya i was quite surprised with all opposes as well. Given the number of sports items we post here.. ignoring a major championship and a clearly popular event based on a technicality of it being in olympics just seems awfully weird. Also it should NOT matter who wins or loses. -- Ashish-g55 15:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Anybody familiar with ice hockey knows that the IIHF championship is not the highest level of competition in ice hockey. The Winter Olympics are.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
            • And those not familiar with ice hockey, i.e. 99.9% of the known universe? Why do they care? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
              • That's an unfair argument (and probably exaggerated) and you're a better editor than that TRM. Most ppl in the world don't know what cricket is; most ppl on the world think Rugby and American football are the same thing. Most ppl in the world think Cue sports are forms of entertainment found in bars and not proper professional sports. But we regularly post events in all those sports at ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Silly to bring cricket into it, played in countries with a combined population of around 2 billion. The point here is why should the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics always be up with (or merged with) the men's ice hockey final? It's not considered that important to most of the world. Sorry if that's a problem. ITN is all about bringing things to the world that they'd be most interested in. This clearly isn't one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • I'm curious. What do you think the population threshold for inclusion should be? Played by people in countries that collectively top 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion? Or is it only silly to bring cricket into this because it is a sport you care about? So far, it seems that when you say "important to most of the world", your actual argument is "important to me/Britain". Resolute 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • Oh dear. Seriously, if you want this discussion reopened, I'd ask 331dot. Otherwise comment (again) at ITN/R. If none of the above, what's the point in commenting here further? I didn't close the discussion, blame someone else for your issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • Why not continue here? And instead of dodging the question, please do tell me what you think the population point is that makes an item important to "most of the world". Or is it a matter of important to specific countries? Perhaps we should list them to make things clearer for everyone so they don't waste time and effort nominating things that most of the world doesn't care about? Resolute 16:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                        • No, I'm trying to help you. If you don't want it, if you don't like it, do something rather than argue with me. I didn't close the ITN, I procedurally started the discussion at ITN/R out of courtesy. If you want to have a grudge match with me, do it on my talk page. If you want to improve Wikipedia, I suggest you do it some other way. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                          • For one who claims to be trying to "help" me, you are certainly reluctant to explain what the super sekrit rules are. What amount of population matters, TRM, and what countries matter? Resolute 16:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                            • Oh dear. Do as you will. This is a simple consensus issue. I've voted in opposition because I don't believe that this is relevant to the wider populace. You clearly do. We're not going to resolve that, so perhaps you should go take your anger out somewhere else. I, for one, couldn't care less for your rants. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                              • And here we circle back to the start. Since virtually everything that gets submitted to ITNC is not "relevant to the wider populace", should I take your comment here to mean that you will be opposing virtually every submission from this point forward? And if not, why not? Resolute 16:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                        • I think the simple thing to do is to reopen teh discussion then and get more input.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
          • It's not a technicality. The Olympics are also the most important alpine skiing championship, should we post the clearly popular downhill event? (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
            • The alpine skiing events feature the same people in and out of the Olympics, that is not the case with ice hockey, where the best players do not participate in the world championships of ice hockey. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
              • I've read "where the best players do not participate in the world championships of ice hockey" this before. Can you reference this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                • Look at the rosters and look at the calendar. Also look at the NHL (with players from all over the world) deciding whether or not to allow their players to play in the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • I asked for a ref, not to "look at the rosters" (meaningless to most) or "the calendar" (meaningless to most). Sounds like OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • If you find it meaningless, that is your prerogative; I don't need a ref to tell me that the sky is blue; I know by looking at it. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
                      • The advice "look at the rosters" isn't much help to those of us who don't know who the best players are. Neljack (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
                        • Where I come from a roster is the list pinned on the notice board in the tea room at work to tell us whose turn it is to clean up at the end of the day. Editors who use insular language without any attempt to globalise it will have little success here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
                          • I think few people on this planet can be aware of every possible variation of how to say words in the English language. You'll pardon me if I get one wrong now and then. Where I come from a roster is a list of players on a team, and the rosters are available on websites like Wikipedia, such as this and this. They even have articles about some of the players. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • as stated in the article on the IIHF World Champioship, "As this tournament takes place during the same time period as the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs, many of the best players do not participate, and it is considered secondary in importance among North American fans and players to the Stanley Cup."--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion reopened. There's been considerable interest in prolonging this discussion despite the opposition posted above. Lets see if we can get more input.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Listed on ITNR, and is the biggest hockey tournament in the world, even if a Canada-Sweden final was not American or British enough for some. Resolute 17:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for all the sudden and outspoken support, I note not one single editor prepared to fix the appalling state of the article in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    I've added a prose summary on the final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to confirm for readers from Canada and the US. This is not universally regarded as the most important Olympic event. Importance within a single sport should be borderline irrelelevant. The 50 km cross-country race is one of many events that are more important in other countries (and it can be argued that this is recognised by the IOC by including the victory ceremony in the closing ceremony), but I do not think it should be posted either. In my country a collision with most skiing events (flat, down, jumping, with rifle) would move the ice hockey final to secondary TV channels. Posting this is unjustifiable systemic bias. (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Virtually every sporting event listed on ITNR is important to a single sport(Super Bowl, World Series, FIFA World Cup, etc.). The 50 km race features the same competitors in and out of the Olympics; that is not the case with ice hockey, during its world championships many of the players are occupied playing in professional leagues and cannot participate(they take a break for the Olympics, at least this time) It isn't a systemic bias issue; ice hockey has players and fans all over the world. 331dot (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a North American, my first instinct was to support this since for us this is obviously a big deal. But reading through the comments from readers from other parts of the world, I was swayed that on a larger scale this event is not as significant as something like the Closing Ceremonies of the Olympics. It would be a bit of an overkill to have multiple Olympic related blurbs at the same time and the Closing Ceremonies blurb should take priority. The solution in 2010 was very tidy since the host country won gold and it served as a good segue to the closing ceremony blub. I just don't see it working out this time. AgneCheese/Wine 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm a Brit, and I've seen far more interest in this final than any other winter sport. This is the equivalent of the World Cup in ice hockey. The fact that it's part of the Olympics is almost coincidental. Modest Genius talk 12:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should not headline any single event at the Games at the expense of others unless something really extraordinary happens. (And that would not include a surprise winner in an event.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. This item is ITNR and the article is updated let's post this before it's stale. Hot Stop 01:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Puff! and it's gone. There's a clear prior consensus for the removal of this item so I've just trimemd it. Between the olde discussion and this nomination it is clear there is no consensus for singling this one sport out among all the others. (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hot stop, I've just restored my previous comment which you chose to delete rather than address. Do you want to explain to me and everyone else:
  • Why you deleted this without comment and thus altered the argument in your favor?
  • Why this does not amount to misconduct?
  • Where the evidence is on current consensus for the continued ITNR status, bearing in mind the above debate and the previous discussion on WT:ITNR? (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "ready" tag. There is a roughly two to one consensus against posting. An ITN/R listing does not mean that an item can be posted when consensus is against it. See the note about ITN/R in the nomination box, which says "that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it", not that it always will be regardless of the strength of the consensus against it. Neljack (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight over the Ready tag, but as you stated an ITNR event is "considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it" meaning that as long as the article is properly updated and of decent quality it should be posted, especially if there is no clear consensus to strip this event from ITNR(which there isn't over at the ITNR talk page). That should be taken into account as well. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
"Generally" ≠ "without exception" (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say otherwise, but IMO there isn't a valid exception here. The article is updated, of decent quality, and the event remains on the ITNR list as of right now. I invite you to comment on the removal proposal if you haven't already. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Starting the quote one word after "generally" meant that the possibility of exceptions was not clear. One reason for making an exception is that the previous discussion could (and probably should) have resulted in delisting. Another is the consensus here; it would be strange to overlook it when it is included on the list by a less clear consensus than the opposition here. Finally, even if I were supporting the item, I would question the wisdom of posting it now. I fail to see how that benefits readers or Wikipedia, seeing as the result is now several days old. Unlike discoveries of new species sports results require a timely post. (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This being an ITN/R item is a perfect example of our systemic bias. Any good faith editor worth their place here should be demanding its removal. Saying that any single Olympic event is more important than all the others is absolute nonsense, and pure North American centrism. All those supporting posting this should be completely ashamed of themselves for their lack of objectivity and absence of a global view. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Most Olympic finals are global events. But I guess any of those three that took place on the last day could have been posted? All too late now. Old news. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't realize Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Russia were in North America now..... ice hockey has players from all over the world. Many sports listed in ITNR are from a single region too; don't let your systemic bias warrior hat blind you to that. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Didn't realize I was wearing one, sorry. Must have slipped down over my eyes during the Luge Team Relay Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
    Why would HiLo let facts get in the way of his world view? Hot Stop 15:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Congratulations on personalising the discussion. That's really helpful. Are any of the editors supporting this posting from Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia or Russia? HiLo48 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    I'm from the Czech Republic and I would support posting but it's too late and continuing this conversation makes little sense. This thread should be closed, IMO. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks Vejvančický. I'd be interested to see your reasoning for singling out one sport at the expense of all the others from the whole of the Olympics. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 is absolutely right. What is the difference between ice hockey and alpine skiing? Answer: ice hockey is popular in countries where we have lots of editors, whereas alpine skiing is popular in countries where we don't. Systemic bias in action! Neljack (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the whole ITNR smells like legalized systemic bias? Premier League? Why not the J.League? Or why the Six Nations Championship is included but the Asian Five Nations isn't? –HTD 11:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, why was the men's Ice Hockey final scheduled for the final day? Just to panda to all those the biased wiki editors? Anything that USA or Russia doesn't win is surely worth posting? titter, titter Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123, that argument would also apply to the cross-country skiing and bobsleigh events on the last day, but we don't post them. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's because ice hockey is more popular. (But we know all that news is essentially un-encyclopedic, don't we?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Close Hot stop has manipulated this argument by deleting comments in opposition. He has refused [12] to explain his actions when challenged. How can a fair consensus be judged in the light of that kind of manipulation? (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
My my, 5,000 words! Sca (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Final Curtain in SochiEdit

Article: 2014 Winter Olympics closing ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Winter Olympics closes in Sochi with the banner passed on to the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.
Alternative blurb: ​The Winter Olympics closes with Russia winning the most gold and most medals overall.

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Its some 14 hours away now, but we need to get the article in order to be ready for posting and that can get attention here as to the update requirement.
Also the blurb is non-conventional and WP:Consensus can change, so bringing it here for discussion. Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think we need to mention Pyeongchang in the blurb which is supposed to be about the end of these Olympics. The listing four years ago was "International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge officially closes the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada. Canada finishes in first place in the medal table with a record 14 gold medals, while the United States wins a record total of 37 medals." I'm not sure we need to list the medals in the blurb(I assume ITN was very different 4 years ago) but I think something like the former part of that statement would be good. 331dot (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would prefer something like "The Winter Olympics come to a close with Russia winning the most medals overall." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Thaddeus. Jusdafax 04:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I've also updated the altblurb, which I strongly prefer over the other one, to document that Russia win most gold medals as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - I assume this topic is an automatic, so the only question is which blurb goes up. Jusdafax 09:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment there's no point in supporting this nomination yet, the article is an entirely unreferenced stub but is on ITN/R, so we should all be concentrating on article quality here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
comment yep, thats a good altblurb. I would opt for the 2018 one too, but its fine to just mention the leader.Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the altburb. notable conclusion of the games.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Altblurb seems better, I'd just add that Canada won the ice hockey tournament - we usually post this result. --Tone 14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the altburb; this beatifull sport competition deserve a winner.--Feroang (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose closing ceremony article is an almost totally unreferenced stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the target article isn't in good shape, and it's hardly news that these olympics are ending. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • bobrayner It's one thing if the article is not in good shape, but the beginning and ending of the Olympics is ITNR; if you feel it should not be there, please propose its removal. It also is indeed news that they are ending, looking at worldwide media. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Until the article is cleaned up, I suggest that the Olympics Summary sticky link remains on ITN for the next few days as a temporary substitute. That sticky link is usually removed once the Olympics is over, but that always coincides with posting the closing ceremony. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
comment/proposal article is updated but needs cites. in the interim why not bold link the main 2014 page?Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
support, 2014 Winter Olympics event happening and result is the news, not the final party.--Feroang (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - article is now referenced and suitable for posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 22Edit

[Closed] Oleksandr TurchynovEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Already combined with nomination below and posted --Jayron32 21:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Article: Oleksandr Turchynov (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ukrainian economist and writer Oleksandr Turchynov (pictured) becomes acting President of Ukraine
News source(s): Sofia News, Kyiv Post
Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
 Bruzaholm (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest this be combined with the blurb below in some manner so we don't have two Ukraine blurbs essentially about the same event. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added this to the Ukraine nomination below. Brandmeistertalk 18:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and combine - with the with the blurb at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[Posted] El ChapoEdit

Article: Joaquín Guzmán Loera (talk, history)
Blurb: Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, Mexico's most-wanted drug lord, is arrested in Mazatlán, Sinaloa.
Alternative blurb: Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán, the leader of Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, is arrested in a joint operation between Mexican Navy, U.S. DEA, and the U.S. Marshals Service
News source(s): [13]

Nominator's comments: Mexico's most-wanted man and the biggest arrest in the Mexican Drug War. ComputerJA () 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - This is easily one of the most wanted men in the world, with his status dating back years. This is most definitely newsworthy. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This huge arrest both in Mexico and the U.S. The cartel he leads is one of the world's largest criminal organization. Note that I've also proposed an altblurb for consideration. Hot Stop 20:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the altblurb. I added the U.S. Marshals Service since they were apparently aiding in the operation too. ComputerJA () 20:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - One of the worlds most wanted criminals. Definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports. I'm convinced after reading the article. Jusdafax 22:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on BLP grounds since the blurb seems to basically assume or imply his guilt when he has not been convicted - "drug lord" clearly connotes criminal activity. We should not splash this over our front page, prejudging his trial. This case, I believe, illustrates the wisdom of our usual practice of waiting for convictions (if any) rather than posting arrests. Neljack (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • May I suggest you read this New York Times article about "El Chapo" that notes he has escaped from previous custody and calls him a "drug lord" in the headline? This capture is front page news internationally. Jusdafax 06:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. He's not been convicted of current charges. μηδείς (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support are you guys actually suggesting that we should not call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist because he was not found guilty in a court yet? Nergaal (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Neljack. Like it or not, without a trial, everyone is innocent... Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Nergall is correct; we could call him an "alleged" or "suspected" drug lord if that suits you but I don't even think he denies what he has allegedly done. As noted above, he has escaped custody before (in a laundry cart) and been called a "drug lord" for years.(if the term "drug lord" is problematic we could use something else, but the article currently uses that term) If we really want to we could focus on his wealth and ranking in most powerful people lists. This man is no ordinary alleged criminal and what is notable here is the fact that he was arrested after many years as a fugitive who notably escaped. We don't have to judge his guilt to post it(though frankly, there seems to be little doubt). 331dot (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
How does Chapo deserve any less respect than Oscar Pistorius, arguably the most famous athlete in the world at the time of his arrest? We didn't publish a blurb calling Pistorius an alleged murderer. Comparisons with Bin Laden are silly, the latter was not arrested. He had formally declared war on the West, taken responsibility for acts of war, and was assassinated. Or should that be, allegedly assassinated? μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1, I think it fixed the problems said about the original blurb Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted a variation on ALT1 since the only concern appears to be BLP-related wording of the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Batches? We don need no stinkin batches. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

[Bumped and updated] UkraineEdit

Article: February 2014 Euromaidan riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bowing to the demands of demonstrators, the Ukrainian parliament votes to return to the 2004 constitution and free Yulia Tymoshenko, while the whereabouts of President Viktor Yanukovych are unknown.
Alternative blurb: ​As the result of demonstrations, the Ukrainian parliament votes to restore the 2004 constitution and free Yulia Tymoshenko, while Oleksandr Turchynov becomes acting President.

Alternative blurb II: Following demonstrations, the Ukrainian parliament restores the 2004 constitution and frees Yulia Tymoshenko, with Oleksandr Turchynov becoming acting President.
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The blurb seems a bit long to me, but I wholeheartedly agree that the developments today warrant posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Um, this is currently item #2 on ITN. Shouldn't we be using that discussion (18 Feb) to simply update the blurb rather than have a new nomination? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sure someone will be along very soon to swiftly hat this section with some form of chastisement. In other news, it's not worth the template, but it is worth a new discussion if the item is to be bumped and re-worded. No reason not to discuss it here. Support bump and rephrase, probably alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support bumping and updating the blurb. In fact, we might want to think about creating a Ukraine ticker for a while, since the events on the ground there are developing very quickly. As I understand, the Rada has voted for Yanukovich's resignation[14], and there is an ongoing attempt by the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine to set-up some sort of an alternative parliament[15]. Nsk92 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support update/bump, as this is the No. 1 story in the world. Suggest that, in print-media style, we avoid "currently" or similar words, as events may rapidly overtake the situation at any given moment. Sca (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but blurb should mention Yanukovych being ousted. That seems more notable than Tymoshenko being freed (but it'd be good to include both.) E4FZq (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yanukovich's whereabouts are known. He's in Kharkov and he's denounced the Rada's recent workings as being part of a coup d'état. --Tocino 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb Tymoshenko's freeing and the Constitution vote seem significant, while Yanukovych may show up any moment. μηδείς (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Regardsless, the President's palace being taken over by protesters, and the president being impeached, is certainly notable. Thue (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - president of a country being ousted is notable. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added a shorter version as altblurb ii. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready this is updated and well-supported. The choice of blurb is up to the poster's discretion. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Bumped. --Jayron32 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The article's section about Tymoshenko may need some updating, as she's in Kiev now. [16] [17] Amazing. Sca (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the article really good enough to be linked from the Main Page? I found it very unclear and confusing as to what was actually going on. Neljack (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
To some extent I agree. For one thing, it's 11,000 words, not including 250+ footnotes. (But once burned, twice cautious.) The bottom line is, this story needs to be out there in ITN. Sca (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Matteo Renzi becomes new Italian PMEdit

Article: Matteo Renzi (talk, history)
Blurb: Matteo Renzi is sworn in as the Italian Prime Minister.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Had a brief discussion about this a week or so ago, but today's the day Italy gets (yet another) new PM. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. While I didn't support posting the resignation itself, I do support posting the (previously) unexpected change in head of government of Italy. I wouldn't object to mentioning the prior PM in the blurb (After the resignation of....) 331dot (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, particularly since the resignation of the previous PM did not make it to the ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this making the front page anywhere in the anglosphere. There's nothing unexpected or notable here, and Olympic news and murders in Italy are out-headlining it. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant - non-English news sources are perfectly acceptable too. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - new PM is notable. If nothing else but for the unexpected events.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment CNN's own Europe page has Renzi as second story after Ukraine, BBC's Europe page has it fourth on the page after Ukraine, The New York Times has it on its own European homepage.... We've posted Ukraine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A big-ticket PM change is ITN-worthy. It also bumps an older new government change at the bottom. Jusdafax 22:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The political situation in Italy has wider ramifications, given the issues that persist in the Eurozone. Neljack (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd call this consensus and have marked as ready. Let's post it. Jusdafax 10:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 21:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 21Edit

2014 Venezuelan protestsEdit

Article: 2014 Venezuelan protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least six die in ongoing protests in Venezuela.
Alternative blurb: ​In Venezuela, police and protesters clash, leaving several dead, injured and over one hundred arrested.
News source(s): CBC BBC: Venezuela strips CNN reporters of accreditation USAToday: Venezuela sends in military troops ABC: Venezuelan Beauty Queen Shot in Head at Protests

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Odd we haven't seen this nominated yet, maybe the demonstrations in Kiev have sucked up a lot of the "government protest" oxygen, but this seems noteworthy. --– Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous nomination at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2014#2014 Venezuelan protests
It was nominated 9 days ago with support but wasnt posted. As its still ongoign and dcurrent and not stale, per this it should be ready for now, unelss others add opposes as of now. Also last comment there was 3 days ago.Lihaas (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah. I neglected to check archived discussions, and I guess I missed that one. Indeed is an ongoing situation, should we merge these discussions and the comments? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is well-updated and sourced. I haven't read it for copy yet, but the facts on the ground warrant posting. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it looks like the blurb is applicable to events that took place over a week ago. Either a new blurb should be suggested with more up-to-date information, or this item is stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment At first glance, the article looks informative and well-sourced. But maybe we should find a better blurb. --Tone 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Stories are stale after a week. I have added sources for events within the last 48 hours. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let's clarify a point: this is not a protest that took place a week ago and left 6 deaths, it is a wave of daily protests that began a week ago, continue every day, and left 6 deaths so far. The blurb should be re-written in a way to reflect this, as it may be easy to think that it was a one-day protest followed by a political aftermath. Or, alternatively, we can wait a pair of days until Maduro makes good of his threat to expel CNN from the country, as surely that would be a major development of the whole thing. Also, the article is in good shape in general, but there are a pair of users introducing left-wing ideas into it, Simonm223 (who defines himself as a Marxist in his user page) and Communist-USSR (whose username says it all) Cambalachero (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Specifically, according to our article, three deaths occurred on 12 February, ten days ago. The article also claims a total of eight deaths now. There's no doubt the protests are ongoing, but the blurb needs updating. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I admit that I don't know the intricacies of what's going on in Venezuela, so I'm probably not the person to update the blurb. I knew it was important enough to discuss in a nomination here. I have no intentions of claiming any "credit" for this nomination, so please, someone who knows more accurately where this situation is, help me update the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support posting something about the ongoing protests in Venezuela, especially since the previous Venezuela nomination from Feb 12 did not make it. However, the current blurb does not seem to be the right one for posting. Nsk92 (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with Nsk92. The unrest is notable and in the news. Jusdafax 12:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; it looks like the protests are highly notable, and it's ongoing. bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support With the perspective of time passing and the Kiev protests turning into a successful revolution, the Venezuela events, including the world news-causing assassination of Génesis Carmona in the Venezuelan provincial capital Valencia are becoming more salient by the day. I suggest a combined In the news installation that references those two articles, possible some others. --Mareklug talk 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major protests, garnering international coverage despite occurring at the same time as the Ukraine protests/uprising/whatever you want to call it. Seems ready, except the big NPOV tag on the article. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — With a death toll of at least 13,[18] [19] this topic is beginning to look conspicuous by its absence from ITN. Given the presence therein of Ukraine, some might suspect us of euro-centric bias. Sca (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Dare I suggest that someone actually updates the blurb to something more relevant to recent events? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I have proposed an alternate hook. It's basically the same one than the alternative one proposed in the archived discussion, which had received some supports. I removed the specific numbers, as those easily get outdated, and they are not really the point anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 20Edit

[Closed] Olympic curling finalEdit

Closing; we generally don't single out events at the Olympics as there is a general posting for that; men's ice hockey is an exception due to its popularity. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: Curling is currently not represented on In The News and I think it is a big enough sport to be included on In The News. When the men's final concludes, the blurb can be updated to include both final results. Andise1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose singling out any one Olympic event. A world championship is a more natural time to post a specific sport. (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak oppose. In most circumstances I would support, but I think the Bjørndalen story is more significant, and I think that winners of the hockey tournament would be the key entry to post. I can't support the high probability of three Olympic-themed entries at the same time, which means this one must lose. Resolute 18:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a men's hockey final perhaps, but curling is still unknown in way to many parts of the world. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Just because the sport is unknown to some people, does not mean it cannot be posted to In The News. Andise1 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought the point of the sticky was to avoid noms like this. If we post curling, don't we have to post everything? I don't even know that we need to post men's hockey or figure skating. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose although you could have noted that the Canadian skip won something like 11 straight matches which is unparalleled in Winter Olympic history. Still, it's not really going to fly, it's just the result of a couple of events in the Winter Olympics I'm afraid. I think ski-cross is also under-represented at ITN, and today the French secured a 1-2-3, which is pretty amazeballs. Still wouldn't nominate it at ITN/C mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily per Muboshgu. We really don't need to document the conclusion of every single event at the Olympics in a blurb when we have a sticky for that purpose. Exceptions can be only cases in which unanticipated events may occur such as Bjørndalen's record-breaking achievement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Ole Einar Bjørndalen becomes most decorated Winter Olympian in historyEdit

Article: Ole Einar Bjørndalen (talk, history)
Blurb: Ole Einar Bjørndalen becomes the most successful Winter Olympic athlete in history after winning his 13th medal at the 2014 Winter Olympics
Alternative blurb: Ole Einar Bjørndalen wins a career-record 13th Winter olympics medal at the Sochi Games
News source(s): UPI

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was previously rejected as he had only tied, now, as predicted, he's the sole best Winter Olympian in history. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Bjørndalen's article will need A LOT of work, unfortunately. Support on notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but I think a single-sentence-udate would suffice. Nergaal (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
obvious support oer the 2012 Games record, But pending update. posting admin: please check fo rthat.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Most notable Winter Olympics record. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A noteworthy Olympic record – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support An extraordinary achievement by the great man at the age of 40. Up there with Phelps's achievement two years ago, which we posted (biathletes don't have as many medal opportunities as swimmers - for instance, when Bjørndalen was absolutely dominant in 2002 at Salt Lake City there were only four events he could enter and he won gold in them all). Neljack (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I have suggested a more concise and informative altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the alt blurb, as suggested, does not clearly indicate that Bjørndalen has won more medals than any other athlete ever in the history of the Winter Olympics. It also incorrectly capitalises Olympics. And "career-record" far too USEng-centric. Also unclear how it could be claimed as "more .. informative" other than a pipelink to "Sochi Games", whatever those are. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess it should be something like By winning gold in mixed relay, OEB sets the record of most medals won at Winter Olympics. But, as long as there's an orange-level tag on the top of the article, this is a no-go. --Tone 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment yes, the article needs work, that seems to have passed a few commentators by. But we don't need language like "sets the record", we can be more linguistically elegant by saying something like the "most decorated". What we must avoid is obfuscation like "career-record" which is simply unhelpful to the rest of the universe. The simple fact is that he's won more medals in Winter Olympics than anyone else in history. Let's do our audience a favour here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Now, it's a new record which is worth supporting. We can update the blurb if he breaks the record for most gold medals won in case Norway win the men's 4 x 7.5 km relay on Saturday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a notable record being broken. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't being posted with just three references across the entire biography and career sections. Stephen 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Now has 12 refs, the general links also substantiating the facts of finishes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Legend. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is improving, but the career section is still basically unreferenced. That will need fixed to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh well, I tried, but I have not enough time to move references from the linked articles to the prose. Ironically it would be posted if I simply deleted the sections that aren't referenced directly, and that'd really benefit our audience. Of course, the whole point of Wikipedia, to communally improve articles and to present items of interest to the general public can go hang in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I disagree that it should (who knows about would) be posted if teh entire career section was simply deleted. That would cause a glaring hole in what the article covered, also making it not meet minimum quality standards IMO... Not really sure what you are getting at - you routinely (and rightfully) oppose articles on quality grounds, saying section X & Y are unreferenced. Yet here, you seem to want to ignore those standards for some reason. (Perhaps I am misreading your comment.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Pretty much the whole factual content of the article can be verified by using the links already provided. I've removed the majority of the commentary, and even the kind IP below has attempted to help out with some non-English sources. I guess it's not enough, despite the fact none of it is contentious, all that related to the blurb is explicitly referenced and this is a niche topic which we should be welcoming at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
          • My original comment was obviously made before the IP added the references and you deleted commentary, and I supported the story from minute one - even when it was previously nominated prematurely (tied record). The minimum requirements are now met. (I.E. it's not ideal, but is good enough). Again, I don't understand why you are giving me a hard time for making quality comments when you yourself routinely oppose items on quality grounds. It seems like you want to rule to be "if TRM wants the article posted, quality is not very important; if he doesn't quality must be GA level"; either that, or you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Well applause to you. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "GA level" or otherwise. There was a request for more than three refs, it's now at fourteen. I am in no way an expert in this field but unlike most people here, gave enough of a toss about the process to actually improve the article nominated. In fact, I've done that for most ITNs nominated, very few other editors seem to do that, instead just drive by and whinge. Anyway, job done. You post it or you don't. It's not going to make much difference either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I've added references for two non-IBU results. All other results are provided in the reference given in the article (including details such as winning by x minutes). I think the results in the career section are sufficiently referenced. (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • PS. I'm currently on a tablet so unable to swap the pics, Ole has a good one if someone would kindly do the honours. Thanks. Stephen 22:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I nominated it before so obviously I support but it's pleasant to see how much the article has improved and I'm glad it reached post-able state.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is in poor shape (almost no inline citations), but I would like to point out that Marit Bjørgen is now the most successful female winter olympian. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook buys WhatsAppEdit

Article: WhatsApp (talk, history)
Blurb: Facebook acquires the mobile instant messaging platform WhatsApp for $19bn.
News source(s): (BBC News), (New York Times)

Nominated. One of the biggest IT deals in recent memory, and certainly receives plenty of news coverage. Not sure about encyclopedic relevance. Let's decide. --bender235 (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Another day, another IT takeover. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - ITN has a strong bias against business stories. We should work to correct that. This is one of the biggest buyouts of the last few years and definitely of lasting importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose almost more exciting than when Facebook blew a billion on Instagram. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose I agree with Thaddeus that we usually omit business stories, but this acquisition does not seem so mighty to produce major impact or trigger any structural changes in the industry. The only glittering nuance may be the price of the buyout.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just looking at news stories, 90% of the Internet had no idea what WhatsApp was until yesterday. If it was something more akin to FB buying out Twitter (hypothetical) that's more of a story. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if Facebook bought Yahoo!, that would be general news. This is business-page at best, and I agree with Masem on the notability of the acquiree. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB, a major business story would be a nice change. - Ypnypn (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
weak support While this is not a record, it is certainlky in the newsLihaas (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB and fully endorse the idea that business stories deserve better representation at ITN. Additionally, this is a computer business story, which is how many of us are reading this. The price is notable and the idea, that facebook is moving aggressively to improve their service, will impact millions of users... much more so than a staple ITN story of, for example and with all due respect, some plane or train crash that kills a few dozen passengers. This story is of interest to a wide range of those browsing our Main page. Let's get with it. Jusdafax 03:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Even though a lot of money is involved, I am unconvinced that the acquisition is notable enough, in the sense that WhatsApp is incomparable to other companies featured in these kinds of stories on the homepage. Facebook has a habit of spending excessive amounts on technological companies, including WhatsApp. I cannot see why this would be of major importance to the industry. (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support per ThaddeusB. Don't understand why people are so biased against posting business news, while we post so many sports stories which have far less impact on most people than big business deals. A $19 billion deal involving two high-profile companies is obviously ITN-worthy, and it's received prominent coverage all over the world. -Zanhe (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The figure involved has shocked not only business analysts, but ordinary folks around the world. Facebook was already a prominent name in the news before this purchase as well. --Tocino 06:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 19Edit

[Posted] RD: Valeri KubasovEdit

Article: Valeri Kubasov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Collectspace, RIA Novosti

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: Apollo-Soyuz mission participant, twice Hero of the Soviet Union. Brandmeistertalk 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I want to support this, but the article needs major expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise support, pending expansion. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've made some basic expansion, feel free to add more. Brandmeistertalk 09:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Much improved from yesterday. Take it to DYK in case it doesn't get posted for whatever reason, but meets RD criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if awards referenced - that list of awards clearly makes him notable enough to post, but needs proof --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not exactly a household name in much of the world but clearly a pioneer in his field and also in the surprising, at the time, breakthrough in good relations and cooperation between the USSR and the USA. His work helped make the International Space Station possible. Article is decent and worthy of our Main page. RD? Absolutely. Jusdafax 04:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted article in good condition, all requested sourcing completed. Feel free to expand away. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 18Edit

[Posted] Ukranian protestsEdit

Article: February 2014 Euromaidan riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 25 people are killed and hundreds are injured in clashes between riot police and demonstrators in Kiev, Ukraine.
News source(s): [21]

Article updated

 --– Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - new deadly protests in Ukraine. Notable and interesting enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support we've covered this before but this is news once again in my locality, and significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be a large, deadly, and significant development in the protests. Tons of media coverage. The BBC is reporting the main Maidan camp is being stormed by police [22]. E4FZq (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as a new development in this crisis; it also could represent a turning point leading to further actions on all sides. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support!As updated to 13-14 deaths (from Reuters, AP). Alt. blurb:
Fourteen reported killed in clashes between riot police and demonstrators in Kiev. Sca (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops! Seems I updated Euromaidan rather than February 2014 Euromaidan riots. The latter includes a welter of minute-by-minute verbiage on today's actions, comprising some 1,300 words, and thus is not an encyclopedia-style summary. I don't like its structure at all. What do do? Guess I'll nominate Euromaidan update. Sca (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Blurb updated. I think the best thing is to close that nomination. Double noms happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a significant escalation of the events in Ukraine. Nsk92 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article in current condition - Twitter is used as a source more than 10x, ick. Please trim social media hearsay (and excessive details in general) from the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this article in current condition. It's neither journalism nor encyclopedia writing. Sca (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If article is improved. Abductive (reasoning) 01:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Update now 25 deaths. Blurb updated accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: It's a significant development, as others have said. It Is Me Here t / c 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article in its present form has a hysterical tone to it. There's widespread POV terminology and too many Twitter sources. Example - "Later, government thugs stormed St. Michael's Monastery.[1]" --Tocino 10:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
temporary oppose agree with Tocino, the current incarnation is not fit for the main poage per the his comments. But the incidents itself are notableLihaas (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — I can endorse its posting in its reworked form. BTW, Reuters [23] and BBC [24] now say 26. Sca (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Posting Twitter references appear to be removed. The article is orange tagged but no reason was given and the only item tagged as disputed is the word "thugs" (which I notice is defined as being a translation from Ukranian in the Euromaidan article). The article is clearly a work-in-progress, but so is all of Wikipedia. --Tóraí (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment should we be updating this now the "truce" has ended and people are being shot dead on the streets once more? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
We should maybe change it to something like Clashes continue between riot police and demonstrators in Kiev, Ukraine, and stop trying to count the dead. Formerip (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Suggest death toll be updated periodically, if necessary, since it's all over all the media sites. Reuters says "tops 50." [25] Sca (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
BBC now suggesting that 70 police have been taken hostage by protestors. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Spiegel, in German, says 67 hostages. [26] AP: 33 dead, 67 police hostages. [27] Sca (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Shorten & Update Can we shorten (and update[28]) the blurb to "At least 33 are killed and hundreds injured in clashes between riot police and demonstrators in Kiev, Ukraine"? don't think the fact we are talking about people is unclear, and there's no reason for this to take up two lines on a 17" screen. Thanks.
    Following your request, I've updated the death toll to the latest figure being quoted in the article and by the BBC and Reuters – although some news sources (e.g. CNN) are going for a figure of 100. It Is Me Here t / c 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Ukraine violenceEdit

Please argue for a change of target article in the existing nomination rather than creating a competing nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Euromaidan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Spokespersons for police and anti-government protestors say 13 to 14 killed in assault on demonstrators by riot police in Kiev.
Alternative blurb: ​Fourteen reported killed in clashes between riot police and demonstrators in Kiev.
News source(s): Reuters, AP, 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: Largest number of fatalities in three months of confrontations. Sca (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Article has been updated by others to say 27 killed — 20 civilians and seven policemen. However, at the moment BBC still says "at least 13," Reuters says "at least 18." Sca (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • See the above nomination, the only difference between them is target article. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

February 17Edit

[Posted]Human Rights in North KoreaEdit

Article: Human rights in North Korea (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An OHCHR panel released a report on massive human rights violations in North Korea.
News source(s): (BBC News), (CNN), (OHCHR press release)
  • Nominated. --bender235 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - First time the UN fully investigates and releases report on this situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The report isn't telling us anything that wasn't known already, but it is a widely covered report by a major international body. Sending a letter to Kim threatening him with prosecution also seems an unusual development. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose UN officials or panels release reports on human rights violations in various countries quite frequently, but I don't recall us posting one before. Did we, for instance, post UN reports on American human rights violations? Ultimately the release of a report that, as 331dot points out, tells us what we already knew does not really seem significant enough to me. It would have been rather more newsworthy if the report had concluded that North Korea was a paragon of respect for human rights! Neljack (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
oppose political statement and reports of themselves are notable for repercussions. If there is something, then well considerLihaas (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a political report by the UN is not news. Resumption of hostilities by the UN coalition would be. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
To the last two posters - What's political about the report? Have you read it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
By a political organisation with vested state political interests. That is not a non-partisan, non-governmental group. Obviously...Not to mention how they got access to these camps when they claim the country was not cooperating (yes I read the document not just the news reports (have you?)) is a doubt itself. Trusting s. Korean reports perhaps? You can hardly claim that's apolitical. Then add that there is a south korean Sec'y General in what is supposed to be apolitical and you can severly doubt the veracity of the UN with north Korean affairs during the Moon regime.Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the Secretary-General micromanaged the release of this report or otherwise directed its content? 331dot (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the critics here have read the sources. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Not this incident, but in the past his nonpartisan role was put into question when he advised on teh shoulds of affairs with North Korea vs. the South. That is where his credibility is at stak e hgere.Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the incident we are discussing, which has nothing to do with the conduct or views of the Secretary-General (again, unless you have evidence of his hand directing the content of this report) as the news stories I have read on this report do not even mention him. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I simply meant political as opposed to military, religious, journalistic, etc. Not partisan. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose how is this news? And why single out North Korea? --Երևանցի talk 06:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
How about you actually read the sources and find the answer to your question before opposing in ignorance? HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. That totally answered my question. --Երևանցի talk 06:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dunno if that's meant to be sarcasm, but I really don't think much of a post that supports a position with two questions. It should be ignored by any wise closing admin. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
that's nto for you to determine. Plenty of nonsense "vote" only comments are counted.Lihaas (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not for you to determine either; you also are not in admin's heads and do not know what they are thinking when they make a decision. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you READ what i wrote? I wasnt saying an admin should ignore it when closing/.[posting. That was what HE said!!!Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I read what you wrote, and couldn't figure out what you meant. I can understand 331dot being confused. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Because the report was about North Korea and North Korea only. --bender235 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think this is common knowledge right now. It would be more notable to see action taken in response to the findings of this report, but this will probably not occur. Ergo, this news story ends right where it started.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weakest of supports My first thought was "in other news, water is still wet", but this is a well researched report and is getting news coverage. I do agree that fallout is limited at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a sovereign state ruthlessly killing its own citizens. This is a big deal. And the UN being concerned about real warcrimes is definitely news. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, this report explicitly recommends war crime prosecutions. That's pretty strong stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — A very grim indictment indeed from a very reputable source. Sca (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when the article is updated to reflect the most important feature of the report; the OHCHR has suggested that Chinese officials may be open to being indicted on charges of complicity. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is major news of global relevance reported world-wide. Much more notable than those local accidents posted at ITN on regular basis. --ELEKHHT 01:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This has been named the most comprehensive account of the human rights situation in NK so far. Note that the commission was operating under the direct mandate of the UNHRC. To quote the head of the commission: "At the end of the World War II, so many people said, 'If only we had known, if only we had known the wrongs that were done in the countries of the hostile forces. If only we had known that.' Well now, the international community does know." --hydrox (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 03:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a good thing they did this in such a timely manner. Just think — we only had to wait seven decades for a UN investigation. Kurtis (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's what's called comic timing. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nepal Airlines Flight 183Edit

Article: Nepal Airlines Flight 183 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eighteen people are killed when a Nepal Airlines plane crashes into a snow covered hill in Nepal.
News source(s): CNN The Guardian ABC News BBC Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was not expected as it was reported that there were no notable issues with the plane. Also, none of the passengers or crew members on the plane survived the crash. Andise1 (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While tragic, I'm not sure it rises to the level of notability needed for posting. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This event is being widely covered in many notable news sources. Andise1 (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
When merely being in the news is enough to post something, I've got a few stories to suggest. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not quite deadly enough to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We posted Asiana Airlines Flight 214 with only three deaths. Andise1 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That posting was a horrible, horrible mistake, a rush based on localism and a presumption the casualties would be much higher, and is no reason for supporting this one. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with Medeis. Neljack (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Irregardless, it was posted so arguing that this event is "not quite deadly enough to warrant posting" is invalid. Andise1 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree; that was a larger plane which went down in a nation with a good safety record and involved a larger number of people, and was more disruptive having crashed at the SF airport; Nepal has a higher rate of crashes and is known for its poor safety record according to the news sources. They also didn't know about it until the plane did not arrive, meaning it didn't affect other travel. It was also a domestic flight in Nepal, and not an international flight. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As is often pointed out, we do not have a system of precedent, so we are not bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. Neljack (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a substantial amount of casualties. In the press alot. Notable for inclusion in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot's justifications and poor article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I added more information to the article. Andise1 (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
All of it unreferenced though. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
All referenced from Andise1 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is n effect a bad transportation accident, but not a terribly notable one on the world stage, neither for casualties or high-profile victims. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Golden BearEdit

Articles: Black Coal, Thin Ice (talk, history) and Golden Bear (award) (talk, history)
Blurb: Black Coal, Thin Ice wins the 64th Berlinale Golden Bear.
Alternative blurb: Black Coal, Thin Ice wins the Golden Bear for Best Film at the Berlin Film Festival.
News source(s): Xinhua New York Times Variety

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R Andise1 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral updated sufficiently but article quality is lacking, raw URLs and a weak lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What? is this a horse race? a music video award? a Berlin ale contest? The blurb is woefully unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously a race on golden-colored bears, done to the tune of Beethoven's symphonies. Oh and did I mention that the bear riders had to drink an ale without spilling it during the race as well? --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support-Shocked there has not been a single one yet for an ITN/R item. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - I think the article is now in reasonable shape and the altblurb (which I have updated slightly) gives a comprehensible explanation. It's ITN/R, so unless anyone has some unusual objection, it should be posted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. I've also posted at the Film Project to get any extra help in expansion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

February 16Edit

Nigeria killingsEdit

An ill-formed nomination, based on suspicions, and not an update or article in sight. Stephen 02:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Boko Haram (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Suspected rebels kill at least 90 people in Izghe, Nigeria.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Boko Haram are only suspected (though more than likely, aint no one else in that part of the world) so it may be pov to mention them aexactly, But the incident is notable by ITNC standards. -- Lihaas (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No opinion on whether we can name Boko Haram, but if we can't we also can't Easter-egg link to the article. Formerip (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
At the BAFTAs??? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
That would be real notable ;) MOre tragic than the celebrity love fest ...Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose only suspected and I can't see any mention of this to anything bold in the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

[Attention Needed] [Ready] 67th British Academy Film AwardsEdit

Articles: 67th British Academy Film Awards (talk, history) and 12 Years a Slave (film) (talk, history)
Blurb: 12 Years a Slave is named Best Film at the 67th British Academy Film Awards
Alternative blurb: 12 Years a Slave wins two awards, including Best Film, at the 67th British Academy Film Awards.
News source(s): BBC Digital Spy

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Wasn't sure which article should be bolded, so I included both. -- JuneGloom Talk 21:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • This should be posted iff the Golden Bear is also posted. Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Two separate nominations, two pretty different awards (and the BAFTAS seems to get the most media coverage in general). Anyway, I would imagine the winner of the Golden Bear is ITN/R as well.--Somchai Sun (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Prefer blurb to altblurb. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

NOT UPDATED as not to the posting admin, it needs prose sentences...Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (original blurb) both those items at ITN/R have been adequately updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is a little short on prose, but otherwise looks fine. Maybe an extra paragraph of text before it's good to go. Modest Genius talk 13:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with MG. And there is not a single line ofprose beyond the lead. The lead is supposed to reflect the article, ie- have paraphrased content there already.
Where did TRM [imagine] find[ing] the "adeqyately updated"?Lihaas (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, if you're going to attempt to quote me, at least write it in English. BAFTA best film list article updated here (nothing more to add to that article) and 67th Awards article updated here. Nothing more to add. It's a fact, Film X won Award Y at Award Ceremony Z. Common sense applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
First off, Rambling Man, on a QWERTY keyboard, you will note the proximity of the "y" key to the "u". It is due to this that I feel your remarks were directed at a mere typographical error, rather than a lack of proficiency in English. Anyway, I offer my support to this nomination. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Second off, Lihaas makes a habit of rushing his chat here, and that's obvious from the fact that most of his mainspace work is fine. In any case, when quoting someone, you should do it accurately, whether it be Wikipedia or any other walk of life. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This has no tags and a full prose paragraph update, and should have been up a while ago, no? μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    It's a stub with a huge table of names attached. I personally don't support posting such an article, although I suppose one could argue it meets the bare minimum requirement as a "list" (even though it should really isn't/shouldn't be a list article). --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It certainly meets the three-paragraph requirement for a new article, although it isn't actually new, as well as the one-paragraph update requirement for old articles. The fact that it includes a list is not problematic. I suspect this might actually have gotten some attention had it been posted timely. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not explicitly objecting, but I do not feel it meets the overall quality requirements. Of course the list is not problematic - what is problematic that it is that the article is only a list plus a three paragraphs summary of the list. That is fine for a list article, but this subject really shouldn't be just a list. Compare to 85th Academy Awards, for example, and it is clear that 67th British Academy Film Awards is lacking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a plausible personal basis for an oppose, but it's not really appropriate to create a higher criterion than exists in the ITN guidelines for posting. This article has almost as much prose as and more than twice the data of the Fuzhou derailment which is held up as a standard in the ITN guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 15Edit

[Closed] German coalition crisisEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hans-Peter Friedrich (talk, history)
Blurb: ​German minister Hans-Peter Friedrich resigns over an alleged breach of confidentiality related to the child pornography investigation on Sebastian Edathy.
News source(s): (BBC News) (Deutsche Welle), (The Local)

Nominated. Topic of the week in Germany. --bender235 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

oppose resignation of a minor minister over a scandal is not notable enough. If it has bigger ramificaiton on the coalition government of the c ocountry, then maybe Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why the former Minister of Interior is a "minor minister". --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
THIS post/resignation, according to the page, is "Minister of Food and Agriculture"Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
He resigned for something that happened while he was Minister of the Interior. --bender235 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Then its stale.Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of right now; if this develops into a bigger scandal or the government falls, then we might have something. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The government as a whole won't "fall". --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Well if the CSU withdraws from teh CDU then thats certainly notable. so "if this develops into a bigger... "Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Won't happen. The coalition will survive this. The only thing that might happen within the next days is the SPD party whip, Thomas Oppermann, resigning as well. --bender235 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly my pointLihaas (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Agree with previous comments — not significant yet. Perhaps a significant German story would be Merkel's proposal for a more secure, Europe-based Internet — See "Data protection: Angela Merkel proposes Europe network," [29] "Merkel, Hollande to discuss European communication network avoiding U.S." [30] Sca (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, it's not really a "coalition crisis", just a ministerial resignation. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the coalition is going to collapse, and if it is we should wait and post that. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Beetle species rediscoveredEdit

No consensus to post, perhaps DYK should be considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Darwinilus sedarisi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A species of rove beetle discovered by Charles Darwin 180 years ago, Darwinilus sedarisi, is rediscovered inside a London museum facility.
News source(s): Mother Nature Network NBC News Live Science National Geographic Fox News UPI The Australian

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I find it ironic that a beetle Charles Darwin discovered 180 years ago is rediscovered on his 205th birthday. Andise1 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting and noteworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Was it discovered preserved in the collection, or living there? This is a one sentence article and ambiguous at that. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I located the original description ( and corrected the article a little. This is a new species from Argentina that is known from two specimens, one of which was collected by Darwin during the voyage of the Beagle. The specimen was lost for a while before Chatzimanolis found it back. I don't think there is anything especially significant about this; new beetle species are found all the time and the fact that Darwin managed to catch one doesn't automatically make it important. The fact that the article was released on Darwin's birthday was probably just for PR. Ucucha (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Enough off-topic bickering. Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "I find it ironic that a beetle Charles Darwin discovered 180 years ago is rediscovered on his 205th birthday." - That's not irony. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
And your point being? Besides showing a "Im right you are wrong" attitude..? Do not see what you tried to accomplish with the comment. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
""Im right you are wrong" attitude", that's "I'm", not "Im". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
That is irony if anything.. you are learning :)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Funny coincidence, but nothing really for the ITN. --hydrox (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Seems to me to be an insignificant discovery in the grand scheme of things. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK, if sufficiently expanded. --Tone 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK — Yes, it's a natural for DYK. Sca (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. New beetle species are not unusual, and as Lugnuts said the mere fact that Darwin had one in his collection doesn't reach the threshold of notability for ITN. I agree that this would make an interesting DYK entry though. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Lebanese governmentEdit

Article: Lebanese government of April 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Prime Minister Tammam Salam announces the formation of a new government.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Its no mean feat to form a government in Lebanon of itself, this one additionally has BOTH polar opposites in the government and took 10 months to form. Thats added notability, and its also in light of the Syrian situation to form a national unity government. This is akin to Belgium's government formation. Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support after sufficient update. Forming governments in Lebanon has been a tough deal in recent years. To come with a national unity government after the recent bombings and tense situation in neighboring Syria is surely a great achievement. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in light of the length of the formation and the political deadlock that had hitherto obtained. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree this is no small feat and is worthy of posting. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 02:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why? was this posted without an update? Evene if it's ITN/R, it still needs a nice new prose paragraph. This should be pulled if not fixed by a supporter. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
A large portion of the article is an update, written in the last two days. The article is confusingly named, because the 'April 2013' government only took office in February 2014... Modest Genius talk 15:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but this large portion was a chart, with only two prose sentences at the time, expressing no more than was in the blurb itself--that's specifically deprecated in the posting policy. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Post posting support over 2,300 bytes were added before this was posted, there's no issue with updates, a significant news item, good post. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And where then is the PROSE UPDATE? Bbytes addition has never been a criteria to post.Lihaas (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Take it to a talk page discussion, as you seem to object to pretty much everything that's posted that you haven't nominated or supported yourself. Clearly you have an issue with the way in which consensus is judged here, whether it be "4 supports" or "page views" or "prose update adequate". Whatever, it's becoming tedious seeing your griping on everything that gets posted that you don't like. Please start a proper thread at the talk page, or better still, formulate an RFC so we can gather community comments to discuss such issues as "4 supports" or "5 sentences, 3 references" etc. Right now, moaning on every nomination is getting you nowhere. In fact, according to some, it's getting you worse than nowhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] New pole vault world recordEdit

Article: Renaud Lavillenie (talk, history)
Blurb: Renaud Lavillenie breaks the world record of Sergey Bubka in pole vaulting with 6.16 m.
Alternative blurb: ​In Donetsk, the world record in pole vaulting is broken by Renaud Lavillenie with a mark at 6.16 m.
News source(s): L'Équipe

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: 21 year old record by Ukrainian legend Sergey Bubka, in athletics, which until recently was thought to be bound to last for a very long time. --Hektortalk 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support but do you know when will it be ratified? It might be better to make sure it gets ratified. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There is this piece on the IAAF web site. Says that it is "subject to the usual ratification procedures" ... Hektor (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the length the record has stood, but the blurb should refer to the "men's world record", rather than just the "world record". Neljack (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but AFAIK there has been no woman who has pole vaulted higher, so the qualifier is not needed. It is indeed an all-human world record. --Jayron32 02:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Our article calls it the "men's pole vault world record" (or the "world record in the men's pole vault"). As usual here, we should follow the relevant article. And it is standard to refer to "men's" and "women's" world records in athletics and other sports. Men's and women's records are equally world records. Men's and women's pole vaulting are separate events with separate records. The blurb should not imply that there is one world record for what are two separate events. Nor should it elevate the men's record above the women's one. The higher (or lower, in running events etc) world records in men's events, as a result of physiological differences, do not mean that women's records should be treated as second-class records while the men's records are treated as the "real" records. That would be a clear case of sexism. Neljack (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This was a long standing record in athletics.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Progression of a long-standing world record. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - long standing record broken.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that Lavillenie broke the indoor world record, while Bubka still holds the outdoor record at 6.14 m. Indoor athletics events have always been held as preparation before the start of the season and thereby have never had the same significance as the outdoor athletics. However, breaking a world record standing for 21 years appeals to support this, unless there is a precedence that we should not post the achievements in indoor athletics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    There is no official outdoor record, only a world record and indoor world record. The best performance (indoor or outdoor) is the world record according to IAAF rules. Withenemies (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    It's early to judge in advance before IAAF officially ratifies this record. No IAAF rule applies to achievements that were no ratified as official records. Hence, it leads to the conclusion that this nomination was posted too early. Please also note that IAAF makes distinction between the all time best results recorded indoor and outdoor.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    Then you also have to wait to say that he broke the indoor record, because it hasn't been ratified either. If you agree to say that it is an indoor record, it is also a world record. The official rule 260.18a states that a world record can be set "with or without a roof" and there is no official outdoor record ratified by the IAAF. Withenemies (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that's a fair point, but IAAF has already listed the result as an indoor all time best on its official website.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. Slightly turning the blurb around, feel free to modify. --Tone 09:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    The blurb must clarify that this is the indoor event. Many of our readers, who don't follow athletics, may be deluded and get it as misinformation. I've already reported it at WP:ERRORS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think it's a must. Many headlines have not mentioned the 'indoor' caveat. The article clarifies that point which I think is sufficient.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 14Edit

[Posted] [RD] Tom FinneyEdit

Article: Tom Finney (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: We commonly see baseball/basketball HoF'ers here, well here's a genuine British version, OBE, CBE, Knight, Preston (569 games) & England legend (30 goals in 76 matches), inaugural inductee into the English Football Hall of Fame, footballer of the year (twice), statue outside the National Football Museum. More updates once I wake up properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A true legend and gentleman, honoured by all clubs and respected by everybody who knew him. I'm a proud Prestonian, this city mourns its greatest son today. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    • True, it's incredible to see clubs like Chelsea, Wolves, Blackpool etc all honouring his death. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe not a household name for some fans, but he was one of the greatest England international footballers. First player to be Footballer of the Year in the top flight twice, and a one time all-time leading goalscorer for the international team. Preston North End's stadium on only sits on Tom Finney Way, but there's a statue of him outside the ground and one of the stands is named after him. Miyagawa (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Undoubtedly one of the greatest players England has ever produced. Bill Shankly even said he was the greatest player in the history of the game! Neljack (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support OK, I'll support this. Objectively it looks justified. Now, will you folk support the next Australian footballer I nominate? (You should check that link.) Or just ignore it as usual? HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion went slight awry with regard to this topic
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.

  • Instead of beating people over the head with your past failed nominations why not concentrate on building consensus for an actual nomination that you put forth? People will not fall over themselves to support your nominations just because you want them to; you must convince them. I would be happy to support an Australian football player comparable to this man. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I worked my guts out for the last Australian footballer I nominated. It wasn't rejected. It wasn't posted. The Americans and Brits ignored it, so it fell off the bottom of the page. Beating people over the head seems a valid strategy to me at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Beating me over the head wouldn't make me want to help someone like you out. It's always disappointing when something you worked hard on doesn't get the recognition and respect you feel it deserves(like my failed Iceland police shooting nomination, a widely covered event that I believe was not understood by most people) but it just happens and it is better to focus on the next one than on the last one. You make more friends(or at least get more support) with honey than vinegar. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice platitude, but irrelevant to the reality of our systemic bias. And it's not a matter of helping ME out. It's about making ITN and Wikipedia better places. Note my comment about the entire thread of which I spoke being effectively ignored. No amount of honey would have made any difference, because nobody would have even seen it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant; convincing people about how your arguments will address a significant issue on WP is better than just repeatedly telling people they are wrong. But to each his own. If you say it's not about you I must believe you, but you are the one who said "I worked my guts out" above. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
What's the point of writing the most brilliant and most diplomatic arguments, if our systemic bias means that people never look beyond the subject line? HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Support. Has the honors and recognition to be considered very important in their field. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, this is very nicely updated. Second, I am opposing on principle as I opposed Ralph Kiner and he seems to have had about twice the readership interest. Of course he has about 12 times the interest that the now stale Stuart Hall has, so seeing that bumped would not hurt the project. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well the US has five times the population of Britain, so that's not surprising. And I was under the impression that significance in their field, not popularity, was the criterion here. Relying on popularity would massively exacerbate systemic bias - think how hard it would be to get anyone from a small, non-English-speaking country posted. Neljack (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 02:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Italian PM resignedEdit

Article: Enrico Letta (talk, history)
Blurb: President of Italy Giorgio Napolitano accepts the resignation of Prime Minister Enrico Letta.
Alternative blurb: Prime Minister of Italy Enrico Letta resigns.
News source(s): Euronews, RIA Novosti

Article updated

 --Brandmeistertalk 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

oppose all too common in Italy and head of govt is not notable enough of itself for such postings. AOnly if theres somethign extraordinaryLihaas (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Head of government has the power in Italy. And Italy is an important country. I'd go with an altblurb instead, PM Letta resigns. No need to mention Napolitano here. --Tone 17:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Governments do change somewhat frequently in Italy, and if I read the news sources correctly there was no scandal or single event that precipitated this resignation(just ineffectiveness in the position). Not seeing a ton of news coverage of this, either. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It might help if we had a rationale, like, imagine, Letta resigns for health reasons, throwing the XYZ coalition that has ruled for five year in a tizzy. Something to give us context and a reason to think it's important. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the only reason this would be particularly significant is how it relates to the overall financial situation in Europe. Banks are still looking rather nervously at Italian debt, wondering if continuing to fund the government is a good investment or not - and instability doesn't help. But overall I agree with others here that this should be opposed unless there is more news surrounding it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • support - a high level resignation.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
There have been over 60 Italian governments since 1945, no? μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Your point being?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
That this is like snow in winter? μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's all ice cream, they say. Sca (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This resignation is particularly significant considering the still precarious economic situation in Italy and the Eurozone in general. The political situation in Italy has implications across the Eurozone, since political uncertainty or instability has previously undermined market confidence in Italy and trouble in the third-largest economy in the Eurozone would have significant effects throughout the bloc. More generally, I don't understand the opposition to resignations. To my mind, the resignation of a government is just as notable as the election of one. And does anyone seriously doubt that we would post the resignation of a US President or even a British Prime Minister? Neljack (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well that's certainly not true. In Westminster systems such as Britain most executive power lies with the Cabinet, rather than the Prime Minister alone. Neljack (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be correct; I was simply going by the article. I stand by the rest of what I wrote, though. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per 331dot. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait for the new government to form, then post the new PM and outgoing one in a single blurb. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Brief wait, another ITN item will no doubt be posted later this week where Matteo Renzi becomes the next Italian PM. Just because the turnover is high, that doesn't stop it being in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

February 13Edit

[RD] Richard Møller NielsenEdit

Article: Richard Møller Nielsen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [31]

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: Footballer manager who won the UEFA Euro and FIFA Confederation cup as Denmark manager, managed number of national teams aswell as club teams. Only Danish manager to win a national cup competitions. Well known person and deserve RD as for his kind of work he did great. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment after the failure at RD of Luis Aragones, I'm not sure how far this will get. In the meantime, please ensure sections are referenced, in particular the death section. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the significance. For an American comparable, we have Jim Fregosi, who just died today, and I think he's so unlikely to pass I never thought of nominating him. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
How is he comparable? Did he coach a team to the biggest upset title in the history of Major League Baseball? Neljack (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
He's comparable as a team manager with some career success. How does coaching in one upset, no matter how historic it might be, qualify him through the death criteria? I don't see evidence he is/was "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. I too do not see the significance; doesn't seem to have a lot of honors/awards/recognition. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The European championship is a significant title but I think for a manager to be notable there needs to be a significant career record of successes to be notable enough for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Move him to an American college, and this would be a shoe-in. But in reality, neither is important enough. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Obviously. Either that, or change his first name to Leslie. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would oppose this if he was American, British, Australian, Indian, Japanese, Martian, Alpha Centaurian, Vulcan, etc. etc. The nationality is irrelevant. There is no evidence of bias in opposition to this entry (in fact someone pointed out a comparable American that they did not nominate) so I am a tad puzzled as to why you brought it up. There is no systemic bias battle to be fought on this issue. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The systemic bias problem is so serious, editors need to be constantly reminded of it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Where were you when Stuart Hall, who didn't even get a thousand hits, was nominated? (Talk about bias, that's about the size of the subscribership of the Manchester Star) A laughable, in-group nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
At least Hall was from outside the standard collection of minor TV and sports "stars". HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
So, HiLo, do you consider yourself on the left, or the right? BTW, while Nielsen got just under 4,800 hits, Kiner (whom I also opposed) got just under 48,000 hits. Bias? You so crazeh. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to remind people of it when it is actually an issue; it wasn't here. Why pick non-existent fights? 331dot (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Coaches and managers of sports teams (w/o any other major career highlights) are unlikely to be important enough for RD to start. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I wasn't sure about this at first, but on thinking about it some more his significance is this: he coached Denmark to probably the biggest upset victory ever in a major international football competition. They didn't even qualify for the tournament originally (they only got in when Yugoslavia was banned because of the war there), their best player refused to play for them, and nobody gave them any chance. But they triumphed over most of the best teams in the world. That's enough for RD in my book. Neljack (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    I did think about that but I can't associate all that significance with the manager. If anything Peter Schmeichel, or maybe Henrik Larsson or Brian Laudrup deserve credit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
But it seems to me that it is precisely when teams that have less talent than others triumph that the coach must take the most credit. It's one thing to coach a team full of stars to a title, quite another to mould a team out of more limited talent that can beat the best and win a title. Neljack (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sadly if he was British or American it would have had only support claims, same as Sir Thomas Finney who was posted in RD. What is the diff between the two? Both were knighted by their kings/queens, both played and managed teams. But Finney article have nothing about his duties since retirement in the 1960's, only small part about him maybe as PNE president but doesn't tell you much. While Nilsen, whos article is not so long or nice looking, is known in his country and other countires maybe more than Finney. This is sad that even tho this is English speaking wikipedia, Brits and American always no matter what have RD posted, even College football managers from the 1950s.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand your pain, but Finney was in a different class, an international with over 70 appearances and 30 goals, played for one club for over 500 games, honoured for his charity work, referred to by some as the greatest footballer ever.... If Nielsen matched that I'd get it, but he didn't. I don't think, on this instance, it's related to Brits and Americans (although the draw of college football remains forever a mystery to 98% of the globe). Having said that, the article does itself no favours, with POV from the start with "which surprisingly won", and entirely unreferenced paragraphs, but that's another issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Finney did have two FWA Footballer of the Year awards so there was some recognition of his individual notability. Neilson's notability was primarily based upon a team accomplishment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Kelud eruptionEdit

Article: Kelud (talk, history)
Blurb: Kelud volcano eruption in Indonesia prompts evacuation of 200,000 and closure of three airports
Alternative blurb: ​After the eruption of Mount Sinabung, that killed 14 people, the eruption of Kelud volcano in Indonesia prompts evacuation of 200,000 and closure of three airports.
News source(s): ABC The Australian, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Developing story. The full impact is not yet known, but "explosions could be heard 130km away in Surabaya [...] and further afield in Yogyakarta. Ash covered the ground in both cities." This shows the extent --ELEKHHT 03:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Further images available at commons:Category:2014 eruption of Kelud. All from Yogyakarta so far. Also, expansion needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if 2014 Eruption section is updated expanded and ready to give more information, I've add more photos along with Crisco to Commons, latest news the ash also reach Solo.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 04:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the story develops. We just ignored the eruption of Mount Sinabung two weeks ago which killed at least 14. This volcano erupts regularly. We can post it quickly if the situation becomes notably dire. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I pointed out above that this is "developing" so no need to oppose before all news are in. Regarding Sinabung, I can't find the relevant discussion (both the January and February archives show no indication of any discussion), but I see the 2010 eruption was posted (17,000-30,000 evacuated). Finally, please consider that not only deaths are notable events. Thanks. --ELEKHHT 05:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC):
Implicit in my statement is that I will support it under other circumstance, but I do oppose as is. Be assured I do follow up, do change my vote on occasion, and do work to help noms I have opposed get posted anyway if there's consensus--see the plain crash below. I think the combined blurb is a good idea, and would like to see other comments on that. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added the alt blurb, perhaps it's possible to combine both stories. Brandmeistertalk 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • support came here to nomiante. 200k evacuated is sizable disruption.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Death toll rises 3 confirmed dead and still rising ten thousand fleeing I need to go now since I'm volunteering to gave out mask this morning, hope this nomination success.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Both significant, both receiving near constant coverage in Indonesia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like airports are already re-opening. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Of particular note there is Malang, which is quite close to the volcano. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Of note is the wind, which brought much of the 200 million cubic meters of ash to the west, hence the impact on Yogya. --ELEKHHT 20:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I meant of the airport reopenings he mentioned. Semarang is almost 200km away from Kelud, so it is unsurprising that the airport reopened (heck, it opened for half a day on Friday). Malang is much, much, closer, and if the airport there is reopening... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ancient Native American genome sequencedEdit

Article: Clovis culture (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The genome of a 12,500 year old Native American infant from the Clovis culture is sequenced, clarifying the origin of Native Americans
Alternative blurb: ​The genome of a 12,500-year-old Clovis culture infant is sequenced, clarifying the origin of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a big development, going a long way to pin down the ancestry of Native Americans. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Support in principle, hugely important for origin theory. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support important scientific study that helps answer an old question (where the native peoples of the Americas came from) fairly definitively. "Native American" is not the best term, though, as that term usually means people native to the US only, not the broader group - I have suggested an alt. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The alt blurb is fine with me. Looie496 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Important advance in human knowledge of humans, which is always welcome. The alt-blurb is perfect. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good science and good article. Simonfreeman (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready updated and well and widely supported. μηδείς (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Very interesting and nice to have next to Happisburgh footprints. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

UK StormsEdit

Article: Winter storms of 2013–2014 in the United Kingdom (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A succession of storms causes widespread disruption across the United Kingdom and Ireland
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Have wondered about issuing this for a few days, but the extent and intensity of the recent damage, record breaking meteorological values and the ongoing political fallout and continued high profile makes me think it should be posted. --yorkshiresky (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, Strongly opposed to the idea that this is somehow a catastrophe - it ain't. Homes built on flood plains get flooded as a result of flood-defense neglect...coupled with the usual political tit-for-tat. And don't forget the long-term impact: some, but not that much. Truth is, this isn't even close to our own version of Typhoon Haiyan or even Hurricane Katrina (well maybe it is if you're a Daily Mail reading middle Englishman!) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Twenty-one dead in yesterday & today's Nor'easter in the US. μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whilst this is devastating to those affected, it is minor by international standards. One death (that I'm aware of) and a relatively small number of flooded houses is not significant enough for ITN, and would be an example of WP:BIAS if we posted it. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think the refusal to post this story on several occasions is approaching bias. Southern England has now had its heaviest 3-month rainfall in over 250 years of records; some localities have been cut off entirely for over a month; most of two counties have been cut off by rail after a rail system that has survived 150 years collapsed into the sea, and there is no expectation that it will be restored for at least six weeks; the people of Worcester would probably object to Somchai Sun's insinuation that they have foolishly built their city on a flood-plain when it has been there for over 2,000 years; the civil institutions have been unable to cope with demand, necessitating a military deployment nearing 10,000-strong; damage estimates are already in the hundreds of millions of pounds. Meteoroligcally, it is considerably worse than hurricane Katrina, lasting, as it has, for eight weeks and producing storm surges comparable to Katrina on numerous occasions, and the only reason it has not equalled it in damage terms is that the UK is considerably better prepared for it. GoldenRing (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
"insinuation that they have foolishly built their city" - I assure you it was no insinuation and no mention of cities in my text (and since when did I say it was foolish? Didn't you see me mention "flood defense neglect" in the same sentence?). I have my opinions/views/personal involvement with this, and from what I can see this has blown massively out of proportion in the UK media. And guess what, I live in the Thames Valley. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, either the phrase "Homes built on flood plains get flooded as a result of flood-defense neglect" was meant to include Worcester, a city, in which case I can't see how I'm wrong, or your summary of the situation was woefully inaccurate. Up to you, I guess. GoldenRing (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I live in southern England. I'm well aware of the facts of the story. That does not change my opinion. Modest Genius talk 13:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MG; also not seeing much coverage outside the UK. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I have seen coverage, but it's about the political backlash. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose however it is largely disruptive to a large number of people in a "first world country", with deaths comparable to that from a recent volcanic eruption in Indonesia. All done now though I think (and hope). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the biggest news story of the year so far in the UK (where they are the worst natural disaster at least since the 2007 United Kingdom floods), but has no effect of the rest of the world. That is why there is a great deal of media coverage of it in the UK but very little elsewhere. Putting this on the front page would seem like Anglocentrism, because floods of this severity and worse happen all the time somewhere in the world. What are the guidelines regarding inclusion of events that are unusual in the country in which they occurred, but are commonplace elsewhere in the world? If this had happened in Bangladesh, no-one would nominate it, nor would it have an article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This was on the US nightly news the other night, right after a 30 second piece on the death of the actor who played the father on The Waltons. Given the storms are a continuation of the storms coming off the North American east coast, with its record breaking cold and snow cover, perhaps a combined blurb would garner more support. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Pssst, that guy from The Waltons wasn't even nominated for RD, thank God...And Indonesia maybe - as apparently this weather "knock on effect" started there. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
"Commonplace elsewhere in the world"? Really? How often do countries have double their average rainfall for a month, the highest monthly rainfall in a 250-year record, breaking a record that was set 150 years ago? GoldenRing (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I mean commonplace for this amount of rainfall to fall in this duration of time and this extent of flooding, not compared to the average. Despite Britain's almost worldwide reputation for having very high rainfall, the truth is that many other countries have much higher rainfall. Sydney and New York City each receive over twice the rainfall of London, yet Sydney and NYC aren't widely regarded being particularly rainy, but London is. Likewise, Rome and Lisbon both receive significantly more rain than London, yet aren't thought of as rainy cities. Jim Michael (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Balu Mahendra [RD]Edit

Article: Balu Mahendra (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) BBC News International Business Times The Hindu The Indian Express

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: Legendary cinematographer and director from India. Considered to be one of the first directors to revolutionize South India cinemaVensatry (Ping) 13:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD, a notable personality in that part of the world, the article is updated and has sufficient sourcing. --Vejvančický (talk /

contribs) 13:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The article has multiple unreferenced paragraphs in the "Film career" section. If those are fixed, I support - clearly a significant figure in Indian cinema. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @ThaddeusB:I'm in the process of expanding the article and have added some references. Vensatry (Ping) 08:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Done there I think Vensatry (Ping) 19:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Good work, no complaints now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I asked for red linked films to be referenced and awards to be referenced, half a job done, but not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD - when concerns fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

February 12Edit

2014 Venezuelan protestsEdit

Article: 2014 Venezuelan protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A protest in Venezuela against president Nicolás Maduro is violently repressed, leaving 4 deaths and more than 60 injured people and 100 people arrested
Alternative blurb: ​In Venezuela, police and protesters clash, leaving four dead, dozens injured and over one hundred arrested.
News source(s): Pro and anti-Maduro marches gather thousands in Venezuela (BBC)

 --Cambalachero (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - and post asap.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
we dont vote count, hence simply saying you support and that it should be posted doesnt constitute grounds fo rposting.
Also with a POV blurb like that its not ITN -able.Lihaas (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
In which way is it POV? The results of the repression are precisely what makes it stand out from the regular demonstrations, and what the media focus when they talk about it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No we dont vote count Lihaas, we post notable ITN news. Like this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lihaas- "support and post" is not a helpful comment. Why is it 'notable' or otherwise worthy of posting? Just saying something is interesting is not sufficient and does not help posting admins evaluate the rationale behind the consensus. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but maybe wait - what do others think? This is probably a big news story for Venezuela, but my feeling is that it will get bigger over the coming days and that might be the right time to post it. I've suggested a more neutral altblurb. The article itself seems to be in pretty good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Maduro has already announced that he's not going to resign, if that's the "bigger" event that you suspect. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the alt blurb is the only way forward here, target article is half decent but the protests appear to be ongoing, there could be more in the pipeline as right now it appears to be a minor scuffle albeit with a handful killed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with the second hook, it's basically the same idea in other words, and if those words are better, then let's use them Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with you both on the second hook.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it is correct to wait and see what develops a little more; I have read that Pres. Maduro has expelled 3 US diplomats saying they are meddling in the protests and a protest leader is going to present a list of demands to the Minstry of Justice (mentioned in same link). We should see what happens. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unfortunately, it seems that there is a strong discussion lately between Zfigueroa and Communist-USSR about the content of the article. I will try to help them to achieve a neutral version of the article as best as I can (other's help may be welcomed), but for the moment the article may not be as stable as it should be in the main page, so perhaps I should decline this proposal Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • While the notion that the ongoing events in Venezuela are a "minor scuffle" is mistaken, the article as of now is quite POV. There are thousands of news sources that could be tapped, but haven't, resulting in a POV article. I do think it could make a worthy ITN blurb if folks are available to address the inaccuracies and POV. Because of freedom of press limitations in Venezuela-- along with the severity of the economic situation there including the price of airfare-- many news outlets no longer have reporters in Venezuela, so the news has been slow in coming out. With Venezuela shutting down the last remaining independent news source, news was only coming out via Twitter, which was also temporarily shut down. For example, NBC News has a reporter en route, and will run a special tonight, so the amount of coverage is likely to pick up over the next few days as news outlets pay the outrageous airfare to get boots on the ground.

    The more pressing concern, should this article run ITN, is BLP violations-- I have removed a few unsourced BLP vios this morning,(sample) but it is unlikely I will be available continuously to watch for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • After a bit of editing and observing, I believe it unlikely that the POV in the article will be overcome in time for ITN. The situation is a bit complicated by the use of Spanish sources, although there are thousands of English-language sources available-- it's not apparent that many editors are willing to wade through the sources to bring the article up to snuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Jade Rabbit mission overEdit

Withdrawn. Since I made this nomination, Chinese media has now started reporting that it's still alive after all. Serves me right for believing the state media I suppose. I therefore withdraw this nomination. Modest Genius talk 11:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Yutu (rover) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Chinese lunar rover Jade Rabbit ends its mission after 41 days of operation on the Moon
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Nominator's comments: China has officially declared that its lunar rover is dead. It was designed to run for 3 months, but only managed 41 days before breaking. The problem occurred on 25 January, and it hasn't done anything since then, but they only abandoned attempts to recover it today. --Modest Genius talk 22:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the real news here was getting the Jade Rabbit to the moon. Anything else was a bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • This was already posted twice. Does it really merit posting an expected development? (Maybe RD?) μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
LOL. I guess there has to be some use for RD now all the significant deaths get blurbs... GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this was the first exploration of Mars or some other body that isn't often (relatively) explored, I might support, but it's not. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Number Five is alive! [32] Stephen 22:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now (changed from support) The BBC now reports that Jade Rabbit ain't quite dead and "could be saved" so I have changed my !vote accordingly. Jusdafax 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Next Time this dies, I suggest the nominator consider an RD listing, rather than a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Sid CaesarEdit

Article: Sid Caesar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times"Pioneer" Fox News "Comedy legend" Variety "Iconic Comedian" Washington Post "Pathbreaking" El Mundo "estrella de la edad de oro" CNN

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: Comedy legend and TV pioneer, of old age at 91 μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Caesar was a pioneer of broadcast television not only in the US but worldwide - his television debut in 1949 predates the introduction of regularly scheduled television in most other developed countries, let alone the world. A significant influence on the medium.theBOBbobato (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is woefully short of references, it would be embarrassing for Wikipedia to promote this article on its main page. With regard to the subject matter, in uninvolved press coverage I'm not seeing the claim of "pioneer", or "legend", more a "comedian", a "co-star". If the article could be improved, it might be worth another look, but right now, this is a just another US actor passing on I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    Article needs serious sourcing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    Article vastly improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources mentioned in an article that refer to someone identified in the credits do not require further sourcing to show the person appeared, as long as the primary source is properly identified or linked to. Specific facts may be taken from primary sources. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a link to a film, that lists the actor in the credits is enough of a reference? Have a look at Hattie Jacques to see how things are done properly. Stephen 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The credit's enough of a reference to indicate that the actor played such and such a role in that film. I.e., one can say Bruce Willis is credited in The Fifth Element without any source besides The Fifth Element itself. This is long established policy. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to this policy. As an example, I clicked on Texaco Star Theater and Caesar wasn't mentioned at all. Stephen 23:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have already linked to the policy. Specified TV shows are primary sources; anything one can glean, without synthesis or interpretation, from a primary source is fine. An episode of Texaco Star Theater that had him listed as cast would be good for that episode, assuming he didn't have a continual starring role. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Link to a policy that states that a TV show is a primary source. Because WP:RS that you linked to doesn't say that. And then explain how a TV show article that doesn't list him in the credits supports your claim to using it as a primary source. Stephen 02:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Read the article primary source, which is already linked in the policy. Any published, named work is a source, from a novel to a cartoon book, to a documentary, to a Simpsons episode. You might as well ask for a source that says that the source that says that a primary source is a primary source is a source. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
So you can't link to a policy. Nor can you show that a fact can be verified by linking to an article that doesn't mention the fact. That's all I needed. Thanks. Stephen 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not interested in getting you to back down. Nor do we have policies that list policies. Nor do we have policies that list policy about which policies are policy. We simply have policies such as {{WP:RS]] that list how sources can be used, and a link that describes what primary sources are, which includes movies and TV shows, and other documentary, commentary, and works of art. At some point these things stand on their own. If we needed a source to tell us that a source is a source we'd have an infinite regress. I know that can be confusing. I understand completely. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Oppose in current article state. It's quite the mess. – Connormah (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Late support - article now looks to be indecent shape. Good work! – Connormah (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Based on his long and award-winning career. The guy was a legend and indeed an acting and television hosting pioneer, but died in the fullness of his years which makes it not quite big enough for a blurb, so this is what RD is for. Yes the article needs some help, but it will get better as the hours go by. Jusdafax 02:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would be helpful to know if the "oppose because of article quality" votes are actually "support if article is improved" votes, or just opposes looking for a reason to hang their hat on. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I would probably support it if/when it's improved. – Connormah (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Super famous TV pioneer comedian. GroveGuy (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - We tend to post a few more actors than I would prefer, but I don't see a problem here. He certainly qualifies as a broadcast television pioneer, and the sources are calling him just that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated The article now has 24, instead of 11 citations (diff). The death section is updated. I have hidden material that seems correct but which I can't support. Coverage now crosses the Atlantic, with "legend" and "pioneer" claims in almost every citation, including remarks by Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks.
On his passing, Carl Reiner said, "He was the ultimate, he was the very best sketch artist and comedian that ever existed." and Mel Brooks commented, "Sid Caesar was a giant, maybe the best comedian who ever practiced the trade. And I was privileged to be one of his writers and one of his friends."
μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Here Caesar speaks four languages, which I post in fair use, to demonstrate his comedic skill. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I will abstain from !voting since it would seem somewhat self-promotional, but let me just say a) to those who opposed earlier, I would ask you to take another look, since much work has been done in the mean time, and b) much has been done by a number of other editors as well, significantly by Moncrief, Tenebrae and not at all least by Medeis. I have added them above. Dwpaul Talk 04:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article now looks to be in reasonable shape. TBH I've never heard of the guy, but then US comedy is not exactly one of my areas of interest. Could The Rambling Man and Connormah take another look and see if their concerns have been addressed? GoldenRing (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been to the article today, but I should mention that Caesar's obituary with six photos of him appears on the front page of The New York Times. He was by any standard a comedy legend. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, he was a tremendous influence on American comedy, and started the careers of many of the 20th century's top comedy writers. When the scripts from Your Show of Shows were found in a closet in 2000, it made the NYT front page. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, the consensus is now to post the article to RD. Thanks to all who worked on improvement of the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

February 11Edit

Shama Cinema bombingEdit

Article: 2014 Shama Cinema bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thirteen people are killed when three grenades explode, killing thirteen people and injuring twenty.
News source(s): Los Angeles Times CBS Huffington Post CNN Newsweek Pakistan New York Times NBC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This event is being widely covered in the news. It is also most likely a terrorist attack. Although attacks in Pakistan are pretty common, I think this one is important enough to be on ITN because of it's coverage in the media and the fact that it was a bombing at a movie theater which killed and injured innocent civilians. Andise1 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing, I copied the template that was used in that nomination and forgot to remove the picture. Andise1 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb provides no context, where is this? Was it a terrorist attack? Is this "in the news"? Article is essentially two sentences long, the lead being repeated in the "main body", so far from adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - how does this bombing having taken place in a cinema make it more notable than the many bombings at markets, workplaces and places of worship in Pakistan? They kill and maim innocent civilians as well. Jim Michael (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not an unusual event in Pakistan, per Jim Michael. Article also not up to snuff. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And article should probably be deleted. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to do so, WP:AFD is relatively straightforward. But this isn't part of the ITN remit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Algeria plane crashEdit

Article: 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A plane crash in Algeria leads to the deaths of 77 people.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Over 100 deaths, this should/would have no problem passing ITNC per precedence Lihaas (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • It's "precedent", not "precedence", and you may be right, but each event should be considered on its own merits. That said I do support this as a notable plane crash with significant casualties. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As there's evidently no reliable body for 'case law' on this subject, nor should there be, could we please, once and for all, drop the pretence that our decisions here establish precedents, binding or otherwise? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Potentially may become the deadliest plane crash of the year. Brandmeistertalk 15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but only once the article is of sufficient quality and length, which right now, it is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support subject to meeting quality criteria Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Brandmeister, and subject to article quality criteria.--Godot13 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready I don't support this myself, I fear it will be an orphan, but it's updated and has broad support. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted I believe that the concerns raised by User:The Rambling Man and others have been addressed and the article is of sufficient quality. The consensus is to post this item. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed. A significant air crash (worst of 2014 by a mile) and well suited to ITN, with multiple articles linking to it and plenty of good references. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Shirley TempleEdit

No consensus for a full blurb and the discussion has gone off topic. Time to close. --Tone 08:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Shirley Temple (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):
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.

Shirley Temple has died. Going back a long way, but a huge star as a child and later of political significance. GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support For RD: Dyed-in-the-wool RD candidate for sure. Oppose a blurb on this: Why is a blurb needed? ITN is not a memorial column, she died of old age and frankly the second half of her careers isn't even RD worthy. Edit: Alas, I have nothing personally against the recently deceased, nor am I personally offended at the idea of a blurb: but really people, can we leave personal opinions out of this and treat it with a more bureaucratic, automated by-the-books approach? Every time someone gets mad on ITN/C, God kills a kitten, and makes a nationalist feel oppressed when he really isn't. Remember that. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Probably the best known child actress ever, at least in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. There's nothing unexpected about her death. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for full blurb. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb for an iconic Hollywood actress. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb very notable actress. Jón - (Talk) 11:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting to RD for now, since there's sufficient support. For a potential full blurb, the article probably needs some more work. --Tone 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
But for a dead junkie loser we have a full blurb? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the kind of insults you are capable of leveling against a person or not, it has to do with whether or not the death itself (not the person, but the death itself) has anything extra to say about it that "Person died". This one doesn't have much more. The death of Hoffman received more press coverage because there was more to say about it. Casting aspersions against the recently dead doesn't improve the strength of your arguments. --Jayron32 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Being found dead with a needle in your arm screams winner. Thanks for clearing it up. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have warned Lugnuts for his/her violations of WP:BDP. I hope that they are not repeated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Well it's been reported in several news outlets, so I guess I can't account for you missing it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref for needle in his arm. I see your game is to pick and chose what you want to read. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Needle in arm =/= overdose (accidental or otherwise). Murder is also possible (air bubbles, poison, etc.). Also, "loser"? Ref? Or do you just read headlines? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say overdose? Oh, I didn't. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And loser? (junkie, too, come to think of it) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
How about Lugnuts offers us a retraction of those remarks? I don't think PSH should have had a blurb, but that's no excuse for mocking a dead person for their weakness. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree post Hoffmann as a full blurb was a mistake. In both cases the reason it was news is that they were famous for their lives; there was nothing particularly newsworthy about their deaths in and of themselves. People die of old age every day and the only reason this one was reported was that she was already famous. People die of drug overdoses every day, too, and the only reason Hoffmann was reported was that he was already famous; ergo both belong in RD, IMO, which I why I nominated this for RD only. GoldenRing (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hoffman was still in the middle of his career, which made his death unexpected; that's why it was reported. You can disagree with that as a reasoning, but until you run the worldwide media, that's what we go with. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Most people who die of drug overdoses are in the middle of their careers; it is still the case that the only reason his was reported is that he was famous. That's what RD is for. GoldenRing (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Ex-government leaders get posted with blurb despite "normal" circumstanaces of their deaths..Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I disagree with that, too, but I seem to be in a shrinking minority. What's RD for, after all? GoldenRing (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, oppose full blurb for now, unless the manner of death becomes a major story in the news media, there's not much more to say. --Jayron32 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Clearly very important in her field; no blurb unless something notable about her death itself. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Unlike PSH this death isn't as unusual and she wasn't at the peak of her career. (Also, PSH recieved more accolades in a shorter period of time.) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 11:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, as noted above, Temple's death was not entirely unexpected and she was no longer in the public eye, Hoffman was the oppsite. And before the complaints start rolling in, good commons sense posting to RD with the option for blurb, Tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Clearly a significant person in their field, but the death itself does not have major consequences. Exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. No major consequences in the death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
strong support, full blurb 1. an end of an era truly, and 2. a special award at the ageof 6 is highly top of her field, probably only ythe sixth sense dude challenged it and took some 80 years.
The update right now consists of : @@"Shirley Temple died of natural causes on February 10, 2014. She was at her home in Woodside, California, surrounded by family and caregivers". And thats enough?Lihaas (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Well that's basically it isn't it? Only thing I could see being added now are some reactions. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose blurb, died of being 85. Readers will either want to look at her article or not, the blurb is therefore either too much or not enough. Abductive (reasoning) 15:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD, oppose blurb. For people who die of old age, long after their careers are over, blurbs should only be for Thatcher or Mandela level figures. And for the record, I did not support or oppose Hoffman's blurb; I would've opposed it if I was earlier to the discussion. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Very famous, but I think there are plenty of more influential people in the field of acting. Neljack (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose full blurb. Notable by a long shot, but outside of deaths that are notable in and of themselves, the bar for a blurb is a lot higher than someone whose career ended before WW2. GRAPPLE X 04:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Undoubtedly notable and was certainly once top of her field so the RD is a no brainer. However, death from old age is not unexpected and Temple Black was not currently active or at the peak of her career. And unlike folks such as Nelson Mandela, you really can't argue that there will be much lasting influence from her death itself (such as provoking worldwide mourning and international figures dropping everything to attend the funeral) which would elevate her passing beyond a RD mention. AgneCheese/Wine 04:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. If the death itself doesn't seem notable enough, how about the possible impact she made to movies, culture, society, etc? ZeniffMartineau (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The Day We Fight BackEdit

No consensus to post what appears to be a damp squib protest Stephen 22:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: The Day We Fight Back (talk, history)
Blurb: The Day We Fight Back protests against mass surveillance by the National Security Agency.
News source(s): [33] [34] [35]
 Mass internet protests should probably be on the main page of Wikipedia. This is due in a couple of hours but apparently I'm not allowed to create the day early. --Simonfreeman (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't yet have a position on this, but has this been mentioned in more mainstream news? (not just tech-based sites or the EFF which has a clear position on this issue) I'm guessing probably but I'd like to see it. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. At this juncture, it's impossible to know what impact the protest will have. If it turns out to be significant (according to reliable sources), it might be appropriate to run an ITN item then. We don't proactively include events that we hope will be considered important. —David Levy 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Given that the community has been a bit nonplussed about featuring content related to this event on the mainpage, this nomination should be subjected to a high level of caution and scrutiny. If it emerges as one of the major news stories of the day, then fair enough. But otherwise, no. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the moment per David Levy. Neljack (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Coverage is this in major sources? The only place I have heard about it is here. And seeing a large part of the article has to do with Aaron Schwartz, who was being prosecuted for theft, and was not a victim of spying, I wonder at the combination of motives here. I'd generally be willing to support this, if broader coverage and narrower focus than just protest for protest's sake were demonstrated. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not news anywhere I look in major sources. And I look pretty widely. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as David Levy has opined, unless something significant actually happens here, this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per David Levy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No major coverage, and it's not our job to campaign on political issues. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Agree with David Levy that it's far too early to gauge the significance of this campaign. Its appearance in ITN now would smack of promotion. Sca (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment We definitely need to wait for a while to see whether the protests will evolve into something more severe which will prompt reactions and wide attention, but the issue of carrying out activities that deprive human rights and freedom of any kind suffices for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment More press now that its started: Der Spiegel Al Jazeera RT International Business Times The Guardian Wired UK NBC News Time The Hill PBS newshour Huffington Post NPR Dontaccidentlyrevealip (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge global protest with significant media coverage -A1candidate (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Coverage like this? The Day the Internet Didn’t Fight Back E4FZq (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Significant coverage? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I admit I might not fully understand it, so feel free to discount my views, but it seems to me that this "protest" mostly consists of websites posting banners and encouraging people to write their politicians to call for new laws. The most vocal sites were the ones who are already opposed to the activities being "protested"; one online petition got a little attention, but so did the build-the-Death Star petition at the White House. There does seem to be some news coverage about it(which is why I don't more strongly oppose it) though there is also news coverage, as E4FZ said, stating that this wasn't a big deal. I'm not convinced this was a big enough deal to be posted. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

February 10Edit

Iraqi Suicide Bombers Blow Themselves UpEdit

Article: Iraqi_insurgency_(post-U.S._withdrawal) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A premature detonation kills 22 Al Qaeda militants and injures 15 during an Iraqi suicide bombing training class accident
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This could probably go under a sticky, given the other terrorist acts mentioned in the NY Times article. Certainly an unusual noteworthy event. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. I think this is unusual enough to be posted. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Is the "tragedy" part supposed to be a joke? If so - please remove it. It's not funny. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If you don't think it's a tragedy, feel free to modify the header, which is not personal property. My sole concern is that this is a notable and unusal story. I'll see if I can update the article, but there seems to be a database issue going on now. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll AGF. --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No article, no story. Phrasing is decidedly POV (fixed) and... a sticky? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about, no article? The article is linked to in the template, and is
  • Nothing was linked in the blurb at the time of this !vote. My oppose still stands, but for significance (how significant is this in the long run? Not getting comments from heads of state etc.) and the article should not be titled "Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal)" if the content is a mere list (in other words, major Wikipedia:Proseline issues) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll assume you mean "gone wrong" > "accident", and have made that change. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The story is obviously a "tragedy" to the families of those killed, and the operation obviously "went wrong" - but that sort of wording could be challenged by those who see a macabre humor in it (starting with a general who was quoted on the matter). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As I toldSS, I am not set on the header. Who ever wants should improve it, so long as it describes what's at hand beyond just a bombing. But I am not sure "suicide bomber's epic fail" or anything that occurs to me would be better. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Or the more traditional "hoist by his own petard". As I recall, there have been incidents similar to this from time to time. It's been a long time, but I think some members of the Symbianese Liberation Army (or some other contemporary group) were killed while building bombs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose reading the general article linked to, it's clear that dozens die every month, this is trivially different, has no lasting impact, and is hardly "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose terrorists making mistakes such as prematurely detonating bombs isn't rare, nor are bombings in Iraq. Jim Michael (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Would you be able to demonstrate that? I don't recall hearing about terrorists accidentally blowing themselves up before, in Iraq or anywhere. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1. Not tragedy. 2. Not very significant. Mainly newsworthy for bizarreness. Jehochman Talk 11:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Might be more suitable for DYK? GoldenRing (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Bencherlite has proven the proposition he denies. This has happened four times in three countries over the last two decades. And this is the biggest example. μηδείς (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say that I had found all the examples? BencherliteTalk 16:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nowhere. Bombmakers blowing themselves, and others, up, are not uncommon. Heck, it was even in a scene from Munich. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yemen reorganisationEdit

Article: Politics of Yemen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A panel appointed by President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi approves the creation of six regions as part of a federation
News source(s): AL Jaz

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is akin to a total reorganisation of a country (and its with a new constitution to be passed). Compare that to the US or other such states like Germany, India, Russia, etc. Its a big national change. Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support in principle as a major development. I've corrected the blurb to standard English. But the article's not even been editted since November. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. A significant change for a nation's governmental structure. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending update in principle as this is a significant event in Yemeni politics, hardly a topic we feature regularly. But there's nothing in the article about this. It's going to need some major work on the article, or perhaps a new one. Edit: actually, it might be better to wait until it actually happens and/or the new constitution is approved. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
maybe Governorates of Yemen or Districts of Yemen...not sure which si best and which will stay and which will changeLihaas (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the bold-linked article doesn't seem to mention this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Another disruptive nomination by Lihaas, didn't bother with a single edit to the article. Stephen 22:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive? You prefer to partake in WIKIPOLITICS and personal attaks than contribute with updates? How many nominations have ZERO updates and ARE still posted? Did you bother to see that? Or just prefer to hide behind the wall of the internet and attack????!!!! ITNC has no update requirements for nominations, yet it has update reqeirements for posting that are not adhered to. Then talk disruptions!!!! WP:DICKLihaas (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Cultural theorist Stuart Hall diesEdit

Article: Stuart Hall (cultural theorist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: ​Jamaica-born British cultural theorist, cofounder of the New Left Review, dies at age 82.
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: Hall is a renowned theorist and his death should be noted. Puchku (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD once updated. A significant enough academic and the article looks OK. Formerip (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD once updated; no blurb, but given his body of work and activities he seems to be important in his field. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose neither notable nor technically acceptable. "Hall's work covers issues of hegemony and cultural studies, taking a post-Gramscian stance. He regards language-use as operating within a framework of power, institutions and politics/economics." The article is full of jargon and unreferenced statements, it's an in-house academic hagiography. It needs a lot of work in sourcing and balance before it would be technically acceptible.
  • Support RD Clearly a highly influential figure in his field. While I agree that the article could do with more references, I hardly think it is fair to describe it as a hagiography. As for the "jargon", to some extent it is unavoidable when discussing theories in a jargon-laden field like cultural studies (just as it wouldn't be fair to expect physics articles to completely avoid technical scientific terms). In any case, I don't think it's particularly impenetrable - for instance, in the passage Medeis quotes, I would say that the only term that really requires explanation is "post-Gramscian". As a layman, I didn't find the rest of the passage difficult to understand. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Seems to have been fairly important in his field. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • Support RD in agreement with Neljack. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support RD. Seems to be generating some minor coverage, and to have been significant in his (fairly obscure) field. Article is decent. Modest Genius talk 12:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting to RD. There's been enough support and the article meets the standards. --Tone 12:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

February 9Edit

[Posted] Swiss immigration referendumEdit

Article: Swiss referendums, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a national referendum, the Swiss voters approve, by a narrow margin, re-imposing strict quotas on immigration from the European Union countries.
Alternative blurb: ​In a national referendum Swiss voters approve re-imposing strict quotas on immigration from European Union countries.
News source(s): BBC, WSJ, NYT

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The article still needs a proper update, but the results of the referendum will have significant political consequences in Europe. Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have added some info to the article; not sure if it is enough for the update but people should take a look. Nsk92 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see enough information to post yet. For instance, what was the rate of immigration to Switzerland recently? What were the countries of origin? Can a referendum override the international treaties the Swiss government ratified prior? What are the new quotas? Abductive (reasoning) 06:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
oppose its a local issue alobe. Referenda have no precedence yet and this is not exceptionally notable. At anyrate, there are three years fto implement it.Lihaas (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not exactly clear what 'Referenda have no precedence yet' is meant to mean. I assume you meant 'precedent' but even them I'm not sure what you mean by it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Skimming other noms here, I see you regularly say 'precedence' when you mean 'precedent/s'. I'm still not sure what you mean - do you mean the referendum is not binding on the government? GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I am fairly sure he means there's no precedent to post referenda. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is not a local issue- this is big news for Europe. This is the first time a country has pulled out of the European common market provisions - and several other countries are talking about doing the same. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Agree that this move is significant for the EU, and it has ramifications for other regions from which refugees come. See "Europe warns Swiss of consequences after immigration vote." [37]. Sca (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Very weak support. Yes, likely to have some ramifications, but hardly momentous in the scheme of things. It's just reversing a law that was introduced a couple of parliaments ago. Formerip (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose reimposition of the status quo ante, may anger EUcrats, but has no direct effect on trade, etc., truly is a local issue. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The exact implications of this referendum are so far unknown as far as I can tell. There has been sabre rattling on EU's part and threats to kick Switzerland out of the single market, but I guess it also depends how the Swiss government will act upon the result of this referendum. Let's maybe return to this if Switzerland is actually excluded from the economic zone and/or the immigration quotas for EU citizens are put in action? --hydrox (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: All over the Francophone media, has real implications for Switzerland's future, as well as affecting the entire EU. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Much talked Monday in German media as well. Sca (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that this has significant international implications. Neljack (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as described by Sca, Neljack et al. Please note the instructions "... do not complain about an event only relating to a single country ...". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I support this nomination and think it should be posted. But I also think Sir Humphrey Appleby would describe its posting as 'controversial', perhaps even 'courageous', given the stated opposition. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Like ;)_
Except the posters arent up for election..Lihaas (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Medina hotel fireEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Medina hotel fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A hotel fire breaks out in Medina, Saudi Arabia, killing fifteen pilgrims.
News source(s): BBC Reuters

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Hotel fires are not that common, and fifteen killed in one hotel fire with around one hundred and thirty other pilgrims injured is pretty notable. Andise1 (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
easy oppose nothing worthy here. Can we also stop these silly news articles that turn into orphans and forgotten due to no notability from being created here please? We have 2 asuch articles in2 days.vLihaas (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You know, we want people to create and nominate articles. That doesn't mean they have to get posted to ITN, but pooh-poohing new articles and their nomination doesn't help us as it discourages others from doing so. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, to create good content, not frivolous articles without notability, lasting legacy or WP:RECENTISM. These articles stay orphans or near-orphans and are wiped out of memory after a few days ir not weeksLihaas (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, looks like you're not the best judge of this kind of thing, so perhaps tone it down a little, as 331dot as suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — I have to agree with Lihaas, though not his tone: There's nothing really noteworthy about this story, and in my (ex-newsie) experience hotel fires are not particularly uncommon. Sca (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As others have pointed out, this has significant international implications. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position either way on this nomination. But what international implications? I'm not sure others have actually pointed them out. Did you mean to post this on the Swiss referendum? GoldenRing (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, this was intended for the Swiss referendum nom. Many thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for the inconvenience! Neljack (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

February 8Edit

Bjørndalen ties record for medalsEdit

Articles: Ole Einar Bjørndalen (talk, history) and Biathlon at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's sprint (talk, history)
Blurb: Norwegian athlete Ole Einar Bjørndalen ties with compatriot Bjorn Daehlie for a record 12 medals at a Winter Olympics by winning a gold medal in the men's biathlon sprint.
Alternative blurb: Norwegian athlete Ole Einar Bjørndalen ties with compatriot Bjorn Daehlie for a record 12 medals at a Winter Olympics by winning a gold medal in the men's biathlon sprint.
News source(s): (ABC News Australia) BBC

Nominator's comments: Bjeorndalen is a legend at the winter olympics and this is a notable record. He has now competed in six olympic games, won medals at 5, and won gold medals at four Olympiads. This is a career achievement worth posting. --Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support This IS in the news, even in far away Australia. A perfect chance to mention a sport that our systemic bias would normally not take us near. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. OK, reading the article on Bjeorndalen, the article has major problems I didn't realize at first. It has only a total of three references and huge unreferenced sections. It's unlikely we'll fix this. We'll probably have use use a different target article or somehow get the article up to scratch.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we're going to get a dozen stories like this, first person of type X to win the most Y in such a period, first person from Antarctica to win a medal in N categories, yatta, yatta, yatta. At that rate we'll have an all-Olympic template. And this is a tie, for a record based on longevity, not just one competition. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    Uh, did you read the nomination? This was a (tie for) an all time record for Winter Olympic medals. We're not going to get 'a dozen stories' like that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - until the day he makes the new record. a tie is in itself not a record or notable for ITN inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've updated Biathlon at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's sprint which is now ready as a target article. I'm going to make an alternative blurb with that as the target.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as he only tied the total number of medals won and is still worse compared to Dæhlie because of the least number of gold medals won. However, there is still chance for him to set a new record in the total number and even in the number of gold medals won. I'd support each of these two if any one happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - If he had little chance to beat the record, I'd be a full support, but it is extremely likely he'll get a medal in the team relay (at least) so I can see waiting for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Thaddeus. I'd prefer to wait until he breaks the record. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - new record perhaps, ties no. Jusdafax 06:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While I can see the argument for waiting, I think tying the record is enough to warrant posting and it would be crystal ball-gazing to presume that he will win another medal. We can just update the blurb then. This is getting a lot of attention now, partly because of the manner in which he did it - winning the 10 km against all the predictions that he wasn't good enough to win an individual gold anymore. Neljack (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait I thought of nominating this yesterday but I think this will be much more notable when will get another one - and it is very likely that he will get another one at least with the team since he appears to be in great shape. Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
support per precedent set when that swimmer (forget his name now) got the record in London.Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: it was Michael Phelps. It Is Me Here t / c 14:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think we posted when he broke the record, and that record was older also. Nergaal (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Phelps won 8 gold medals in one Summer Olympics, while Bjørndalen has won 12 over six Winter Olympicses. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
That just highlights how silly it is to compare participants in different sports. I doubt if a cross country skier would have eight events to compete in. Swimmers have a lot of options. Phelps' achievement was still great though. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
My overall point is that there will be lots of different records at this Olympics, depending on how you parse them. We can't list them all. And 'record for the guy who's skied downhill fast at the most Olympics' is a but of a stretch. We should have a sticky, and at best list only the Phelpses and the Comanecies, and eschew the rest. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
But if Phelps won all(?) the events he went in, and this guy wins all the events he goes in, their achievements are both bloody good. It's silly to say one has done better than the other. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you'll forgive me, but I think pulling yourself through the water is also a bit more of a skill than sliding downhill, since you choose to equivalize them. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Biathlon is related to cross-country skiing, and completely unrelated to downhill skiing. It involves extreme physical fitness plus the ability to shoot accurately with a highly elevated heart rate. It is indeed very hard to compare accomplishment across sports - what is not debatable is that swimmers have many more opportunities to get medals (and I love Phelps). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose tie, support if he breaks the record. Teemu08 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if AND ONLY IF someone cleans up the article on Ole Einar Bjørndalen. We should not put an article in the poor state this one is in with regards to referencing on the main page. He is the reason we'd be posting a blurb, so that is the only sensible target article. The event itself wouldn't deserve notice, so shouldn't be the target bolded article. We need to fix that one up before we post this. Everything else in this debate is pointless until we have a good article to highlight. --Jayron32 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a huge feat, despite me being a Norwegian - this guy is 40 years old and it is 16 years since he won his first Olympic gold medal. I will try to improve the quality of the article tonight or tomorrow, if that is the main reason to oppose this. If we fear that ITN would have too many blurbs from the Olympics - how many blurbs will there be except for the ice hockey tournament (which is ITN/R ?) ? Mentoz (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Opening, closing, ice hockey (the last two maybe combined). And there's the sticky. --Tone 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailmentEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two people are killed when a train is struck by a falling rock and derailed at a heritage railway in Provence, France.
News source(s): BBC News Online

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Rare accident type, trains are not normally actually struck by falling rocks and derailed, even less so on heritage lines. --Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
ovious oppose everything int he news is not worthy of a WP page , which needs lasting notability.Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Worthy of an article, but casualties are limited and I'm not seeing extensive coverage of this. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

February 7Edit

[Posted] Discovery of earliest human footprints outside AfricaEdit

Article: Happisburgh footprints (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The earliest human footprints outside of Africa are discovered in the United Kingdom.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian

Nominator's comments: This discovery "will rewrite our understanding of the early human occupation of.. Europe". There are only three older sets of human footprints, all in Africa. They could belong to the extinct Homo antecessorMohamed CJ (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. Absolutely astounding the authorities allowed them to be destroyed. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what they could have done - the prints were in clay at a sea shore, 'one of the fastest eroding stretches of the British coast', uncovered and then destroyed by rough weather and storms. How could any authorities have prevented it? Modest Genius talk 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Easy enough to dump a truckload of sand on it immediately then build a wall around it. I told my father who's an engineer and he mumbled "idiots". They can still, hopefully, preserve the areas yet uncovered. And I am hoping this is like the case of the Bristlecone Pines, where they are simply lying and keeping the area secret from the public. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is very interesting and a significant discovery in anthropology. There's already an article - Happisburgh footprints - which is almost good enough already. A bit of fleshing out and it should be good to go. Modest Genius talk 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- there is now an article at Happisburgh footprints, with pictures thanks to the academic article being published as cc-by-4.0. BabelStone (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Really shame prints were destroyed. SeraV (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
PULL while it has consensus, please check the article. There is no way a sufficient article period, let alone an update for the 2014 find.Lihaas (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What 2014 find? The paper was published in 2014. The footprints were discovered in 2013. The article is four paragraphs, a decent update. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
In that case its stale. WHats the update from 2014? That's hwo ITN worksLihaas (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Article is fine. Discovery is in the news now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The discovery was published on 7 February 2014, so it cannot be stale. I added an explanatory note and a source to the article, to prevent confusion. Please check Lihaas. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be reworded to "...the discovery of the earliest human footprints outside of Africa in the United Kingdom is announced". Perhaps it took some time to verify the 2013 discovery. Brandmeistertalk 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Lihaas, you are confused as to how updates work. if it is an old article, it needs one new prose paragraph on the relevant development of about five sentences with three different sources. If it is a new article like this one, it needs to be at least three full prose paragraphs. It does not then need a new update on top of those three necessarily new paragraphs. This is a new article, and it meets the three-paragraph rule. See the guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Well you've cited in one insance 3 paragraphs and now say 1 is enough.
Also on past preference/precedence, reports published after the fact are grounds for stalemness and more so if the update doesn't mention anything on 2014. The update requirement on the 2014 news is simply not presentLihaas (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"and made public on 7 February 2014". Please stop this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The news broke two days ago, the article was created two days ago. Please simply read the ITN guidelines: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs", Lihaas, and don't refer to, or worse, misquote, what I have "cited". μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
??? So to calrify for future: the update requirement for the date of posting has now change?d?
What I cant even ask questions now? Im not suggesting this should be drawn to attention with caveat in teh header...but now you (TRM) don t even want to answer discussion????Lihaas (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it very hard to follow what you're saying most of the time. All I can say here is that this article was created as a result of the news that broke two days ago. That news and the information released is all covered in this new article. That's why it's fine to be posted. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, you are talking nonsense. Nothing has changed. Read the ITN guidelines I linked to. Old articles (created over a week ago) need a one-paragraph update. New articles (this one's two days old) need to be at least three paragraphs long. This article is in excellent shape, and exceeds all requirements and expectations. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Pegasus Airlines Hijack attemptEdit

WP:SNOW close. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Pegasus Airlines Flight 751 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A drunk man exclaimed a bomb was on board and attempted to hijack a Pegasus Airlines flight from the Ukraine and demanded to be flown to Sochi.
News source(s): [38]
 --EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A drunken passenger disrupting an aircraft happens not infrequently. No injuries, the plane landed safely. Sochi was probably on his mind (in his drunken state he apparently thought he was over Sochi already) and not an actual target. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Minor event. No fatalities. Not newsworthy. Not notable. Mz7 (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. I doubt the article would survive AfD either. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amusing but not front page news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably not so amusing for the other people on the flight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing actually happened: a few passengers were inconvenienced by a drunkard. That's it. Hardly ITN level news. Modest Genius talk 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

[Attention neede]d Bosnia protestsEdit

Article: 2014 Bosnia and Herzegovina social riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Days of protests occur around Bosnia and Herzegovina due to unemployment and police brutality.
Alternative blurb: ​Protests by unemployed workers spark anti-government riots across Bosnia and Herzegovina.
News source(s): AL Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bosnia has been a powder keg for a while so this is not surprising. Protests have been going on a for a few days now. Today hte presidency building in Sarajevo was attacked...perhaps ominously referring to the attack on teh parliament building during the war. --Lihaas (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - important enoug for ITN mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Protests/riots in 20 towns/cities; government buildings attakced in at least 3 cities, so the scale is relatively big and such riots are not commonplace in Bosnia. Iselilja (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - important enough because it's widely reported about in the region. --biblbroks (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the blurb should include the reason(s). Brandmeistertalk 23:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  Done --BiH (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's great that the opposition is holding peaceful political protests over otherwise minor domestic issues. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Medeis, minor domestic issue? Institutional buildings, including the presidency, have been set on fire, dozens of cars set on fire as well, thousands of poeple were on street in about 20 cities in the country. You call that a minor domestic issue? --BiH (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No, the issues as stated in the blurb are minor. NYC has plenty of police brutality and unemployment. If the charges are, say, looting by officials and organized killings by the police, that should be said. μηδείς (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not the reason, the ITNC issue is the scale.
Also your "vote" is odd. You say you oppose, then you say its "great..." doesn't appear as a reason for why you oppose.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
What's great is that this is no longer a dictatorship under Tito, and the people can express their opposition, and no one has been killed, at least according to our nomination, I haven't read the news on this today. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war Homs ceasfireEdit

Article: 2012 Homs offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After months of fighting amid the Syrian civil war, a ceasefire takes place in Homs allowing for the evacuation of women, children and the aged.
News source(s): AL JAzeera

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Well we havent had a Syria posting in eons and theres no shortage of news from the chemical weapons programme. BUt this seems like its yielded something after a while (and considering we dint post the much in the news talks) --Lihaas (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

feel free to tweak away.Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this becomes a bigger development. Things like this occur when both sides think they will gain advantage in the eyes of third parties. If the fighting is to resume it is more of an "ain't that nice?" segment for the final minute of a nightly newscast than a turning point in the war. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremonyEdit

Articles: 2014 Winter Olympics (talk, history) and 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Winter Olympics open in Sochi, Russia.
Alternative blurb: ​The 2014 Winter Olympics open in Sochi, Russia.

Second article updated, first needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: It's also necessary to post a sticky with chronological summary from the Games. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, but only if we mark that the games have started, and then do the opening ceremony the next day. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god! You posted it when its 18 hours away. Ddear lord ;)
Good to get it posted now so we can iron out the posting details. I agree that sticky needs to be there.Lihaas (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Like what? 'Please write an article first'? That was obvious before this was nominated, 18 hours too soon. Modest Genius talk 13:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the sticky; this has been common practice for several Olympic cycles. Lampman (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Jón - (Talk) 07:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support esp. as some of the events have already started. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Lugnuts, the events started even before this nomination was posted... However, opening ceremony cannot be bold linked as it is in no way ready, so until that's done, suggest just linking the main games article (which could use a bit of work but is in a much better state than the opening ceremony article). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe it is appropriate to post this when the opening ceremony starts. Which will be in around 6 hours. Also, what about a sticky? --Tone 10:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Per comments below, the opening ceremony article in its present form is not ready for main page yet. But there's time for improvement. --Tone 14:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until such time has a) it has actually happened and b) the article has had a proper update reflecting that it has happened. For things like this people seem to get carried away. Just so we're clear ITN/R status is not a derogation from usual update requirements so "Post on starting" arguments such as presented by Tone above are contrary to policy. In the extreme the posting admin may be construed as vandalizing the the main page. (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality. If you want to bold the "2014 Winter Olympics" page instead that'd be different, but the Opening Ceremonies page is pretty weak. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait, not just for the opening ceremony to finish, but also until there's an actual article instead of a list of people. At the moment it would be an embarrassment to put that rubbish on the Main Page. A sticky for the chronological summary article is fine, again only once the ceremony is over. Modest Genius talk 13:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Then have the emphasis on the Games and not the ceremony - eg The 2014 Winter Olympics start... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine. That wasn't a suggestion in the template at the time I made those comments. Modest Genius talk 21:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Why wait to post the chronological summary? The first events were held on Thursday. SpencerT♦C 20:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - and post ASAP.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • But the article has 697 B of prose. 697. And some bulleted entries. That's it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Reportedly the biggest Winter Olympics to date. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support with reservation - Bold the article 2014 Winter Olympics instead due to poor article quality of the opening ceremony. It honestly doesn't matter which text we bold, and it makes sense we bold our most up-to-date quality article. --Mz7 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. That the Olympics have begun is far more important than the opening ceremony itself is. Resolute 17:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Reso. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively we could link to the opening ceremony without bolding it.
note- "IOncident" alreadyLihaas (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not Updated the article does not have three full prose paragraphs.
  • Inquiry is this going to be about just the ceremony, or will it include the terrorist threats, the Herodian slaughter of dogs, the ban on liquids in flights, the accommodation horror stories? These all seem much more salient than Putin's girlfriend reportedly lighting the pyre. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Three full prose paragraphs has never been a requirement. Youd be hard-pressed to find as many articles with that much of an update. 2-4 sentences is generally considered fair...and some have even less.
  • Three Full Prose Paragraphs That's a blatantly uninformed claim. Per ITN Criteria:
"In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. An example of the minimum required update for a new article is Fuzhou derailment at the time of its posting."
This article as of my comment was nowhere near up to snuff, and it's still in bad shape. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, no, there is no need ot mention the pov controversies you cite. Netiehr is there precedence for thisLihaas (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Those things should be covered (and perhpas are already), but certainly not in the opening cermonies article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
My meaning was they should be in any relevant target article. They are more notable than the mere opening ceremony. Using the altblurb avoids this issue. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Irrespective of when the opening ceremony occurred, Olympic events occurred on February 6th so they are already open. Posting should probably link to the Games themselves and not just the ceremony. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed, hence my alt blurb suggestion a while ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll work on the opening ceremonies article within the next few hours... There is no reason to not post the sticky (at minimum) now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Not Updated even if we use the main article rather than the opening, I still don't see a single prose paragraph update to the story as of this edit. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm one of those strange people who has always thought that the events are more important than the ceremonies. This thread bothered because of its title's emphasis on one of the latter. Obviously we post the Games, but the opening ceremony is not really important on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready the opening ceremonies article should meet minimum requires now (although I wil continue working on it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready yet. There are all kinds of problems with that article; including dubious facts about attendees and ma ny severe omissions and chronology problems about the program. Article is not in any way stable. Iselilja (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I agreed the list is dubious on talk - and more importantly not needed (it's trivia mostly). Then you re-added it (probably without seeing my agreement), so ball is in your court as to what to do with list - I am fine w/it either way. Thanks for fixing up many of the other problems. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - a lot more work has been done now; opening ceremony article should be ready by any reasonable standard. (Whether to include the dignitary list is an open question, but not crucial to featuring/not featuring the article). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, with 2014 Winter Olympics as the bold link and the opening ceremonies as a regular link. Anyone think that a change from "2014 Winter Olympics" to "22nd Winter Olympics" might be slightly more informative? --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    I guess it doesn't matter much, but the update is actually entirely in the opening ceremony article so it should be the bold link by rule... Certainly no reason to say "2014" - it should be piped to just "Winter Olympics", or "22nd Winter Olympics" would work as you suggest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest changing T:ITN image to File:2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony (2014-02-07) 09.jpg. It Is Me Here t / c 13:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with changing the ITN image. I'd suggest File:Olympic flag, 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony.jpg, though. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, too. It Is Me Here t / c 10:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The other article is ready to so it can be bolded.Lihaas (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sems to have support for thus. Can we place it on the bar?Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

February 6Edit

[Posted to RD] Death of Ralph KinerEdit

Article: Ralph Kiner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (

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: Just announced, a HOF baseball player, so ought to be notable enough for the Recent Deaths line. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 20:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Not only was he a Hall of Fame player, but he also was a broadcaster for 53 years, and was still active at age 91. --Orlady (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems very important to baseball given his stats and lengthy tenure with the Mets as an announcer. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I updated the article, one of the all-time great outfielders and broadcasters. Secret account 22:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 05:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Unseemly Haste once again, we have the same rush to post an article without either four independent supports or a full day passing. I came back to comment on this yesterday and saw it had been posted in a mere nine hours with only three supports beyond the nom. Had the admin voted support, and marked ready, someone else would have posted it. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Jim Stynes didn't didnt get posted at all. Missed out through lack of interest among Americans and Poms. Blatant WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. We MUST find a better way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what Poms are. But I was holding my tongue on this one rather than oppose yet mainly because I am ignorant. I wanted to see other comments. It looks pretty bad in comparison to the Aragones case. I think waiting for the globe to weigh in would have made a bit more sense. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Pom = British person. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pom (slang). I agree this should have been left for longer - it was nominated and posted overnight for Europe, meaning most of the people who had the opportunity to comment were in the Americas. Modest Genius talk 23:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
side discussion I've not looked at the nomination above, but perhaps there should be a 24hr minimum waiting time from nomination to posting so that all time zones get an equal chance to comment ? EdwardLane (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I User:IP98 tried that concept out before in response to similar concerns that I had in past over this kind of rushed jingoistic posting, I can't find a link to it, I'm pressed for time here, but needless to say it was shot down in flames. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure the geography plays a role here but I think the main problem was a relative lack of input by Americans or otherwise. Even in the US he's a relatively obscure figure (to contemporary audiences) and certainly not a household name.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
What has normally been the case is that if we have at least four bold supports and no opposes (that means five, including the nominator) it will go up pretty quickly unless an admin expresses a problem. Noms with only three suports, or, say, four and two opposes, usually take two days to go up when marked ready and there are no other issues. A 24 hour rule would make sense for noms that have less than four bold supports, or that have valid opposes. But it shouldn't apply to noms of household names with four bold supports, no opposes, and no technical problems. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It's that concept of "household name" that's problematic here. Is Kiner, someone unknown outside the US, a household name? HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently no requirement that someone posted to RD be a "household name", only that they meet one of the three criteria; having such a requirement would be problematic at best(how does one judge if someone is a "household name") and would result in drastically fewer postings. That said, if it had been me I might have waited for a bit more support or time before posting, but I oppose any sort of minimum requirements for time or number of postings; the community is more than capable of judging such situations(as we are doing here). 331dot (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
But it's already posted, so obviously the community is NOT capable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We'll the community isn't perfect; also it's possible to pull the posting if the community changes its mind. I used to term 'household name' simply to highlight that I think even to many editors here familiar with US baseball he's not that well known of a figure. That's for a number of reasons, several of which are valid factors of notability and some of which are not. He played a long time ago (we shouldnt' consider that against him), he had a relatively short playing career, and he never played for a 'big' team (which really means he didnt' play for the NY Yankees). So my guess is that the nomination didn't get a lot of input either way as many ppl didn't instantly recognize him as a figure worthy of posting (or not posting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsemlak (talkcontribs)
HiLo just because you did not yet get the result you wanted doesn't mean the community is incapable. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
That is NOT a rational, good faith response to what I have actually said. It's far more like a personal attack! HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I was not personally attacking you in any way, shape, or form. I was simply summarizing what you said; you agreed this should be pulled and then responded to my comment that it was posted so the community is incapable. One does not follow from the other. That's all I was saying. I will also state that if you wish to debate this further you are welcome to post on my usertalk page; I will not take up this page in doing so. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong. I had NOT "agreed this should be pulled". Please apologise. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I do indeed apologize for suggesting that; but regardless my comment was not a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. Perhaps it read poorly because it wasn't a logical response to what I had said. I accept your apology. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The household name comment was meant only to give a sense of what I have observed over two years, not to set an objective criterion or to reflect a prior stated stadard. If the name of a person wold be widely recognized on more than two continents, and the nom got 4 supports in 6 hours, and no opposes, it wouldn't really be objected to that it didn't get voted on by the British because they were asleep. Kiner is definitely not a household name outside his local broadcast area or the sort of fans who memorize records, wins, and statistics. It's really hard to justify this when Aragones wasn't posted. I don't think we're going to hash out a policy here, rather than with an RfC on talk (and I don't that we need one, since this is a limited, recent phenomenon), but I do think it's valid to point out the oddity (given long-term practice) of these swift postings with three or even less supports. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that; I do think this could have gotten a little more time. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • comment. I agree this was posted hastily--I'm surprised that it was frankly. I guess there were three supports and no opposition so it seemed ok; but I'd say we should have allowed a bit more input. He's a hall of fame baseball player but I don't think that's quite a high enough standard. That said, I'd be strongly against any kind of time limit on nominations. There are plenty of nominations that are completely uncontroversial and should be posted ASAP--I think the Pete Seeger one recently is an example. I'm not sure where I stand on this nomination but I suppose he's not much less notable than Maximilian Schell.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please think globally. Schell was known around the world. Kiner will hardly be known at all outside the USA. That in itself doesn't rule him out, but we must get the perspective right. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I am thinking globally and I still think Schell was a borderline case as was Kiner.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Because he was well known outside the US, there's probably ten times more people have heard of Schell than have heard of Kiner. Hardly in the same ballpark on GLOBAL notability. If you WERE thinking globally, it didn't show. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 5Edit

Khoisan carry Eurasian, Neanderthal DNAEdit

Article: Neanderthal admixture theory (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the Khoisan people of southern Africa carry Eurasian and Neanderthal DNA
News source(s): New Scientist quoting Nature PNAS

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: News is slow, and this is a fascinating story, and contradicts prior belief that sub-Saharan Africans do not carry Neanderthal DNA. (The Khoisan include people formerly popularly known as the Bushmen and Hottentots.) There is no updated article yet. But, if there is support, I will add the necessary material to the Neanderthal DNA article. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. In Google, this only shows up as having been covered as a general news story by the Daily Mail. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm why does it matter if this is only covered as general news in Daily mail? Encyclopedic news that is not widely covered by other media should actually be encouraged on ITN -- Ashish-g55 00:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. The basic purpose of ITN, stated at WP:ITN, is to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest".Formerip (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I dont want to steer away from the nomination too much... but i see 4 different points in the "Purpose" section in WP:ITN and none state that it must be of wide interest... it doesn't hurt if its covered widely but that shouldn't be the main reason for supporting/opposing something. I think you might be taking that line a bit too literally -- Ashish-g55 00:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at the very start the page, rather than the purpose section, where it gives a basic one-sentence answer to the question "what is ITN for". If a story isn't of wide interest, it fails the basic definition of an ITN item. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
We have the precedent of posting the Denisovans, and recently a news species of Tapir. The story fits criteria 2 "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events." & 3 "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It's true that we've picked up a bad habit of posting endless random research papers as if they were significant news stories regardless of whether they actually are. But we should stop. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'm interested in supporting this but I would like to see evidence of even a little more news coverage than has thus far been demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This story just broke, and as a science story it's not exactly a banner headline. If that were a "support if..." rather than a weak oppose I'd be willing to start putting in the work for a good update. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's another way of saying what I was trying to say. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We occasionally post new species too, those are hardly all that widely covered in other media. I think this nomination is similar, it is interesting and certainly encyclopedic. SeraV (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's another piece in the anthropology and DNA puzzle; I don't see this as a scientific breakthrough. According to the article, Eurasian DNA (including neanderthal DNA) was strongest among a subset of Khoisan called "Khoe-Kwadi speakers" who are thought to have arrived in South Africa from East-Africa (Ethiopia or similar). That people in Ethiopia etc. have some Eurasian genes have been documented previously. Mainly this shows that the Khoisan tribe has not lived quite as isolated as previously thought; interesting but more another piece in the puzzle than a breakthrough. I am afraid putting this on the mainpage may mislead people to think this is more revolutionary than it is. Iselilja (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not exactly like a pump-and-dump stock scheme. I hardly think our listing new animals species or an Indian Monorail has misled anyone into thinking those were huge breakthroughs either. In any case, I am curious if there are any supports here, the opposes can take care of themselves. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is currently no article on "Khoisan people". It redirects to "Khoisan languages", which is defined as a "linguistic term of convenience" consisting of three different language families that only share a "click" sound. Researchers actually consider the whole term "linguistically invalid". --hydrox (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The article is Khoisan not Khoisan people. I am going to fix the redirect now. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no way to disprove that Eurasians, Neanderthals carry Khoisan DNA (or that there was more recent admixture, or that all derive from some earlier source). Note also that the Yoruba live in the Sahel, a hop, skip and jump away from Europe. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not the opinion of any biologist. To claim that the neanderthals, genetically distinct for 400,000 or more years might carry Khoisan DNA is like saying dinosaurs might have rabbit blood in them. You can say it, no one can disprove it, but it contradicts every fact known to the relevant scientists and every coherent theory they hold. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Prepare to be surprised. Abductive (reasoning) 02:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
By what? Refs? I assume you are just kidding, but the serious point is that Y-chromosome Adam gives a much more recent limit on the origin of the Khoisan than the Neanderthal, by a factor of 2 or 3, if not a factor of 10 by the most liberally interpreted archaeological evidence. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There are major problems with the coalescent. Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, somewhat against the tide perhaps, but it has been quite widely accepted that populations like the Khoisan have been very isolated. Proof that they haven't certainly isn't groundbreaking, but the vast majority of news stories tend not to be. It's evidence of a new part of human migration history, explaining how people ended up where they are today. CMD (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

February 4Edit

[Closed] Jose Salvador AlvarengaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jose Salvador Alvarenga (talk, history)
Blurb: Jose Salvador Alvarenga is found in the Marshall Islands after what he claims is a 13-month voyage across the Pacific.
News source(s): Castaway claims he drifted 13 months in Pacific
Nominator's comments: This was reported on by many major news agencies today, and he arrived in the Marshall Islands only 5 days ago. --Jinkinson talk to me 20:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment How genuine is his claim? I've not read too much into the story TBH. Sounds like a trivial ITN story and more DYK material. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK, it's a perfect candidate for that. --Tone 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK not news. Mostly unsubstantiated claims, and a cute story, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Claims" the problem is the "what he claims" part, and it seems hugely dubious and is being reported that way. The source has a good picture of his fair and fully-fleshed cheeks. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as what he "claims" is not relevant. People "claim" to have seen Yetis, Bigfoots, and Champ too. If there is some way to verify his claims, then maybe, but that seems unlikely. Good DYK suggestion, as stated by others. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Bharat RatnaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Sachin Tendulkar (talk, history) and C. N. R. Rao (talk, history)
Blurb: Sachin Tendulkar and C. N. R. Rao are awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award.
Nominator's comments: India's highest civilian award. Awarded after a gap of 5 years. 43 recipients awardees so far in India's 66 years of existence. Regards, theTigerKing  14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I'm a Sachin fan, this would be opening the floodgates rather. Every country has a highest civilian award and everyone who is awarded one is probably newsworthy to some degree. GoldenRing (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
oppose no indication this is in the news. And at any rate, itll only be a segment of India evenLihaas (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoldenRing. Neljack (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't mind posting "highest civilian" awards if they receive sufficient coverage, but they have to be in the news to be included in In The News, and we have no evidence of that here. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Satya NadellaEdit

Article: Satya Nadella (talk, history)
Blurb: Satya Nadella is named as the next CEO of Microsoft.

Nominator's comments: Third CEO of Microsoft, one of the most known companies on the planet. Making headlines around the world. Regards, theTigerKing  14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose AFAIK we don't post such appointments in any company, regardless of their caliber (including Apple and the like). This may interest a narrow group of people, who read some kind of Business Herald, but not general public. Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
oppose Just read the news, considered nominating here, but its not noteworthy of itself. Or perhaps the change of the guard at the once-largest market cap company after years (the first) is more notable. Still though, this is primarily news in India. Not that big in the USA or the world.Lihaas (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No tangible impact on international affairs.--WaltCip (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least this nom isn't drawing comments calling the outgoing head of MS a horrible person. But the development is simply an expected corportae development, and doesn't count as the sort of breaking newsthat will draw reader interest to an article that needs showcasing. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm a bit bemused by the oppose rationales here. Is this really of interest only to a narrow group of people, not the general public? I think there will be quite a bit of interest. And of course the appointment of a new CEO (though not necessarily Nadella) was expected, but equally one could say that of the US Presidential elections or the Super Bowl. And since when has a "tangible impact on international affairs" been a requirement? How did the Super Bowl or the discovery of some new species meet this criterion? We even post things that are of largely national impact, whereas Microsoft is a global company that has an impact on the global economy, not just the US one. Finally, we really don't post enough business stories. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis' latter comment. Not seeing a lot of evidence this is widely covered yet either. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack - couldn't have said it better myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Medeis and Neljack both put forth reasonable arguments, and I'm (weakly) siding with Neljack's rationale. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack, major technological news, rate for ITN. Secret account 00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would have maybe been interesting news circa fifteen years ago when "personal computer" was synonymous with Windows 95/XP and MS was the undisputed king of the whole digital revolution. MS has since stagnated against competition and is not even the biggest player in PC anymore, while they seem clueless how to regain the monopoly. --hydrox (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as hydrox alludes to, once upon a time Microsoft was PC, nowadays it's not that big a deal. I don't recall us posting Tim Cook becoming Apple CEO and that really was a big deal when Jobs died. MS has a way to go before it is back in the game. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support By every conceivable measure, Microsoft Windows continues to dominate the desktop market, and is a major player in the server market. It is the worlds largest software maker, and one of the most valuable companies in the world. The Xbox 360 is one of the best selling consoles of the last decade. Microsoft is easily a household name, regardless of anyone's opinion of their products. The article is in good shape, and the timer is now red for two days. -- (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a tough one, because I feel like we are potentially opening a can of worms: if we post Microsoft's new CEO, then why not *next company*. However, in accordance with our criteria, I can find no fault with this nomination. It is making headlines and is from an underrepresented field on ITN. The article is in decent shape and updated. Teemu08 (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per Teamu08. I think Microsoft is notable enough and Microsoft's choice of CEO was somewhat surprising.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

February 3Edit

RD Louise BroughEdit

Article: Louise Brough (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (

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: Brough won 35 Grand Slam titles, and is fifth equal on an all time Grand Slam winners list, ahead of many significant current players. We have had very few women sports people listed featured in the recent deaths section. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support International Tennis Hall of Fame it says. That means top of her field. It's a few days old and may still fall through the cracks, but it's not too late to post yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I count more than 30 Grand Slam wins (6 singles, rest doubles) making her one of the winningest players of all time. Article is well referenced; only complaint is a weak lead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stephen Jay Gould wrote a famous essay on how athletes at the beginning of the history of a sport tend to hold an oversized number of the records, since they represent an undersized, underpracticed field--i.e., one with poor competitors. This essay by Shermer summarizes the argument. I'd have to see an argument saying she out-athletes todays players to support this. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The above comment is nonsense. Brough was competing at an extremely competitive time for women's tennis. All the women above her in the list retired at a later date, and she has still won three more grand slams than the highest ranked current player, Serena Williams. Brough is certainly more significant to her sport than a present RD, Ralph Kiner was to his. Sportswomen are sorely underrepresented in this section of the front page. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Joan MondaleEdit

Withdrawn by nominator.Lihaas (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Joan Mondale (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News, USA Today, Huffington Post

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Which of the RD criteria are you asserting she meets? 331dot (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I was going to use number two, focusing on her support of arts funding in the country. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am reminded of the strong opposition to Betty Ford, who was a First Lady, who was a breast-cancer advocate, and who shocked people at the time by discussing her mastectomy, and who was known, of course, for co-founding the Betty Ford Clinic. I am not sure where art patron gets you. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reading the article I'm just not seeing what makes her notable even as an art patron (leaving aside being the VPs wife which I also don't think is notable enough) or what she did as such that set her apart from others, or recognition of her activities. Further I doubt an average American on the street could name some cause Dr. Biden supports, let alone a past Second Lady. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, in light of the Betty Ford example, I'm going to pull this nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

February 2Edit

[Posted] Philip Seymour HoffmanEdit

This was posted, now the discussion is turning unproductive. Please, direct your energy to more useful place ;-) --Tone 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Philip Seymour Hoffman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, 46, is found dead after an apparent drug overdose in his New York City apartment.
Alternative blurb: ​Academy Award-winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, 46, is found dead in his New York City apartment.
News source(s): WSJ, NYPost, CNN

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: Note this may be an unusual death (police are involved, he was only 46, so this might have been a crime, but waiting on that). I'm tagging RD on assumption of natural causes, as PSH was an important - but not that important - actor. But if this is a crime, it might make it a blurb. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Academy Award winner, top of his field, unexpected death etc - (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb shoe-in for RD, may need bump to full blurb if was death by misadventure. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, people will be looking for this. Abductive (reasoning) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Clearly meets the requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb. Oscar winner, multiple other awards and nominations. Quite unexpected. Wait for official confirmation of course. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD A blurb might be too much, but it certainly deserves mention. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • CNN is now reporting it as an apparent drug overdose. I'm going to write a blurb, but I'm still on the RD side of this. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable actor and Academy Award winner. Sounds like a controversial death too. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Acadamy-Award winning actor still in the prime of his career (won a wheelbarrow full of awards for 2012's The Master). Teemu08 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment not voting at this point as I'd like the latitude to post it at RD if required, but since autopsy reports don't come out for several days/weeks, we seem to have either (a) an RD or (b) a blurb with "suspected" or "apparent" in it. The latter is undesirable. Perhaps we limit the blurb to "is found dead"... Comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I've filled the alt blurb to remove the supposition. --MASEM (t) 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Is there any appetite to append "Academy Award winning actor..." at the beginning of the alt blurb? Just for context? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Certainly the news sources I've seen all done that, I can't see why we can't. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Updated alt-blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a blurb but Oppose any mention of "apparent" anything until definite facts are known. Adrienne Shelly's death was quickly revealed to be a murder, but not before it was widely reported that she had "apparently" committed suicide. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment happy to post right now at RD, with an option for full blurb should further consensus be gained to do so. A good solution? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep RD. I don't think this is significant news enough for a full blurb. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • RD only significant enough for RD certainly but a full blurb he is not. The reason being is that while he may of had a good film career and died relatively young, he wasn't a world-wide iconic film star like Liz Taylor or Charlton Heston who died not long ago. He simply doesn't have the career for a full blurb. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb He may not have been a hugely iconic actor, but he died suddenly, received tons of awards, and was still in his prime. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to full blurb this guy won the Oscar a few years ago and was still at the peak of his career. Nergaal (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I disagree with those saying his career does not merit a full blurb. One of the most talented actors in the business dead under unusual circumstances at a relatively young age. This story will be dominating the news cycle for days. A full blurb with a picture is in order, in my view. Jusdafax 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If the career doesn't merit a listing then he shouldn't be at RD either--but the issue here is that the death itself is notable, and for that reason a full blurb is warranted. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That's not what RD has been or was apparently created for. It's either a catchall for people that support for blurbs but don't get strong consensus for such, or for people that editors know are important but a blurb will never fly (eg death by natural causes, like the deaths of Rankin and Seeger of recent). Otherwise, we might as well remove the RD parameter from the template and let the consensus determine if blurb, RD, or not. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. RD was introduced to ensure that worthy postings did not miss out on ITN simply because the blurb would be crap, or because large numbers of people are considered at the top of that particular field (relatively large number of Olympic Golds, Nobel Prizes, Oscars etc). Unusual deaths are the main reason why deaths are still allowed to have full blurbs. The other reason being that very occasionally, someone dies who was truly at the top of their field (Nelson Mandela or Michael Jackson). —WFCFL wishlist 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Blurb posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Phillip Seymour Hoffman died?!? Damn, that's a real bolt from the blue. I was definitely not expecting to see that in the news today... I support a full blurb. Kurtis (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull I do not see any consensus for a blurb. Only about half of those commenting indicated support for a blurb. I am concerned that standards for a blurb are being eroded, undermining the purposes of recent deaths, which have been well explained by WFC. Hoffman was a very fine actor, but this is not the sort of massive global news that would justify a blurb. Nor is there any evidence of foul play. Neljack (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    Looks like a rough consensus for a blurb to me (you can't take comments that just say "support" one way or another.) I am pretty sure that the death itself being the news was the primary reason given for when a death would get a full blurb when RD was instigated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. I can see a consensus for blurb above. A massive global news isnt a criteria for blurb anyways... An unexpected death gives it a lot of weight. -- Ashish-g55 02:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As one of the instigators, yes, means of death that are notable in themselves were a reason given for posting a full blurb. The archived discussions are between Spring and August 2012 on the talk page archives. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, deaths should get a blurb where the manner of death is the story rather than the person who has died. However, it is the alt blurb that has been posted, which doesn't mention the manner of death; IMO this should be RD and no more. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a full blurb as a widely regarded important figure in their field, as evidenced by numerous reports describing him as the greatest character actor of his generation. Stephen 02:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a reason for RD, not for a full blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. A heavily awarded actor who died at the peak of his career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a reason for RD, not for a full blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. We generally post unexpected deaths of notable people like this as blurbs; no reason to not do so here. 331dot (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, support RD. Notable actor, but hardly one of the top ones of his generation, which is what would be required for a full blurb. Exactly the sort of death that RD was created for - so let's use it. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Could be wrong but I have read from others that RD is meant for deaths of notable people where the death itself is not particularly newsworthy- but deaths that are newsworthy can still get blurbs. Hoffman's was top headline news yesterday even while the Super Bowl was on. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, that's one way of making the distinction. But in this case his life was significant, his death is not. There's no disruption to ongoing events, and there isn't going to be a state funeral or major changes to legislation as a result of it, for example. Modest Genius talk 15:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's still headline news around the world. His death is significant, he wasn't expected to die at the age of 46. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, support RD What do you think RD is for? Posting deaths of people no-one has heard of? Deaths get full blurbs when the death itself is what makes it notable; when it's the person who has died that makes it notable then it goes to R|D. As it stands, the blurb just says that he died and doesn't even mention the manner of death ergo it belongs in RD.
post-posting full blurb top of his field for sure. Many hit films and an oscar. Pretty surprised death as well.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"top of his field for sure" is not an argument for a full blurb, that's an argument for RD. If you don't believe me, go read the arguments over any RD nomination; they are all about whether someone was at the top of their field (you know this and I know you know it). The whole of the argument for a full blurb is that an actor died of a drug overdose. Is that really notable in and of itself? This should be pulled and reposted as RD, and clearly no consensus to post full blurb. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose full blurb, support RD. Second WFC's comment above that only truly momentous deaths deserve blurbs - Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, and so forth. I read the arguments above for Hoffman's 'unusual circumstances of death' - though, this still takes up space just to say that he, well, died. I thought it was consensus that were the blurb to simply say that someone died at X age would be redundant. Colipon+(Talk) 18:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
But what makes someone like Jackson "momentous" and Hoffman not? Both died young (under relatively similar circumstances), both deaths made headlines worldwide, and both have strong evidence of them being among the top of their field. I don't disagree that Jackson was the bigger celebrity, but how would we objectively draw the line? What measures would we use? Teemu08 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Colipon, why did you alter GoldenRing's comment to add the phrase ", and clearly no consensus to post full blurb"? ... Again, the actual policy on RDs vs. full blurbs is that blurbs are (primarily) for situiations where the death is the news and RDs are situations when the person's career is the reason for posting. --19:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Close Discussion It has been made quite clear that it is the fact of Hoffman's unexpected newsworthy death itself that justifies a blurb. Yet supports like Lihaas' (admittedly abrupt) "Pretty surprised death as well" are drawing irrelevant criticisms about Hoffman's being at the top of his field not justifying a blurb. Then we get the opposite argument that someone like Michael Jackson, who was huge in his field 20 years ago, but long of frail health, and long without a hit or expectation of one, was a momentous death, while Hoffman's, who was at the top of his game, and would normally have been expected to live another 20 years, wasn't. It's time to draw this to a close. There's very strong consensus based on standing policy that this nomination merits a full listing. Further discussion is a distraction that draws more heat than light. I move the thread be closed as settled. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • support - as a last nail in the coffin. (no pun intended).--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Super BowlEdit

Article: Super Bowl XLVIII (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In American football, the Seattle Seahawks defeat the Denver Broncos to win Super Bowl XLVIII
Alternative blurb: ​The Seattle Seahawks trounce the favorite Denver Broncos to win Super Bowl XLVIII, 43 to 8

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: All set for a potential cancelli9ng out event...#1 defence vs. #1 offence...should be a classic.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Why nominate it before it's ready? It's ITN/R so you don't need to build any consensus to post it based on anything else besides readiness, and the game doesn't kickoff for seven hours from now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Kill with fire – article is 12-16 hours away from us judging whether it is in a good enough condition to post, and even that assumes that there is no controversy which slows the whole thing down. —WFCFL wishlist 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Every time you start an ITNR discussion early, an angel dies. --Jayron32 03:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's very rare that sticking the knife in is productive. This is one such time. The game was more of a comedy show than a contest (I blame Lihaas for predicting it would be a classic on an inappropriate forum), the article is not ready 8 hours after the end (I partially blame Lihaas for taking away the carrot of the person actually doing the work nominating, and then not adding a single piece of content after the event has actually started), and even the ITN regulars have held back in their support for this obvious posting (I blame Lihaas for making this such an embarrassing nomination to support).

    See y'all in a month or so :) —WFCFL wishlist 11:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WOw! youve tickeld yourself for blaming while not being productive yourself. Kudos.
At any rate, it was nominated the day of the game itself. But boy was that a boring game!Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nobody said he had to be productive, but he rightly pointed out that you were counterproductive, much as you are with every "X wins a plurality in Y election". People who wanted to update that content updated the content, and they had no particular incentive to nominate it here, since you already did it. Premature noms are not helpful, since there was nothing to evaluate, and the updating wasn't done for at least ten hours after you nominated it, since the game hadn't ended. In the future, you should wait until the update is complete before nominating. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I too find the quick (before results are known) nominations to be pointless at best, and counterproductive at times. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ditto, I have mentioned before that premature nominations are counterproductive and usually result in them being overlooked or actively argued against. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb even though an angel will die. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Saying "trounced" is adopting a POV. We need to stick to the facts. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No, saying, "fortunately trounced" would be POV. Just saying "trounced" reflects the sources, which also say "crushed" and "routed". As for facts, can't get closer than saying 43-8. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether a particular victory qualifies as a "trouncing" is a matter of opinion and thus shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice, though we can of course quote sources describing it as such in the article. Neljack (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree the blurb should be simple and not characterize the victory in such a manner(even if reasonably). 331dot (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now given the the the game summary section needs some serious expanding. Likely support once the article is filled out. Canuck89 (chat with me) 06:06, February 3, 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: the blurb should avoid a) the scoreline, b) POV words like 'trounce' and c) ENGVAR problems like defeat/defeats. ITNR also suggests including the MVP. I suggest the simple alternative:
In American football, the Seattle Seahawks win Super Bowl XLVIII (most valuable player Malcolm Smith pictured)
We can also use an image of Smith (right). The prose summary now looks fine, but could do with a few citations. Otherwise good to go. Modest Genius talk 12:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
In which version of English would "The Seattle Seahawks defeats the Denver Broncos" be cromulent? This seems like Engvar paranoia. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair point, because 'Seahawks' is a plural even AmE uses 'defeat'. Apologies - I know this is a frequent issue, so the mere fact that it sounds OK to me doesn't mean it does to other varieties of English. Modest Genius talk 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. Improvements are always welcome but the update meets the requirement. Someone upload the picture, please. --Tone 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment current blurb is just fine, no need for the mention or picture of the MVP at all, irrelevant to the rest of the known universe. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 1Edit

[Closed] NBA Commissioner David Stern retires after 30 years in the jobEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: David Stern (talk, history) and Commissioner of the NBA (talk, history)
Blurb: David Stern retires after 30 years as the Commissioner of the NBA
News source(s): Aol, CBS

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Hold the job for 30 years, the longest in the history of the NBA, one of the most pupular sports event in the world. Had the job for almost as many years as all previous commissioners combined.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We generally don't post retirements of sports figures; a lot of the stuff you mention would make him a good candidate for RD when (in the future) he dies. This is a little different even since his achievements were administrative in nature and not on the court(or in the coach's box) as with the few retirements we have posted (Ferguson, Yao Ming I think). I'm not yet sure if he is up to that level or not. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose No doubt he's significant in some way, but NBA being popular and being in a job for 30 years doesn't come across as a strong argument for this retirement to be included on the front page I'm afraid. If you could elaborate further on why his retirement is so important...please do. What effect would it have on the NBA? American basketball in general? I'm looking for more details from someone who knows more :P. ITN is not an honors column --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose possible. I'll strongly oppose anything that will make Lakers fans happy, The Veto be damned (LOL). Seriously, the NBA isn't changing that much during the transition; the effects will be seen later once Adam Silver starts making some hard decisions. But the difference between's Stern's last day and Silver's first day on the job is nil. –HTD 16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Big news within the NBA, but not a significant development outside of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Business personnel changes aren't posted, and unless an argument is presented, the NBA is no exception. SpencerT♦C 20:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Horrible guy, but it's not that significant. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed.