Open main menu

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

Contents

January 31Edit


[RD] Miklós JancsóEdit

Article: Miklós Jancsó (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Reuters

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Hungarian director. Nominated for Best Director five times at Cannes Film Festival, winning once. He also received a lifetime achievement award from Cannes and a Hungarian national honor. --Teemu08 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Skimming the article, he seems to be very important in Hungarian cinema. Would be a good thing to have an RD listing from an atypical nation. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems significant enough. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I could support based on notability, but must oppose based on article quality. Its looks like roughly half the article is unreferenced and most of the rest relies on a single source (which creates neutrality issues). If referencing is improved, consider me a supporter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose on notability/quality. The Red Psalm and The Red and The White (two Soviet-sanctioned propaganda works) are the only films of his that aren't single-sentence lead stubs with a cast list appended. If his works merit posting on their own standing we should have some articles on them. That's entirely possible, but it's not evidenced. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone, masses of unreferenced text. Certainly notable enough for those two golden words in the RD section of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] [RD] Arthur Rankin, Jr.Edit

Article: Arthur Rankin, Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Royal Gazette

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 key player in animation of the mid-late 20th century ( half of Rankin / Bass, the people that created stop-motion animation like Rudoulph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, as well as other animation (The Hobbit, etc.) Obviously left to RD only, no blurb suggested. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Hugely influential. His article is barely a stub though, and is certainly not updated. I think we can look more to Rankin/Bass Productions for proof of notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but I agree with Medeis that the article could use expansion. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. Jón - (Talk) 00:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll add a few things from the Royal Gazette article. We've run into this problem with duos before that the main article focuses on the the notable work and the individual articles are stubs. I don't think that should be an impediment to posting here. Note also that he died where he had resided in Bermuda for decades, and the news seems to be slow hitting London and New York. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The article has been expanded and updated. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hugely influential animator. --Jayron32 02:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Marked ready per that support. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I am personally unfamiliar with his work but it appears he was quite important in his field. Jusdafax 04:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Very light on references, including an unreferenced section. Stephen 06:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I have aded a few more references to that section. Virtually every fact in that article can be verified to the Royal Gazette obituary if necessary, but I didn't see the point in overkill.. That he produce or wrote a show (which is properly identified by a link) does not need further citation in proof, since the credits of the primary source do that. If there's anything else that needs verifying it should be tagged. Otherwise this is ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose large back-catalogue of animations, and just about squeezed an award in 1977 (which wasn't even mentioned on his page until I added it), but I'm not seeing any real widespread news coverage of this, and the "career" section of the article is in need of expansion and referencing. There's little to suggest his career was much more than "quantity over quality", no major awards for any of his work outside the Peabody for The Hobbit, not considered influential in the same way many others are/were. I tidied a lot of it up, but don't have time to go seeking refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Added more references, hid one claim that seems likely but was unverifiable. Marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

[RD] Anna Gordy GayeEdit

Article: Anna Gordy Gaye (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Rolling Stone

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: Sister of Berry Gordy, wife of Marvin Gaye, important musician and songwriter in Motown of her own right as well. Update is pretty minimal, and I may get on that if I have some time, though of course anyone else is invited to help as well. --Jayron32 02:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Reading the article as it is now, other than being Gaye's wife I don't see how she is very important in her field. I don't see what honors or recognition she has gotten or other ways to indicate her importance to music. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've had a run through the article, fixing the most obvious issues, but per 331dot, it appears most of her notability was conferred on her by marrying Gaye. No major awards, not top of her field, not seeing how she meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

January 30Edit


[Posted] New Sappho poems discoveredEdit

Article: Sappho (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two new poems written by seventh-century BC Greek poet Sappho are discovered on a piece of papyrus.
Alternative blurb: ​Two new poems written by seventh-century BC Greek poet Sappho are discovered.
News source(s): Newsnight, t= 42:16

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The known extant canon of a very famous Greek poet has been expanded; hardly every day that something like this happens. Plus, according to the expert in the BBC Newsnight interview, in terms of the volume of new text, the addition to the canon has been substantial. See Sobekhotep I for recent T:ITN precedent. --It Is Me Here t / c 18:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment the source you've linked to is a video inaccessible outside the UK. Otherwise, I'd love to support this. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    Here are some sources [1], [2], [3], [4]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support since this has basically doubled the known corpus. (Thanks for the refs.) μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the article suggests "due to be published in a scholarly journal by Dr. Dirk Obbink in spring 2014." so let's wait until then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As far as I can tell, authorship is just the opinion of one academic. I'd probably reverse my vote if it could be shown that there is broad acceptance of the claim within the field. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • In addition to e.g. ThaddeusB's comment, p. 2 n. 2 of the paper lists academics who worked with Obbink on this. It Is Me Here t / c 14:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a wide expansion of the extant corpus of a historically-significant and well-known writer. Certainly not an everyday occurrence! The objection based on the publication is mute moot, because according to the Guardian reference above it has already been accepted for publication. Modest Genius talk 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Presumably you mean moot... In any case, the news will actually occur when these are published, not now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - substantial find. It would have been preferable if the researchers had not made this public until the paper was set to be published, but that isn't the case. Given that significant coverage on the release of the paper is unlikely, I think now is the time to post. As to the "opinion of one academic" critique, the NPR source (third one listed by Mohamed) has a quote from an apparent Sappho expert agreeing with the conclusion. (For the record, I believe the poems themselves are out - only the paper attributing authorship is not.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I managed to find the Greek on pp. 9 f. of the paper, and an English translation published on the Guardian, inter alia. It Is Me Here t / c 14:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Of substantial interest to archaeology, literature, feminist studies and classical history. One of those is bound to be a minority subject at ITN, too. GRAPPLE X 23:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB and GRAPPLE X. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

[Closed]Murder of Meredith KercherEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 10:10, 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.

Article: Murder of Meredith Kercher (talk, history)
Blurb: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are re-convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher.
News source(s): BBC, The New York Times, Le Monde, Sydney Herald,
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thought this may be a little "local" (UK/Italy/US) but since it's being widely reported around the world, and since there are now calls to extradite Knox from the US, and since Sollecito has been arrested on his way to the Italy/Austria border, this is most definitely in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The first appeal was also posted. But oppose because, at the end of the day, it's just a murder trial and because the article is a hopelessly biased towards the defence. Formerip (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose unless USA to Italy extradition fails in an interesting manner (or something similar) - that would be more significant than a murder trial (apologies for my own bias but - yawn)EdwardLane (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support as this is a widely covered and top story (despite being just a murder trial), and pointing such things out is part of the mission of ITN. I do wonder if it would be better to wait until her extradition(or failure to do so) as the Italians can't do much unless they have her. The verdict also is not final as it must be reviewed by the higher court in Italy- but I see no reason to prevent its being posted now. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Media circus does not equal ITN. A variant of "missing white woman syndrome", only more aligned with the Jodi Arias case. Its only received the coverage it has because like Arias, Knox is considered attractive. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose timing I would support the article going up as it's one of the more significant news stories in this sort of area however with another appeal and an extradition still pending I feel it's too early to post. CaptRik (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tabloid-style news. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How is that, exactly? 331dot (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a special case in my opinion. it goes beyond the usual deletionist reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Who said anything about deletion? Opposition doesn't believe these are "significant developments" because the story has questionable significance on the ITN scale. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is lurid tabloid fodder. The story is only widely reported because the victim and perpetrator are both attractive young women, and the crime was allegedly sexually motivated. Whilst that might generate widespread rubber-necking readership, it's still just a murder trial featuring people with no notability beyond the murder. Fine to have an article on it, but not to feature on ITN. Modest Genius talk 17:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Tabloid fodder covered by many non-tabloid sources? As demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Andrea Mitchell, a real journalist, broke away from an interview with Jane Harman about the NSA spying, a real issue and a real expert, to bring breaking coverage of the Bieber arraignment. Even though MSNBC (and all the others with Bieber fever) is not a tabloid source, we rightfully didn't post that Bieber is an ass. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Comparing the larks of Bieber to a murder trial is quite unfortunate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Very few murder cases involve people from several nations (the UK, US, and Italy in this case; even the Ivory Coast) which gives it international notability beyond a simple murder case. If you don't like the criteria that the media uses to cover an event(such as one suspect being "attractive", if that's even true), take it up with the media, not us. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm not comparing Bieber to a murder trial. I'm comparing "news coverage" of Bieber to "news coverage" of a murder trial. And it's long been consensus here that simply being "in the news" doesn't make something automatically worthy to be In The News. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
              • I think it's clear what your comparing to what. I'd stop digging if I were you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                • I think you should stop focusing on whatever you're implying and focus on the merits of your nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • Of course you do. Your position is very clear, thanks for popping by. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support front page capital legal story in two countries, overturned in supreme court, updated, article is in good shape, the tabloid aspect of this, if any, rides on the judicial and international aspect. It's not just about a football player divorcing a car dealer's daughter. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose who cares? --Երևանցի talk 18:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently, the readers of the numerous sources who are covering this story around the world. Just because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. Pardon me for saying so, but that's a poor reason to oppose a nomination. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, millions of people have nothing else to worry about. As Muboshgu has pointed out, this is a prime example of Media circus. What's notable about it? --Երևանցի talk 18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously it is important enough for you to care about it. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I also care about what I'm going to eat soon, and? The death of one person and subsequent media speculations are not newsworthy for me. And as you can see, many other users share my opinion. --Երևանցի talk 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
But what you eat would never be headline news all over the world my friend. That is the main difference. By the way, making a likeness between what you eat and the murder of a young woman which then becomes world news makes a just case that you are not understand what ITN is about. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Except they haven't told you what they eat, which could make all the difference... Formerip (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We really shouldn't post these one off murder stories, they really are unimportant in the end. Like Muboshgu pointed out these are just media circuses, we have no need to participate in them. SeraV (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a "one off murder story", it has gone on for years and will likely go on for a few more years, and is fundamentally an international story. A good chunk of the stories we post are "media circuses" (including US Presidential elections). If you dislike what the media covers, you should take that up with them. At least part of the role of ITN is to reflect what is being covered in the media. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Not like you ever oppose any stories that media happens to cover (Snowden, hint, hint). Have you taken those up with them I wonder? No? Then stop whining about other peoples opinions. SeraV (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not phrase your comment as "whining" so I would appreciate the same courtesy. I oppose regular Snowden postings (which I concede has not happened in a little while) about a one-time leak being artificially stretched out by the media, that threaten to turn this into a Snowden ticker. We are not in danger of being an Amanda Knox ticker nor is this story being artificially stretched out by the media. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree this is artificially stretched, this is also a non-story. And yes yes I have heard your reasoning for your misguided patriotism many times already. SeraV (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not artificially stretched, she was just convicted again after a legal process, unlike the Snowden leak which happened and was over with but where the content is being held and selectively released by Snowden's media allies to generate attention(regardless of the merits of his claims). For a "non-story" (and likely international disagreement) it's being given a lot of front-page stories in the media. In case you haven't checked recently, part of the mission of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events". Your erroneous "misguided patriotism" accusation requires no response as it is irrelevant. I will have no further comment on this aspect as we obviously have differing views on this matter. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This story will be fascinating people well into the 2100's. See Lizzie Borden, if you doubt it.
Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
She gave her father forty-one.
μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You know what people will be talking about 100 years from now? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do. We're not all college freshman editting this website. There are some dozen books on this at Amazon. And there are innumerable precedents, such as the Lindbergh kidnapping, yatta, yatta, etc. The story is lurid. That doesn't make it not encyclopedic. It is a high court case involving two countries, front-page worldwide coverage, the concepts of in absentia, extradition, and capture fleeing justice. The article, which is in good shape, has a long term-interest of 1,500 hits a day on average, and over 118,000 yesterday. The only argument against listing this is the reverse prejudice that we shouldn't post it because there were two pretty women involved. That's a bit odd if you think about it. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The point is that a murder of one or two people can be a significant story. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major news story on two continents. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been the trial version of the Hokey Pokey, with convictions and acquittals being recinded and reinstated and retried, etc. Commentators I have read have stated the U.S. in unlikely to honor the most recent conviction because her prior acquittal would make the most recent trial a violation of double jeopardy. This seems like sound and fury signifying nothing... --Jayron32 02:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ultimately not really any more significant that any other murder. Neljack (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the international media has covered it....many users will come here and wonder why ITN is not reflecting a story heavily covered in regular media around the world. Clearly this isn't going to be posted, but we are missing the forest for the trees here. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Media coverage depends on many things about from significance (which if the criterion for ITN). If the victim had been from Equatorial Guinea and the accused from Paraguay, it would have been most unlikely to get anywhere near as much attention, but I hope we could all agree that it would not have been any less significant. Neljack (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • 302,000 hits I am not exactly sure what American disdain for the Italian justice system has to do with not posting this article. Top of the news international story with fugitive flight to Austria and supreme court case in Italy--not news? μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Your point? Page views are not a criteria for posting or not posting. If anything, it shows that people are able to find the page without needing ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have some sort of resolution. While the whole Kercher/Knox/Sollecito story is undoubtedly newsworthy, this reconviction is far from the end of the story with another appeal likely and then who knows what else. We don't need to post a blurb for every new development and should wait until Knox and Sollecito exhaust their appeals with the US government extraditing Knox or the Italian courts come to the conclusion that there is nothing left to pursue. AgneCheese/Wine 17:53, 1 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.

January 29Edit


[Posted] STAP cellsEdit

Article: Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency cell (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists find a way to make a new type of stem cell, STAP cell.
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists announce a new technique for creating stem cells in the laboratory.
News source(s): Scientist, The Guardian CNN

Article updated

 61.245.25.16 (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support upon adequate update; a notable development in stem cell research being covered in mainstream media(not just science websites). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • it's been known for a while that there are ways to induce pluripotency, this seems like press release hype and the fact that "stem cell" is a sexy concept is driving the press attention. Nevertheless, it is a good development, and I like science nominations. The article is no where near ready, however. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support was going to nominate this yesterday as I kept running into news articles about it but the wiki page didn't exist, could do with more expansion first though. EdwardLane (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Unable to assess. The article is so bare-bones that it conveys almost no information. From the Guardian link above, it seems to be news in that field, but I can't work out if it's more broadly significant. In particular, this doesn't seem to apply to human cells. If the article can be brought up to a reasonable standard, and include an explanation of the context and significance, I'm willing to re-assess. Modest Genius talk 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support but with different blurb. This is MASSIVE news in the field, everybody was very excited at work yesterday. Though I'm not sure if this is mainstream enough to post on the main page with a meaningful blurb. The current blurb is not really correct, or at least inaccurate, as they seem to be pretty much indistinguishable from iPS (yes, I've scrutinised the actual Nature paper), the authors just called them STAPs to avoid claiming too much and having to back down later. Fgf10 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems important, but I'm in no position to judge one way or the other. But the STAP cell article is just a two-sentence stub. Gamaliel (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - this sounds like a really big deal (that's what those who work in the field are saying anyway). The article is now in good shape. I am BOLDly marking this as ready since all opposition was related to the article shape, not the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Willing to post, however, please first agree on the blurb since this is one of the issues here. --Tone 10:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    I have left a comment with Fgf10 (talk · contribs) and a couple of the article contributors asking for input on the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Although I'd prefer if we linked to the shorter name (STAP cells) instead of the longer one (Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency cell), which I find repellent for the general public.Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason there's been so much buzz about this method is its simplicity; to make iPS cells you need a cocktail of specific factors whereas this research is saying just give them a squeeze, or quick dip in weak acid. So maybe that could be in the blurb, something like Scientists announce a simple new technique for creating stem cells in the laboratory, or even "surprisingly simple" if that isn't too click-baity. benmoore 16:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I should add that I'd also Support alt blurb as-is. benmoore 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb - good work from the updaters. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

January 28Edit


[Posted/Bumped]Ukranian prime minister resignsEdit

Article: 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amidst ongoing anti-government riots, the Ukrainian prime minister Mykola Azarov resigns.
Alternative blurb: ​Amidst ongoing anti-government riots, the Ukrainian prime minister Mykola Azarov resigns.
News source(s): FOX News, Kyiv Post

Update current Ukraine entry --bender235 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support bump, significant development. Brandmeistertalk 09:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. This is definitely a significant development in addition to cancelling the anti-protest laws. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; the resignation of a head of government due to the protests is a significant development. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. He has only offered to resign. Formerip (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment its not just the PM resigning correct? it will be the government stepping down... Someone from same government wont be replacing him -- Ashish-g55 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
oppose heads of govt are not ITNR and not themost powerful. Also Ukraine is on ITN already and that should sufice.Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe update ITN with the updates of what is happening? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support bump for ongoing news headlining stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with both targets once Azarov article updated. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per Ashishg55, the blurb should really say that the cabinet has resigned. Formerip (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Like the blurb currently up, this text gives the impression that the anti-government forces are rioting ... yet our article includes some very peculiar reports indeed of police throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at protestors. I would omit "anti-government" from the hook, at least. My suggestion was "Ukrainian prime minister Mykola Azarov resigns after new anti-protest laws lead to riots and are revoked." (I'm seeing sources say he already resigned [5]) But please - do update this ASAP! Wnt (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support bump - important development. --Tóraí (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support bump - Significant news and Azarov article appears updated. Jusdafax 22:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted with riots bolded for now. Stephen 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

January 27Edit


[Posted] [RD] Pete SeegerEdit

Article: Pete Seeger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News NY Times Times of India Mirror Independent Israel National News SBS

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: Internationally renowned singer, his death is being reported all over the world. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Massive influence, in many parts of the world, over a very long career. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Obvious for RD, per HiLo48. Jusdafax 08:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, very clearly top of his field.--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Came here to nominate, clearly very important in his field. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly hugely significant and influential in his field over c70 years as the tributes from other singers show. One of the main front page stories on the BBC website today and first item on BBC radio news earlier this morning too. Article looks in good shape too with plenty about his life and career and has been updated with his death. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If I had a hammmer... Support per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Formerip (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support from Canada. I'll add this blog post here; Seeger played Jewish children's camps, and by playing one in Canada, helped inspire some of the biggest names in Canadian music during the 1960s and 1970s. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support A legend of folk music. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

ICJ ruling Peru v. ChileEdit

 --Pikolas (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The settling of a border dispute is notable. 331dot (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a compromise that seems to change no facts on the ground and the given sources are extremely vague, not giving maps, and saying Chile keeps its fishing grounds while Peru gets some sort of vague bone thrown it. Certainly no indication this is of real consequence. μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So if the two countries had been at war and the citizens were killing each other it would be more notable? Just because the citizens got along doesn't mean there are no consequences; 2000 Chileans are expected to lose their jobs and Chliean companies that deal in fishing products will lose revenue due to the loss of fishing grounds. Fishing rights are one of the primary reasons for maritime border disputes and to see one case resolved is notable. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, then it would be. The articles I read on the subject suggest border crossing is very liberal, the resources are already being split up amicably. If this decison were to cause a dispute it would be notable. The Ukrainian PM resignation is much bigger news. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. To have two countries settle a boundary dispute IS of real consequence. Both presidents say they will support the decision. The article is well written and is being constantly updated. GroveGuy (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has some tags and the image is not very informative in this resolution. Otherwise, tentative support once the issues are resolved. --Tone 08:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, however the article does need work. Encyclopaedic story, and it's not often that border disputes are resolved. Sort out the article and then this should be posted. Modest Genius talk 12:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I've seen ITN targets that are just a few sentences in an article - this whole article is about the controversy. While obscure, it is interesting because it provides background to potentially far more serious disputes in the South China Sea, for example. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready - Unfortunately, the article has two orange-level tags that will need addressed before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] New Constitution of TunisiaEdit

Article: Constitution of Tunisia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Tunisia's National Constituent Assembly approves the first constitution since the Tunisian Revolution.
Alternative blurb: ​Tunisia's National Constituent Assembly approves a new constitution following the 2011 Tunisian Revolution.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, Reuters

Nominator's comments: This event is considered "one of the last steps to establishing full democracy three years after the [Revolution]" (Reuters). Unlike Egypt, the Tunisians were united and it passed with 200/216. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Tentative support, the article just needs some more prose. --Tone 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • support strongly came here to nom it, this is definately noteworthy. Akin to posting a new flag change (malawi)Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment article says it was approved on 26 January, so is this nom in the right section? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't mind moving it below. I only heard of it today anyway. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It was approved last night and signed into law today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, once properly updated. Nsk92 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, clearly notable and now updated. I've suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It also followed (came after) the Revolution. It is more directly related to the Revolution than the more resent protests; although I am sure the protests played a role in the timing of its completion, it was the Revolution that caused the document to start being drafted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The draft-writing would have never proceeded if the political crisis (which is still ongoing btw) had not been partially solved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What you are saying is probably correct (except that the Revolution was 3 years ago), but the bigger picture that is reflected in the media is that this came after the Revolution to fulfill one of its main demands. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 56th Grammy AwardsEdit

Article: 56th Grammy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 56th Grammy Awards, Daft Punk wins four Grammys, including Album of the Year and Record of the Year.
News source(s): Huffington Post

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: The award show is ITN/R. Should we link Daft Punk twice in the blurb or only once? Andise1 (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I think we usually also post Album of the Year, yet to be announced. Teemu08 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly from years past, did we not post the four major awards: Song, Record, Album and New Artist? --PlasmaTwa2 07:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell (2009, 2010, 2011), only those two. Teemu08 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've bolded the target article and kept to the ITN/R deal of mentioning just the record of the year. No comment on article suitability yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a reason why the word "annual" is included in the article title? Compare with the 86th Academy Awards and not the 86th Annual Academy Awards, for example. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, seems redundant. However I'd suggest this form part of a move request as it impacts, well, at least 56 psges... Meanwhile, the blurb avoids its use so that's not a major issue for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment From an importance angle, this should certainly be posted, and it's on ITN/R. However, there's almost no prose in the article, and it's all about the lead-up to the awards, not the awards themselves. The article also says that Daft Punk won five Grammys, but they didn't- they won four, because Best Engineered Album only goes to the engineers, who were not the members of Daft Punk. With all of that said, if the news were to be posted, I would change the blurb to
At the 56th Grammy Awards, Daft Punk wins four Grammys, including Album of the Year and Record of the Year.
-- Mike (Kicking222) 14:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Technically, yes, but the reliable sources list five, so we should as well. It is not our job to be accurate, just verifiable. The Grammy Website now lists them with only four, so it is appropriate. Teemu08 Teemu08 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe we should just skip it. Not exactly a lot of support 24 hours later. In fact, none. Jusdafax 09:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    As it's ITNR, support is presumed. From me, support when updated FWIW.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's reject it as stale. Jusdafax 06:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready Over a day later and not much opposition to the shape of the article. The article compares well to other years of Grammy Awards. Updating the blurb as well. Teemu08 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is still marked as needing updating, and the only aspects being covered in the news are the sheer vulgarity of the ceremony, and the fact that a forty-year old piece by Marvin Gaye and two Cylons won best song. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
With your opinion of gays noted, is there anything actionable about your oppose? Teemu08 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are referring to. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting now. The only text is in the lead but the entire article is about the events on Sunday, so I think it does meet the minimum requirement.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's an ENGVAR issue with "Daft Punk wins". Could we maybe have ..."four Grammys, including Album of the Year and Record of the Year, are awarded to Daft Punk"? Formerip (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

January 26Edit


[Closed] Australian Open TennisEdit

Duplicate Nomination, See Original Below μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 26 January 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 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Stanislas Wawrinka (pictured) defeats Rafael Nadal to win the men's 2014 Australian Open.
Alternative blurb: ​The Australian Open concludes with Stanislas Wawrinka (pictured) winning the men's singles and Li Na winning the women's singles.

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: Holy shit! What a result? --Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR. I also think we should mention the winner of the women's singles as we usually do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but with a much shorter blurb. Nergaal (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality. There is very little prose - a list of "notable events" is not prose and is borderline POV. Instead each day's activity ("notable events") should be summarized on organized by date (and refernced, which is largely not done at current). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a mess, completely without order, impossible to read through and easily find the information you're looking for, and as for "notable events", please read {{trivia}}. It doesn't even mention Li Na in the wholly inadequate lead, and a lot of the poor prose is written in the wrong tense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid TRM and and Thaddeus are right about the article quality. I've added a paragraph to the lead on the winners of the major titles (which you'd think would be pretty basic information to include in the lead section of an article on a tennis tournament), but the article will require much more work if it is to be posted. Neljack (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am closing this as a duplicate, see the original nomination belowμηδείς (talk) 20:43, 26 January 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] Australian Open TennisEdit

Article: 2014 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Li Na defeats Dominika Cibulková to win the women's 2014 Australian Open.
Alternative blurb: ​The Australian Open concludes with Stanislas Wawrinka (pictured) winning the men's singles and Li Na winning the women's singles.

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: Finally my girls in the final...game is almost done with first set. --Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Suggest you fix the dab link in the blurb. And not sure how the article can be updated if the match hasn't concluded yet and could be hours away. Also, suggest this waits until the men's final is concluded tomorrow for a combined blurb rather than X defeats Y in womens and A defeats B in mens.... And whole article will need to be updated to ensure the Open has been "concluded" e.g. tense changes etc. There is also no prose on the final(s), I don't think a suitable update for this is simply to add the score lines into one of the many hundreds of tables in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Done.
We do post womens and then update to add mens. Its not hours aways, its minutes away. Cibulkova is down 4-0 in the 2nd set. its all over ;(
How anti-climactic...Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
So are you adding a prose update to the final then? And you now have a redlink in the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
5-0...I will in a bit...probs after speeches in some 20 minsLihaas (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Section updated with prose on the main page. Ready to post.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid the article is a mess. Why are the "Final" (note, there are many "finals" in this tournament) and "Ana Ivanovic defeats Serena Williams" picked out as "Notable events"??! Needs overhaul.
Its ITNR...only the update can hold it up. So what is "tragic" about it? In the past years weve posted this and other sports events that are worse on prose updates. Its pretty much standard article as in every year so i dont see whats "tragic"Lihaas (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
See above. The odd juxtaposition of "notable events" including a "Final"... awful. Not to mention a terrible lead, and awful prose for the "update". At least last year's article had a prose summary of each day's play and placed the synopsis of the final in the appropriate place... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that (and tagged and put on the talk page), but the final is certainly notable. Many articles even have a separate page for it so the section at least warrants it.
Ill look into replicating that, but im not sure about prose for weach day. I actually missed this years tournament exceptfor the finals.
And as the men's final is going...WOW!
Better?Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Okey, well I tried and put on discussion . As usual n o one wants to discuss but just revert...so im not going to war over it. I tried, so if everyone wants to have a word there for consistency's sake as the hidden note is a flagrant lie : "THIS PART OF THE ARTICLE IS INTEGRAL AND TYPICAL TO GRAND SLAM ARTICLES" (caps s not mine)Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

These are non-redundant votes that have been copied from the duplicate nomination above: (-Medeis)

  • Support per ITNR. I also think we should mention the winner of the women's singles as we usually do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but with a much shorter blurb. Nergaal (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality. There is very little prose - a list of "notable events" is not prose and is borderline POV. Instead each day's activity ("notable events") should be summarized on organized by date (and refernced, which is largely not done at current). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is a mess, completely without order, impossible to read through and easily find the information you're looking for, and as for "notable events", please read {{trivia}}. It doesn't even mention Li Na in the wholly inadequate lead, and a lot of the poor prose is written in the wrong tense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid TRM and and Thaddeus are right about the article quality. I've added a paragraph to the lead on the winners of the major titles (which you'd think would be pretty basic information to include in the lead section of an article on a tennis tournament), but the article will require much more work if it is to be posted. Neljack (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Good job on the lead, don't blame you for leaving the rest, it's a proper mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I tried removing the notability section that is added on false premises but was reverted, i then left a note on the talk page. Since we have 2 people here who agree with me, perhaps your input would help in talk and move consensus towards removing it. I have added a more than sufficient update requirement for both finals with sources.
Only the 1 section isa @mess@ the rest is consistent with last yearLihaas (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until the section tagged with the orange banner is fixed. After that, consider this a support. --Jayron32 01:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
instead of bitching here, move it. 3 adimns and me still think it ought not to be here. so do somethingLihaas (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: The improperly formatted text was simply removed by Lihaas, citing talk page consensus. However, both TRM and I did not argue it should be remoevd, but rather properly formatted (incorporated into relevant sections instead of left as a list). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
bkloody hell, I try to do a favour to get moving instead of bitching and that too is a problem . fine then, undone. happy?Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have now taken the time to properly integrate all the "notable events" material into the article, edit it to give it proper context, and reference the stuff that was not previously referenced. Since the event is ITNR, it should be ready for posting now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I will post myself if no one complains by tomorrow (but would prefer someone else do it since I edited the article) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 03:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

January 25Edit


[Pulled] Moro Islamic Liberation Front ceasefireEdit

Article: Peace process with the Bangsamoro in the Philippines (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front reach a peace deal after over half a century of fighting.
Alternative blurb: ​Filipino MILF finally gives in after decades of resistance.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article updated

Nominator's comments: an end to conflict is notable --Lihaas (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, although this is not "the end", as the agreement would have to go through the legislative process which could take quite a bit of time. However, the next time we'd see a development to this story would be at least a year from now, so there shouldn't be worries of posting updates on the same story in a short span of time. –HTD 13:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Was looking for you to come here with more insight. Could you update the page?Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the article must have someone updating this so I'll defer to those people first. –HTD 13:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Theyre still firing ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated. The article now has a relevant section about the recent events. Also, I replaced the section title as the previous one didn't really describe what happened. –HTD 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The peace deal is with MILF not the Moro generally. That is,. not MNLF...nor is it with Abu Sayaaf (thatll never happen, al qaeda is maniacal), nor is it with NPA. Even the bluerb makes that clear.
Some immature people (like the previous editor who is oblivious to reality in changing the title) may not realise it, but the title has specific., mature, politial reasons. As a Pinoy, you should know the specifics.Lihaas (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's true, but we shouldn't be delving into acronyms that either no one understands, or would be misinterpreted, more so on section titles. "MILF" doesn't give context. I would've rather went with the full name. –HTD 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iff the acronym is used. Nergaal (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Iff you subvert the importnce of international news to the opportunity to publish a mildly mischievous acronym, you should probably desist from expressing opinions on what should appear on the main page of this project. Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
And iff you are unable to notice sarcasm, then you should probably stop masturbating your opinions on this project. Nergaal (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Poe's law, I guess. At any rate, let's keep it civil. GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per HTD. Neljack (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull - Article is in poor shape. The majority of it is unreferenced and written in a non-encyclopedic style. Admins really need to check these things (not just whether it is tagged or not) before posting. (Consensus is also rather weak, although that is a minor issue compared to article quality.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    • About half the article was also a copy and paste copyright violation. UNACCEPTABLE! --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pulled per above. Orange level tags need addressing, we do not normally post articles that have orange level tags and/or problems that would normally need orange level tags. This is a notable event, and people that would like to see it reposted would find their desires speedily met if they spent some effort fixing the citation and/or copyvio issues noted. --Jayron32 02:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Weve posted article with the section being fine, and this is. We can link directly there.Lihaas (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Much of the article needs a complete rewrite. It doesn't exactly make the project look good when you have such a messy article linked on the front page...ITN or otherwise.--Somchai Sun (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
ITN is meant to highlight quality Wikipedia articles. If the article is not of the proper quality, then fix it so I can post it. Complaining about it not being posted doesn't make Wikipedia any better. Just fix it if you think this should be posted, and it will be. --Jayron32 04:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't rewrite articles around here, and pointing something out is not "complaining" about it. I was making a statement in regards to linking low-quality articles on the front page. Sheesh. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't talking to you. I was agreeing with you. I was talking to the person who WAS complaining. If I was speaking to you, I'd have indented to indicate that. --Jayron32 18:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Syria talksEdit

Article: Geneva II (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of Syria and the Syrian National Council take part in their first direct talks.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Surprised this is not nominated here. Its a big step after years of conflict (didnt even think one could say years here as its all occurred under the auspices of WP (first full war under WP)). The fact of discussion is notable and in the news --Lihaas (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support — The two sides in this horrendous conflict haven't talked before. See "Syrian civil war foes meet for first time, focus on aid" (Reuters). [6] Sca (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — first time talks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose they said nothing to each other, and the UN envoy says the talks "haven't achieved much". Perhaps better to wait until something concrete actually comes from this snail's pace version of diplomacy, or we could be posting such minor steps every other day. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We should only post any results of the talks(them ending, an agreement being reached, etc.) 331dot (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

January 24Edit


[Closed] 2014 Google outageEdit

SNOW close, clear consensus to not post. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 24 January 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 Google outage (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Multiple Google products face a major outage
News source(s): 1, hardly 1 hour old event, will update when published 2

Article updated
 --TitoDutta 19:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't even believe this deserves its own article and should be taken to AfD, with a token line possibly added to the main Google article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lugs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait for sometime. TitoDutta 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: "Oh, I couldn't get mail for a brief bit of time." Not to belittle anyone but if anything is a "first world problem", this would be it. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose so what? --Երևանցի talk 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There was an outage? My Gmail has been open on my desktop all day. I didn't notice anything amiss. I don't imagine there are any major ramifications of this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor occurrence not even warranting a Wikipedia article. —David Levy 20:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Snow Close My Gmail was interrupted for a whole 15 minutes. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I just seconded the prod on the article. LadyofShalott 20:33, 24 January 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.
Ah, yesterday evening...no wonder my email wasn't going through...Lihaas (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Supernova spotted 11 million light years awayEdit

Article: SN 2014J (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bright type-Ia supernova SN 2014J is discovered in the starburst galaxy Messier 82.
Alternative blurb: ​The closest type-Ia supernova SN 2014J in 40 years is discovered in the Messier 82 starburst galaxy
News source(s): (AAVSO) Independent register national geographic

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Blurb straight from the current events - needs updating once the SN has an official designation EdwardLane (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The blurb was off by a distance factor of a million--we'd all likely be dead otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks medeis - but was just in header (not blurb) so I didn't check my typing (sorry though). EdwardLane (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You had me seriously worried for a minute there with the "11 light years away" distance, wondering when I would get a sunburn and start having trouble breathing. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Based on history of supernova observation, supernova identification isn't a particularly rare event (one identified every 1-2 years or so). Unless this particular one changes our interpretation of supernovae in some way, I don't think its notable enough. Teemu08 (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
just added a link to the independent article which suggests this one is more notable than most recent ones, the national geographic says that astonomers are going gaga over it, register calls it teh holy grail, apparently the significant bit is that it was noticed soon after the signs of the detonation reached us, and so close to Earth (only 11 million light years away), the worldwide astronomy community looks to have turned everything they can at it EdwardLane (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is important as the closest such in 40 years given the difference in telescope technology, and hence the better expected observations. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support People will be able to see this with binoculars which makes it very close and exceptionally rare event. Should be easy to get a NASA image for this showing the nova -- Ashish-g55 02:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - based on arguments by EdwardLane, this looks like a big deal. Wikipedia should strive to cover as much good science as possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added an altblurb that mentions closest in 40 years. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated, marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
just for clarity I prefer Medies' alt blurb EdwardLane (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with caveats. I created the article, and I've already nominated it for DYK. I'm also a good friend and collaborator with Steve Fossey, who discovered it, so I'm somewhat biased. This is major news in astronomy, much bigger than the Ceres thing that's already on ITN. There are hundreds of supernovae discovered every year, but ones this close and important only come along every few decades. It's got decent media coverage already, and might get more as it reaches maximum light and becomes visible to anyone with a pair of binoculars. But it is a bit technical. Finally, blurb 2 is better, but contains extraneous detail and the phrasing is odd. I suggest:
Modest Genius talk 11:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Problem: I've just noticed that the specific fact referred to in the ITN blurb is currently the subject of a {{cn}} tag in the article. I had deliberately avoided using it in the DYK nomination for that reason. I'll have a hunt for a source, and it's almost certainly true, but it might be better to avoid the 40-year claim unless/until a reliable source is found. Just say 'decades'. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: the best source for the 40 years fact I could find was a semi-reliable source which states that 'this is said to be'. Not great, and probably not good to rely upon. Modest Genius talk 12:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
How about Carleton University ("This is the closest type Ia supernova observed in the last 40 years")? Brandmeistertalk 12:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
That would do it! Good find. I'll update the article; problem struck. Modest Genius talk 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

[Pulled] January 2014 Cairo bombingsEdit

Article: January 2014 Cairo bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 7 people are killed in five car bombings in Greater Cairo
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bombings on political targets --Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 10:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I would be support but isn't this already in news box?how did it get there without nomination?Knightstalker123 (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No it is not. This is the nomination page for news events to appear on the Main Page and this is only currently on Portal:Current events. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 13:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting, since there has been no opposes for 8 hours. Thue (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There were no opposes, but there wasn't exactly support for it, either. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull for now horrible to say, but five dead in a bombing is not that remarkable in the Middle East. This went up way too fast. It can be reposted if the death toll rises. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pulled - agreed this was posted too fast. I also agree that 5 dead is not unusual for the region, although I am neutral on teh story at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • 1) 8 hours is not quick - and Wikipedia is supposed the work on a small timescale, the goal is not multiday discussions. 2) If people have an opinion, they have to post it, or they can't complain later. 3) And Knightstalker123 did support, and of course Ericoides (the nominator). 4) You say 5 dead is not a lot, but I posted it just as much for the overtly political target (police headquarters) and the anniversary of the revolution. Thue (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, I have neither supported nor nominated anything. I simply started the article and bunged it on the Portal page. Ericoides (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you look through the posted listings over the last two years. I doubt you will find a dozen items posted with less than four supports in addition to the nominator in such a rapid fashion. Sometimes more obscure topics like science and minority ethnic issues go up with less support when there's no opposition, but certainly never so quick. As for the time scale, this is not Foxnews.com, where breaking news items go at the top of the page in a red banner even when there's no link to a story yet. This is an encyclopedia, and except in clear cases, like assassinations or major earthquakes there's no justification for such a rush. That's the policy side. As for the substance, the article, which doesn't yet have three full prose paragraphs, still lists only 5 dead. This is simply not the sort of case where discretion calls for a quick posting. Let's hope it stays that way. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
By "too quick" I mean mostly by # of opinions expressed. By ITN standards (or most any discussion standards) 2 opinions is not enough to form consensus. I don't recall any article being posted with 3 or less opinions, and those that too get posted with weak support (3-4 opinions) usually only go up after a couple days when it is clear no more opinions are likely to come in. There is, however, nothing wrong with posting an article after a couple hours if there is strong support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems to be up to 18 dead in ongoing clashes--it might get support if updated. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the bombings, now five rather than the earlier three, but not the more general unrest. Ericoides (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I support the topic as a whole going up as something like "anniversary unrest". My difficulty is I don't know what other articles are available as targets, and the bombing article is at the cutoff between three full prose paragraphs, and too small. My worry would be that a year from now these bombings won't be seen as some discrete incident that stands on its own, meriting a separate article, but will be part of a wider string of events. What's really needed is comment from someone more familiar with the topic than myself, who can suggest whether this should be presented as part of a larger article, or if it should stand on its own. (I am not saying a full merger is necessarily necessary.) If no such broader article appears, you can count me as a support for this one. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

South Sudan ceasefireEdit

Article: South Sudanese conflict (2013–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: South Sudan and rebels sign ceasefire agreement in the ongoing conflict.
News source(s): The Guardian CNN

 --Gfosankar (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • support Can't be sure about the date though,TheGuardian Posted it on Thursday 23 January 2014 21.17 GMT,and wikipedia says 23 Jan.Knightstalker123 (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
oppose an agreement doesn't mean there is on-the-ground change. lets wait for thatLihaas (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable development in the conflict; there doesn't actually have to be changes on the ground yet, what is notable is the signing. A major violation will likely be in the media and be nominated here. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I will post this if somebody familiar with the subject will write a bit more text in the "Ceasefire" section of the article. Thue (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Thue that the update is adequate at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable development.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose - per Lihaas, there have been on and off meaningless ceasefires for over a decade in this conflict. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This might not last, but it is still a notable development.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

January 23Edit


January 22Edit


[Posted] Ceres (dwarf planet)Edit

Article: Ceres (dwarf planet) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The dwarf planet Ceres is observed to be releasing water vapor.
News source(s): Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm don't really care if this makes it to the front page, but it is a rather important and unexpected result. So if there is consensus to post, great. Abductive (reasoning) 16:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: Pretty unusual discovery: the one sole dwarf planet in the asteroid belt emits water like a comet. Not like another exoplanet, but much more principally novel. Not like a golf contest winner, but a more like a one time in a decade discovery. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I've seen significant coverage of this today, and I almost nominated it myself this morning. This finding is certainly more important than who the soccer player of the year is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant discovery.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - important discovery, article update is adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. A notable scientific finding. 331dot (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Araguaian BotoEdit

Article: Araguaian Boto (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists in Brazil identify a new species of river dolphin.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Large mammal of a group with high recognition but small number of species and important conservation status. --Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Or at worst, DYK, esp with the line "It is first new river dolphin species to be described since 1918". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, with the addition of that line above. Brandmeistertalk 11:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Would make a great DYK...in the future - Support for ITN per media coverage and significance... Somchai Sun (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry? was there some secret discussion of this elsewhere, or did the Dolphin Council pay off an editor for this rushed approval? Maybe both cell phones were ringing at once? We usually wait for four supports before posting. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    Including the nominator, there were four supports. A fifth editor also nominated the same subject (duplicate nom now removed) and you can count me as a support too if you like, so that makes six. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I support the posting myself. But we usually wait for four bold supports in addition to the implicit support of the nominator. That's not unclear. I see we have a far more problematic posting above, with one bold support listed because after 8 hours there were no opposes. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Which affords me the opportunity to publicly thank TRM for resurrecting the nom after I made a coding error. Kevin McE (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Riots in UkraineEdit

Article: 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Ukrainian police clash with rioters protesting the new anti-protest laws.
Alternative blurb: ​Two demonstrators are shot dead by police during on-going protests in the Ukraine
News source(s): New York 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: 3 deaths so far. Part of a larger series of demonstrations, with Ukraine hanging in the balance between orienting towards Russia or the EU. Thue (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. There are a lot of bare URLs and some of the sources are tweets from Twitter. Is this acceptable? ComputerJA () 17:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a new article when the same exact events are still ongoing per the Euromaidan article?Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, this isn't the place to discuss article merges, suggest you do that at one of the articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The Euromaidan article covers the whole movement all the way back to November. 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots is specifically about the small part of the demonstration movement which is the riots of the last few days. Thue (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Twitter can be a perfectly reasonable source for some purposes, depending on who is cited, IMO. It depends on what the specific cite is used for. If you have a problem with some specific cite, then run with that; I don't think a vague blanket complaint makes sense. Thue (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • support - liberticid laws in Europe, freedom to gather limited. Yet, the Euromaidan article seems more relevant. Yug (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and I think we should note the shooting dead of two protestors. Alt blurb provided. --Tóraí (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support only news to break through the 24-hour snow coverage in the US, article well-updated. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt --Երևանցի talk 21:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Riots article looks fine - it's clearly too big to merge. Oppose altblurb. We don't need to wl things like "police" and "shot". Formerip (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • What ever about what we link or don't link, the shooting dead of two protestors is more significant than just "clashes". --Tóraí (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I totally agree. Clashes occurred almost on daily basis since November. The clash itself isn't notable, it's the deaths that make it significant. --Երևանցի talk 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
        • The deaths may (or may not) be worth mentioning, but the events today in Ukraine are clearly newsworthy regardless. I was only really commenting on the style of the altblurb. Formerip (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable developments which warrant a posting. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As many as five may now be dead. --Tóraí (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thai protests: emergency and shootingEdit

Article: 2013–14 Thai political crisis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: As a state of emergency is called in the Thai capital of Bangkok, a pro-government Red Shirts leader is shot.
News source(s): BBCAl JAZEERA

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Rising protests prior to election, each side digging in their heals, a state of emergency in teh capital (possibly the busiest in SEA (or maybe Jakarta first), and now a shooting of a leader. That seems quite notable a turn of events to at least post it back now. --Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support State of emergency is notable. Thue (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and propose merger of Ukraine and Thai protestor blurbs. --Tóraí (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I would rather not merge these two items. Abductive (reasoning) 21:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Two countries. Two protests. Two incidents of protestors being shot. --Tóraí (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Exactly why they should not be merged. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Verbalize why two near identical ITNs should not be merged?
            If there were two plane crashes, or two classical composers who died, or two of anything really, it would make sense to merge them rather than have two repetitious ITNs one after another. So, why not protests?
            You don't write, "Man bites dog in Ukraine", followed by, "Man bites dog in Thailand". You write "Men bite dogs in Ukraine and Thailand." --Tóraí (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Strike the above. Actually noticed the two are quite different circumstances. These are not an example of "Two countries. Two protests. Two incidents of protestors being shot." --Tóraí (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and does the Red Shirts leader have a name? --Երևանցի talk 22:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable.And leader's name(according to Al Jazeera looks to be Kwanchai Praipana Knightstalker123 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • NOT updated - the shooting of the leader isn't even mentioned in the article, let alone given a proper (~paragraph long) update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

RD Nageswara RaoEdit

Article: Akkineni Nageswara Rao (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NDTVThe Hindu

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 actor, recipient of Padma Vibhushan and Dada Saheb Phalke Award --Gfosankar (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support One of the Big 2 of Telugu cinema. ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 05:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly notable but article needs work, several whole sections without a single reference, and inconsistent tenses/variations on his name need to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added many refs and another user has done some work too...what do you think now? ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Some of those refs are dodgy. Theyre probably from WP's [unsourced] article itself and thus a cyclical ref.
Also the only domestic new outlets dont indicate global noteLihaas (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

January 21Edit


January 20Edit


[Posted] CAR PresidentEdit

Article: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration#Continued violence (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Following fighting the CNT chooses Catherine Samba-Panza as interim president.
Alternative blurb: ​Amidst civil unrest, Catherine Samba-Panza is chosen as interim president of the Central African Republic.

Both articles 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.

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

Nominator's comments: Notable conflict and a new leader chosen leading to election next year WoW! It took 23 minutes for the page to be vandalised.. Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • If this person is just an acting president (as her article indicates) I don't think this would be ITNR as the head of state has not formally changed. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
But it has changed, the parliament voted to make her prez until the electionLihaas (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
If she is actually the President and not just an Acting President(someone merely carrying out the duties of the office and not actually President) then her article should reflect that. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well she was elected by parliament, but the sources put a caveat as acting for some reason on the premise that she is to guide the country to the election. However, the fact that she was elected by parliament makes her head of state status/change in office ITNR, no?Lihaas (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the constitution or laws of the CAR, so I don't know if Parliament's selection means that the person is actually the President- I just know from my own knowledge that 'acting' President typically means the person is not actually President. But if you say that's not the case here, then I must believe you. 331dot (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support According to my local news service, it was quite significant that a member of the old regime was selected. Also, the CAR conflict is getting hot, so getting it mentioned ITN like this is a plus. Thue (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support i see no reason for it not to be at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Article is updated and has support...before it gets stale...Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support-Per ITN/R. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/mild oppose - if posted, the bold article really should be Catherine Samba-Panza. I personally wouldn't post that article in its current (stubish) state. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why it shouldn't be the bolded article. The other article has the update.Lihaas (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In the past, we have almost always bolded the new president's article in these situations. The new president is the primary news here - the ongoing conflict is not. Additionally, I find it a bit problematic to bold "fighting" as the reason someone became president - at minimum it should describe the situation as it will not be at all clear to the average reader what "fighting" is referencing (nor what "CNT" is). See altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"almost always". The point of the article as OSE is not relevant. the article section linked here DOES update, the presidents article its just redundant to mention; both events on both articles are then virtually verbatim. WP doesn't need to be an encycloapedia for ITN's sake; ITN has to represent WP. BOLD article is for the update. The blurb as a whole is the reason to post, the bold article is just the requisite update.
We could remove CNT though
Anyways, even the other article is updated now. More than other articles that have neen posted. 2 bold articles have been posted before (the template has 2 articles)Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting the altblurb - if anyone else has comments on the blurb, I am open to adjusting it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Claudio AbbadoEdit

Article: Claudio Abbado (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Top conductor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support one of the world's leading conductors, active on both sides of the Atlantic, for decades. BencherliteTalk 11:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support unquestioned notability. μηδείς (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly meets DC2 given the recognition of his work. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support top conductor, his death is reported internationally. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - front page news for NYT, LAT, and Washington Post... very notable. – Connormah (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - articles needs some work (see [citation needed]s for example) and a more extensive update than merely "he died") --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, RDs have recently been posted with maintenance tags and an update such as "he died" (which is actually perfectly acceptable per the RD criteria). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Well I am opposed to posting in the current condition. I don't care if some other articles were posted with easily correctable issues ignored - that is a really poor reason to repeat the mistake. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Was widely regarded as the world's greatest living conductor. I recall that he was voted the third greatest conductor of all time (or really the recorded era, I suppose) in a BBC Music Magazine poll. I usually wouldn't pay much attention to such polls, but this one was based on the votes of 100 leading conductors, so it does give an indication of the esteem in which he was held by his peers. Neljack (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, looks suitable for RD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 23:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Bannu and Rawalpindi bombingsEdit

Articles: 2014 Bannu Bombing (talk, history) and 2014 Rawalpindi suicide bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Taliban kills twenty-six Pakistan soldiers and fourteen people in two separate attacks in Pakistan.
News source(s): BBC CNN Al Jazeera

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: I think combining the two attacks in Pakistan make this nomination worth being on ITN. One of the attacks prompted the Prime Minister of Pakistan to cancel his trip to Davos, Switzerland as a result of the attack. Also, both attacks were carried out by the Taliban so it is confirmed that both attacks were acts of terror. Andise1 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support 36 people dead is surely notable, even with the relatively high bar of Pakistan's general level of unrest. Thue (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support perhaps the articles should be merged, like the Vologagrad bombings... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Iran invited to Geneva 2 talksEdit

Article: Geneva II Middle East peace conference (talk, history)
Blurb: ​U.N. chief invites Iran to Geneva II Middle East peace conference, Syria opposition threatens to withdraw
News source(s): Reuters CNN

Nominator's comments: I guess this is notable enough to be posted.This is also my first edit ever so sorry if it's not done correctly. KnightStalker123 (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think if the talks actually were cancelled because of this, it might be notable, but the opposition hasn't said that yet. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Something about the Geneva II conference will be appropriate for ITN, but this particular blurb is kind of moot by now, since Iran has just been un-invited by the U.N. according to the NYT report[7]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Iran being invited isn't huge news, it's been speculated since last November's nuclear deal. Let's wait until the conference takes place and something comes out of it. Also, "U.N. chief" is not encyclopedic, Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Please do not just copy-paste headlines from Reuters. --Երևանցի talk 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As Iran is un-invited,there is really no point in releasing this anymore.Thanks for feedback. KnightStalker123 (talk) 2:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I take it youre withdrawing the nom? Although the disinvite is probably far more notable. There is now not even an iota of a doubt that it will be simple talkshop and fail. Dumbest Secy general ever! In that nore, I now supportLihaas (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

January 19Edit


January 18Edit


[Closed] Egyptian Constitution 2013Edit

see nom belowLihaas (talk) 11:02, 19 January 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: Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Egyptian Constitution is approved following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.
News source(s): NYTimes, BBC News, TIME

Article updated
 --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Important event and political milestone in Egypt and the Middle east.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:38, 19 January 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.

Hockey World LeagueEdit

Article: 2012–14 Men's FIH Hockey World League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In field hockey, Netherlands beat New Zealand in the world league final.
News source(s): FIH Stuff

Article updated

 --Gfosankar (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, the real reason for my vote is, other than its ice counterpart which is ITN/R, it isconcerning the coverage of the sport outside the Olympics as I have never heard anything about it anywhere. Donnie Park (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Where did you get that information? (Not arguing. Genuinely curious about the tournament.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In the relevant WP articles: Field hockey, International field hockey tournaments (neither article mentions the Hockey World League), and FIH Hockey World League which states the tournament serves as a 'qualifier for a Hockey World Cup (men and women's) and the Olympic Games'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ball lightning captured for the first timeEdit

Article: Ball lightning (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists measure the spectrum of ball lightning for the first time.
News source(s): Physical Review Letters Medium CNET Physics New Scientist

Article updated

Nominator's comments: According to the CNET article, "Chinese researchers have done the seemingly impossible: observed and recorded an instance of ball lightning completely by accident. And it bodes well for a decade-old theory about the nature of the conundrum." Andise1 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support with some polishing of the blurb.    C M B J   08:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support only once there is an update. Nergaal (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the story in principle, but only once the article has been updated and the blurb tightened up. It Is Me Here t / c 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think "captured" should be substituted with more clear word. "Photographed"? Brandmeistertalk 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Lacking widespread media coverage so far. Formerip (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - unique event.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per FormerIP. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it seems there's less to see here than there was with Pons & Fleischman. But if this is truly a first, it should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article states "what was thought to be, natural ball lightning". Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment changed blurb to "measure the spectrum" μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is fringe science, not mainstream enough for Wikipedia. GroveGuy (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The source here was published in a 55 year-old peer-reviewed journal based out of Columbia University. The subject's being rare, transient, and hard to study does not make it fringe. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this assessment. By no means is ball lightning a fringe topic. Rather, they are a rare phenomena that have defied explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Once thought to be in the realm of UFOs and Bigfoot. Not any more. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support very rare event for science indeed, I imagine viewers might find this interestting as well. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This was me, forgot to log in. SeraV (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is updated, and support for this is 8-to-4 (or 7 1/2-to-3 1/2 if you prefer). μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Post posting support, certainly ITN-worthy enough. Abductive (reasoning) 03:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

January 17Edit


[Posted] Hiroo OnodaEdit

Article: Hiroo Onoda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Al Jaz NBC News
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.

 The last Axis soldier to surrender is pretty notable. He fought the War for some 30 years after it was over.Lihaas (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment a definite maybe for this. Large sections of the article are unreferenced unfortunately, but I would support if that was addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support upon some more references in the article per TRM. Seems to me to be very important in his field for holding out as long as he did. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, basically a historical oddity/curiosity, not somebody who had significant political, cultural or societal impact. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable, if not legendary, subject of years of campaigns to repatriate him, subject of news, fiction, and non-fiction. Certainly more encyclopedic subject than a bit player in a train robbery. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support embodiment of a major meme of the 70s, inspiration of many books and stories. Studied in history lessons. Kevin McE (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Oddly, he can be considered "top of his field" - he was the last one in it! But then again, his death isn't that notable in the grand scheme of things. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nsk92. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nsk92. Also, not last acis soldier to surrender - that was Teruo Nakamura. Thue (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - somehow "top of his field" as mentioned above. good sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Update needed the mere statement the subject has died does not count as an update--ITN policy explicitly says the mere fact reflected by the listing is insufficient. I'd otherwise have marked this as ready. Is there no mention of this in the Japanese press? μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
This could probably use a little more updating, but I've added what you can find in the major Anglo press, and am marking as updated. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I was actually surprised that this hadn't already been posted and came here to make the same nomination.    C M B J   20:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly top of his field if he is "last man standing" in the war. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready 7 1/2 in favor vs 3 opposed, barely updated. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Suchitra SenEdit

Article: Suchitra Sen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, The Hindu, Times of India
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.

 A legendary actress in the Bengali film industry, any Bengali speaking person (there are over 200 million) would instantly recognise the actress as the most notable in her field. Acted in leading roles in close to 50 film over a career spanning almost 3 decades, has been feted with several awards etc. LegalEagle (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD - notable actress in that part of the world. important enough to RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Sen was widely regarded as a very important figure in her field, the article is updated with info about her death, and the article is of sufficient quality. As a matter of fact, the article has been massively updated in the last two days. GroveGuy (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD for her notability and wide popularity. Although i won't agree with "sufficient quality" statement about the article made above. And sad that i can't spend time over it now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment would support but for the weasel words maintenance tag (which is reasonable, to whit: "...she is brilliant as Pannabai, bringing much poise, grace and dignity in the role of a fallen woman...") and the stark lack of referencing for her Career section. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Added references to the career section, weeded out the weasel words. Hope you would change to support.LegalEagle (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Good work, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Notable actress, deserves a RD mention. Soham 12:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Everything I wanted to say, have been said already TitoDutta 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Reading, she seems to be important in Indian cinema. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per GroveGuy. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 16Edit


RD: Russell JohnsonEdit

Article: Russell Johnson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN
  • Nominated by [[User:Dismas|Dismas]] ([[User talk:Dismas|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:Dismas|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BRussell+Johnson%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Russell+Johnson&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

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.

 --Dismas

  • Russell Johnson - He played The Professor on Gilligan's Island. Well known for this role in the US and likely other places where the show was seen. Dismas|(talk) 23:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose One major role, no evidence he was considered at the "top of his field". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's really only true if you accept recentism as a virtue, rather than a sin. Johnson was a highly known supporting actor before he became typecast as The Professor. It's incumbent on us to recognize the full breadth of his career, not just the part that some few of us remember and hold against him from our childhoods. Had he died while Gilligan's Island was in production there'd be no debate. We should accord him, Madden, and Lloyd=Pack the same respect. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Accepted, though looking at his article I'm not really seeing how he's very important in acting at this time. 331dot (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same vein as the other RD nomination I opposed that doesn't meet the requirement mark. Although I think it is sad such people won't be remembered on the front page... --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I have no idea who this person is, but I think we are becoming much, much too 'rejectionist' for RD. I think we need to revisit the criteria on this one because it seems like we are still using the same standard that we were using for full blurbs before RD was implemented to judge notability. Colipon+(Talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Colipon, please demonstrate which of the three death criteria this man meets, if that's the case. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

RD: Roger Lloyd-PackEdit

Article: Roger Lloyd-Pack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News Daily Telegraph

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.

 -- The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • It's usually helpful to give a brief explanation or rationale for a nomination. I suspect only small minority of our users will recognize the nomination by name. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Had to go to the page to find out who he was, and nothing in there indicates he was "top of his field". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has bought and shown masses of English comedy over the past 55 years, and I've watched an awful lot of it. I didn't recognise the name. Once I read up about him I realised that, yes, I liked his role in Vicar of Dibley, but that was it. Even there it was a minor role. So, his fame and success must have been pretty much within the UK itself. I'll leave this one to the Brits to convince the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak-to-middling support. A household face, if not necessarily name, in the UK. I think you would struggle to find anyone who doesn't think he was brilliant at what he did. He was a character in the most successful ever comedy in the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's none of the Cheers regulars we wouldn't post, is there? Formerip (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know that we would post any of the Cheers regulars. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd vote for Ted Danson, just as I would Dawn French. Has anyone noticed the Professor just died? μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea who that is. Presumably no-one will support the nomination, since ITN can always be relied upon to be totally consistent and free of national bias. Formerip (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised you don't know who Dawn French is. In any case, we have a Canadian-American-British trifecta in the combined blurb suggested in the nomination above this one. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HiLo48 and Muboshgu. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not seeing much in his article indicating that he was very important in his field. 331dot (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose He had two rather amusing roles (Owen was my favorite as a matter of fact) - that made him a moderately well known figure in the UK, but he cannot be considered "top of his field". --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 15Edit


[Posted] New pharaohEdit

Article: Seneb Kay (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Archaeologists discover the tomb of the previously unknown pharaoh Seneb Kay, confirming the existence of an independent Abydos Dynasty.
Alternative blurb: ​Egyptian and American archaeologists find the tombs of Sobekhotep I and the previously unknown Abydos Dynasty pharaoh, Seneb Kay
News source(s): Penn Museum, ABC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looks like ground-breaking and the Penn Museum press release confirms this. Btw, the 16 January section seems to be currently missing (bot unable to update?). Brandmeistertalk 14:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Would that make ITN ancient pharaoh-biased? (there's another in the box already) Just kidding, support. --Tone 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support, any mileage in trying to combine the Pharaoh-blurbs? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • May be bumped, but the blurb would probably be verbose if combined. Perhaps just remove the previous pharaoh blurb to free the slot:) Brandmeistertalk 17:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
      • It seems that these two discoveries are linked: they reused a sarcophagus. Abductive (reasoning) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support though I saw the section title and though Egyptian politics had taken an even more bizarre turn GoldenRing (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be an important enough find for the front page. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when was the last time the tomb of a king from so long ago was discovered? Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Marked ready, meets basic requirements. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] EgyptEdit

Article: Egyptian constitutional referendum, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Egypt approves a new constitution after two years.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Pretty notable event to post on ITN considering the hocus-pocus going on in the country everyday. Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait While this should obviously be posted at some point, since the new constitution has been at the center of Egypt's political problems, it doesn't seem like the final result is in yet? Thue (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once results are in and final. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot and when updated. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, once properly updated. Nsk92 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Source added. --Gfosankar (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It's notable and now the results are in with 98.1% voting in support of the new constitution. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternative blurb - Egyptians approve a new constitution after one year. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternative blurb The 2014 Egyptian Constitution is approved following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.---Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

IraqEdit

Articles: Anbar clashes (2013–14) (talk, history) and January 2014 Iraq attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 70 people are killed as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calls for help.
News source(s): Al Jazeera 2

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Per below 70 deaths should be notable enough for ITN. Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support While there are lots of such attacks in Iraq, I think we can justify posting more of them than ITN traditionally has. They do really put for example the five people killed at the Boston Marathon bombings in perspective. Thue (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A one-time attack at a major sporting event is different than an attack in an ongoing conflict. That said, I support this as a notable step in their conflict (seeking help as well as a lot of casualties). 331dot (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The blurb makes it sound like Nouri al-Maliki has some sort of weaponised voice. Also, is this news pertaining to any part of the world in particular? Formerip (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment killed where? should the blurb say where the incident happened? --Երևանցի talk 23:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 14Edit


[Posted] Hundreds drown fleeing fighting in South SudanEdit

Article: South Sudanese conflict (2013–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 200 people drown in the Nile attempting to flee from Malakal in South Sudan
Alternative blurb: ​During heavy fighting over Malakal, South Sudan, a Nile ferry carrying refugees sinks, drowning more than 200 people.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: South Sudan again, this time a tragedy on the Nile. Article needs updating. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Does the incident deserve a separate article? Not much update in the title article at the moment, though. Tentative support when resolved. --Tone 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't, and that's why I've linked to an existing article and looked for an update. As described entirely in the nomination above. I have finally had the chance to add at least a sentence to the existing article to cover the drownings now. lThe Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major disaster. Neljack (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's "more than" not over. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
oppose its very tangential to relate this to the conflict. Perhaps a new article can mention the background of fleeing the conflict, but the boat capsizing and killing them has nothing to do with the conflict on the ground. (Although Tone is right we don't need another article, but plenty of [stupid] precedence is set on creating such nonsense articles). At any rate, other than a sentence mention of this, there is not much to add to the article.Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense oppose. The only reason why these hundreds of people have drowned is because of the conflict in South Sudan. How odd of you to oppose this given you continually post "bumps" for this conflict. This is highly significant. I would have hoped you'd get on board and help rather than just make an absurd argument to oppose it. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
NOnsense because you disagree? Everything you disagree with is nonsense?? How did the boat sink? Because it was shot down. Yes, sure bump iyt for reasons related to the conflict. Why should someone blindly get on board and bump your posting? You want everything rubber stamped? Maybe run for president of the USALihaas (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support contrary to User:Lihaas, I think any other boat that sank and killed 200 people would normally be posted, in fact almost any event that killed 200 people would normally be posted. Agreed that the article needs a better update first, though. GoldenRing (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've reworked the linked article somewhat. I've moved the information on the sinking to (what I think is) the right section - It was in a section about Unity State, Malakal is in Upper Nile State. So I've moved it to the section that already discusses previous fighting over Malakal. I've also reworked the paragraph a fair bit, trying to put the sinking into the context of ongoing fighting there. The alternative blurb I've suggested tries to capture this rework. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Im not talking about not posting it. Im talking about the article being the wrong one for thisLihaas (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Why don't you think this is related to the South Sudan conflict? Every news article I can find directly links the sinking to refugees running from fighting in Malakal. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the sinking wasn't due to combat action. Someone from the army said that it was overloaded, but no-one seems to know what actually caused the sinking. Being in the middle of an active combat zone, I suppose it's a bit hard to carry out a proper investigation! GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per others. SeraV (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
POV it wasn't during "heavy fighting" that it capsized as the capsizing wasn't a result of firing. Lets not sensationlise a la the mediaLihaas (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Correlation is not causation and stating correlation doesn't mean implying causation. The town has changed hands four times in the past month and both sides now claim to be in control. The UN compound there houses 20,000 refugees and dozens of them have been wounded inside the compound in the past few days. It sounds like heavy fighting to me. The words "during heavy fighting" convey that the sinking happened while heavy fighting was going on, not that the fighting directly caused the sinking.
The wording posted wasn't meant to directly attribute the sinking to combat action. It was meant to put the immediate event into the surrounding context. The situation in South Sudan is one of those terrible, important stories that we find it quite hard to post to ITN because no single event quite makes the grade. This event, while not part of the fighting, is an integral part of story. This is the civilian cost of the ongoing conflict. So my wording was an attempt to put that civilian cost into its context. I'm not quite sure how that's transformed into POV and its certainly not what I intended; what exactly is the POV that I'm supposed to be pushing here? GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Polio eradicated in IndiaEdit

Article: Poliomyelitis eradication (talk, history)
Blurb: WHO announces that India has successfully eradicated wild polio from its territory.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article needs updating, and I never get the blurb right either. EdwardLane (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Neutral for now (it's a big symbolic step, but it's only a single country, and polio there has been "on the brink" for several years - polio remains endemic in 4 or 5 more). If we do use this, though, the blurb needs to change. As it's phrased currently, it implies that all wild polio has been eradicated by India. My suggestion would be "WHO announces that wild polio has been successfully eradicated from India" or "WHO announces that India has successfully eradicated wild polio from its territory." Smurrayinchester 12:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
comment I'd favour the latter - india has been very proactive so the country should get the kudos deserved. I've updated the blurb to that. I gather there are now only 3 places with wild polio - afghanistan, nigeria and pakistan (I think), I think I should add my support as nom to this.EdwardLane (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Premature This tells me that "India will likely receive its official World Health Organisation (WHO) endorsement as being polio-free in March." Let's wait. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
maybe but I don't think so this says the milestone of 3 years without polio was reached on 13th of Jan - which is the news - the WHO endorsement in march (bbc says The WHO is expected to formally certify India's polio-free status next month after testing its last samples.) , it is the 3 years that is getting the reports in the news [8] [9] [10] ? ok the blurb needs reworking (I've just struck the offending error - sorry for that) EdwardLane (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • there hasnt been a case of polio in india in 3 years... this milestone is rather arbitrary. How is it any different than 4 years or 5 years? I would say an entire year without a case i.e first year would have been a better thing to post. Or if WHO announces that polio has been eradicated altogether -- Ashish-g55 16:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
comment on the blurb "wild polio" then what is domesticated polio?Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect it's a reference to polio being brought into the country by a new arrival, already infected. That's some other country's polio. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Polio virus kept / cultivated for research purposes GoldenRing (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 13Edit


[Posted] Cristiano Ronaldo wins the FIFA Golden BallEdit

Articles: 2013 FIFA Ballon d'Or (talk, history) and Cristiano Ronaldo (talk, history)
Blurb: Cristiano Ronaldo wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Portugal and Real Madrid forward Cristiano Ronaldo wins the FIFA Ballon d'Or
News source(s): Guardian

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This is FIFA's award for the best player in the year (i.e. the world's best footballer for the year). It's also known as the Golden Ball. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment do we usually post this? If yes, then support. --Երևանցի talk 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) We posted it last year, though an attempt (by me) for it to become an ITN/R item failed to get anywhere. Anywhoo, this is the most prominent individual award in association football, so therefore it has my Support. --LukeSurl t c 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on poor article quality. The current article is very lightweight, consisting mainly of tables, and very little prose, it's barely stub-quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The bold article should be 2013 FIFA Ballon d'Or, not the general article. Ammended the template. --LukeSurl t c 21:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – huge award given to the soccer player considered the world's best of the year. Heymid (contribs) 21:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support only if it is updated. Currently the tables don't even include the other candidates nominated for the prizes. Nergaal (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. per Heymid. ComputerJA () 04:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think last year's posting was reasonable, on the basis that it was Messi's fourth one in a row, but as a general matter I don't think the Ballon d'Or warrants posting. We do not post player of the year-type awards in any other team sport (in fact, I'm not sure we do in any individual sport either). While I fully support soccer receiving more coverage than other sports given its greater popularity and indeed I would support adding more competitions (e.g. La Liga, Bundlesliga, Serie A) to ITN/R, I see this as being of lesser significance. Neljack (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worthy to note that for the first time since 2008, a player other than Messi wins the Ballon d'Or. Heymid (contribs) 07:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - highest individual award in the world's most popular sport. --W. D. Graham 09:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready. Articles are updated and there is sufficient consensus to post. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Award from the world governing body to a world-renowned player. Does it for me. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is posted, it's only fair to also post that Nadine Angerer won the award for FIFA Women's World Player of the Year. Considering that we'd only be posting that somebody won, not that somebody won for an #th time, gender bias really isn't acceptable. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this, I'll Support this nomination if this is done. SeraV (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. Neljack (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment now target article has been updated, would possibly support if suitable alt-blurb is suggested to cover both men and women. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs more text - I would like to see a more extensive text update before posting. At currently, the article only has about six total sentences which is not acceptable in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you checking the right article? The one that's 1865 characters (328 words) long? "readable prose size" (DYK check/Page size tool). Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added some prose to the lead. Is it ready to be posted now? Heymid (contribs) 19:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
(Post posting comment) Looks better now, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 BDO World Darts ChampionshipEdit

Articles: 2014 BDO World Darts Championship (talk, history) and Stephen Bunting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In darts, Stephen Bunting and Lisa Ashton win the 2014 BDO World Darts Championship
News source(s): The Guardian ESPN BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a notable championship for a notable sport. It is also getting somewhat significant coverage in the news. The third article to update (since there is no article3 option in the template) is Lisa AshtonAndise1 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. This is the major competition at the top level of the sport. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose actually most darts fans would say the 2014 PDC World Darts Championship is the major competition at the top level of the sport, Phil "The Power" Taylor et al preferring to play there... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - regardless of which competition is the most important tournament for darts, the sport is simply not influential enough for ITN to begin with. -Zanhe (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose, agree with User:Zanhe. Thue (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, since we have Gaelic football and Canadian football on WP:ITN/R, they're also presumably not influential enough as they're played in one country? Darts reaches across the globe, all the way from the UK to Australia. I'm not in support of the item, but these two opposes are flawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with TRM - darts is pretty popular internationally and deserves at least one post a year. No comment on the importance of this tournament as I don't follow darts. (Why are there two "World Championship" events?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Same reason as there (at least used to be) two world chess tournaments. Money, sponsorship etc. All the best players gravitated to the cash. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
          • We have an article about the split in darts that should explain the existence of two championships. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
            • TRM, Thryduulf thanks for the info - interesting stuff. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lesser importance/following of the sport and the existence of rival tournaments are reasons to demand a very high quality article and update, IMO, rather than to just reject the nom. Formerip (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The article seems updated, but I would support this if the updated were significantly more substantial. Nergaal (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. No problem with posting darts here in general, though. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I buy what TRM is saying, though. I know nothing about darts, so it is possible that darts fans prefer the PDC championship, for all I know. But, in terms of public interest, the BDO wins hands down because it is broadcast on "proper" TV. According to this, the BDO final peaked at 4.5 million viewers, whereas, according to this the figure for the PDC final a couple of weeks ago was less than a million. Overall, given that darts is a shadow of what it was in the 80s, maybe the question is a bit like asking which current version of Bucks Fizz is most worth seeing. Formerip (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Thing is, far more players have moved to the PDC (as demonstrated by our article), and it's recognised that the BDO is something of a "feeder" organisation, thus the quality of players is naturally lower than that of the PDC (this is interesting reading). Television figures are something different, Sky Sports have perhaps a million people watching live Premiership football, but that doesn't mean the five million watching a First Round FA Cup match on ITV are watching something with more "public interest". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't think the analogy really works. A first round FA Cup match can hold greater public interest than a Premiership match - it all depends who's playing. Rochdale v Leyton Orient will be different to Man Utd v Chlesea, which will be reflected in the viewing figures. Obviously, only one of those is going to get shown on ITV.
        • Although I'm not able to confirm or deny that the PDC might have a higher standard of darts, it doesn't seem true that one is effectively a feeder for the other, because the top players in each are barred from switching, so it's not really possible to "feed". Anyhow, I'd say if we can't post this then we can't post a rival fixture with less than a quarter the audience, so we can't post darts at all. Formerip (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I thought you had assigned "public interest" to "viewing figures", while five million people watch Bishop's Stortford F.C. v Northampton, perhaps only a million will watch Man Utd v Man City because it happens to be non-terrestrial. And my original oppose was based on the fact that the BDO is not the top tournament in the sport, that's the PDC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
            • This is a bit OT now, but you're making up the figures. Bishop's Stortford F.C. v Northampton will get a TV audience of zero, because it won't be broadcast on TV. The Manchester Derby in May 2012 (couldn't find more recent figures) got an estimated audience of 650 million. Formerip (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
              • You mean this Bishop's Storford vs Northampton FA Cup first round match that was broadcast on ITV late last year? And we were talking about domestic television audience, not syndications. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
                • Actually, we're talking about the comparative levels of interest in particular sporting events. In any event, a Manchester Derby is likely to get far more than a million viewers domestically. Do you have a source for the five million viewing figure for the Bishop's Stortford match? Formerip (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
                  • No, a derby won't get more than a million or so because it's on Sky. I don't have a source for the ITV game, but glad you acknowledge that it actually was broadcast, so it's unlikely to have an audience of zero. In fact, it had an audience of at least one, because I watched it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per FormerIP's viewership figures. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think the split in darts is confusing, you haven't seen the split in boxing (LOL). For some reason, some darts competition finally made it to TV, after the Premier League's rights was bought by another channel; guess they needed to fill airtime... –HTD 03:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support since we can't really post PDC competition this time anymore, I'll suggest we post this this time and decide possibly for next time which of the two competitions is more important. SeraV (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 12Edit


Indonesia bans the export of mineral oreEdit

Article: Economy of Indonesia#Non-oil and gas mining (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indonesia bans the export of mineral ore, including nickel, bauxite and tin.
News source(s): Reuters, New York Times BBC
Article needs updating

 61.245.25.16 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - does this have a wide effect on other countries? (I.E. how import are Indonesia's exports to foreign countries?) Article has an orange atgg which would need addressed before article is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This reads like a big deal in international trade. Thue (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose When the law was passed it was immediately postponed until 2017 by the President says the New York Times. This is a good example of a government's shooting itself in the foot. The ban won't go into effect. GroveGuy (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. If I read the NY Times article right, the effect on international trade will be minimal and as GroveGuy points out the government is already undercutting its own law. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Postponed for several years and who knows what will happen by then. SpencerT♦C 03:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cyclone IanEdit

Article: Cyclone Ian (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Ian causes widespread devastation and at least 1 person dead as it passes over the islands of Tonga.
News source(s): http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/01/powerful-cyclone-rips-through-tonga-islands-201411264930152149.html, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/cyclone-ian-batters-tonga

Nominator's comments: Ian is more than likely to be retired after this season after leaving widespread damage in Tonga, while it was a borderline category 4/5 severe tropical cyclone near or at the same intensity as Cyclone Yasi. --Jason Rees (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • We'll have to wait for better information about damage and casualties, I think, but this will probably be a go. It's a little too early to really assess the impact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, we have a case here where a storm hit a place that is so remote and obscure that even normally good sources are a bit confused. This storm did not hit the main islands of Tonga, or even come very close to them -- it passed over a series of small and little-populated islands that belong to the Tonga chain. The storm was pretty powerful, but I don't believe that the effects reported thus far add up to enough to make this worthy of ITN. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The irony of events like this is that the more serious they are, the longer it takes to get accurate information, because of damaged communications infrastructure. As Bongwarrior suggest, just wait. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Update I hate seeing nominations just sitting around with no attention, then falling of the bottom of the list without decision. So we can make a better judgement, this article gives us some more accurate details. Obviously dramatic for those involved, but we still have only one death. 1,130 buildings affected. Around half of those destroyed. Major damage to thirteen schools. So, probably not for posting? HiLo48 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wake up, somebody!!!! Looks like I will just see this sitting around with no attention, then falling of the bottom of the list without decision. That's a really bad look for ITN, and effectively proves the massive problem of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Apologies @HiLo48: - Ive had some personal problems over the last few days which has made my wiki-time limited. Over the last few days i have seen articles stating that Ian was the first Cat 5 STC to affect Tonga on record, that 1054 houses have been damaged, with Oxfam telling us that the islands of Foa, Ha'ano and Mo'unga'one have been 90 per cent destroyed. While off course all of this damage seems very minor to people that we only have 1 death 1054 houses damaged when we consider it to other TC's like Haiyan but we have to remember that this is major stuff for people living there and thus i feel that we have to lower the standards slightly for posting in this case.Jason Rees (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

January 11Edit


[Posted] Ariel SharonEdit

Article: Ariel Sharon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Israeli politician and general Ariel Sharon dies after spending his last eight years in a coma
Alternative blurb: Ariel Sharon, former general and prime minister of Israel, dies aged 85.
News source(s): 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.

 --Royalbroil 13:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. Per WP:ITND#1 it seems pretty obvious he should be posted, but the more important question is should we post it as a blurb or on RD? --hydrox (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant blurb, not RD. Royalbroil 13:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a textbook case of a death that rises to the level of an ITN feature. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb statesman, general, prime minister, father of his country. μηδείς (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb as he was very important political figure in Israel and a well-known person in world politics. He was also receiving wide attention and media coverage about his health after falling in a coma.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb RD but the article has massive swaths of text that are completely unreferenced. This must be sorted before posting. (Note, changed to RD to reflect others' concerns that this has been inevitable for eight years...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb — A significant figure in both Israeli and world politics. Kurtis (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. He was not active at the time of his death, so the blurb will effectively only say "he died", so we might as well put him in Recent Deaths. Thue (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This is not a valid reason to oppose. One could have said the same of both Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela, yet both were given full blurbs 86.137.45.91 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Although Thue's reasoning may not be judged to be a valid reason not to post as a full blurb, I don't think you can say that any thought out, rational opinion is not a valid reason to oppose. An editor is not bound by precedent in expressing his opinion. Just a thought. 86.172.46.9 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. The end of an era. Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. Only after the referencing issue is resolved. Most of the article is not referenced. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when article standard is sufficient. He was as significant to Israel as Thatcher was to the UK. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Can't see a good reason not to. Somchai Sun (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready Now that there is a well-referenced paragraph documenting his death and given the sufficient amount of support for a full blurb, I think it's time to mark it ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb, I just came here to make sure it was already nominated. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready, it's easy to reference the one sentence telling us he's dead, but a lot of the rest of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • support full blurb when ready--71.183.40.46 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb when issues identified have been addressed. CaptRik (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only if coma is mentioned. He has been dead for eight years. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. Evidently person of huge significance to both Israel and the wider world. Please do not use the alternative blurb: 'passes away' is rather poor for an encyclopedia. 86.137.45.91 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready - There are several sections marked as having insufficient referencing (tags I agree with). This needs addressed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (I have already indicated support above as an IP): There are only two relatively small sections that are tagged. They are not entirely without references (just added one to the lower section). The majority of the article is well referenced. Certainly there is a need for improvement but this article is in a far better state overall than many we post. I suggest posting now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD He's important enough for a full blurb, but he's been functionally dead for years. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppord only RD, he was inactive for many years and we can not compare Sharon with Mandela. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - a man that defined that part of the middle east for several years.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - important figures like Sharon deserve a full blurb. It's irrelevant that he had been in a coma for the last few years. -Zanhe (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - A significant enough figure to go beyond simply the RD section. Miyagawa (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready full blurb no reason to delay any further. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • A shame to feature an article with nine citation needed tags and two maintenance tags, perhaps someone familiar with the subject could address these? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I second that. It's surprising that the poster didn't notice the two orange tags, despite being mentioned twice above. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full second blurb Post now. Article was once a good article. I think it's ready to go. GroveGuy (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Consensus was in favour of posting a full story, and the inclusion criteria do not mention that there have to be no {{cn}} tags on the article. It Is Me Here t / c 18:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not calling for a pull, but the page you linked does say that articles with orange tags "will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." Perhaps you should have waited until referencing in the two tagged sections was improved. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • In linking to the inclusion criteria you linked to basic procedural stuff, while completely ignoring the section on Wikipedia:Itn#Updated_content. It's hard to argue that an article filled with {{citation needed}} tags and an orange level {{refimprove}} template is "thoroughly referenced", as the criteria call for. Wow. SpencerT♦C 03:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Nitpick Sorry, I should have mentioned this earlier. The blurb says that he has been in a coma, but that's not correct -- as our article says, he was in a persistent vegetative state. They are commonly confused, but they are not the same thing. Can we fix this? As an encyclopedia, we should try to get this sort of thing right. Looie496 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The first three news sources (good ones) I looked at said he had been in a coma. I stopped looking then. We can't decide that they've got it wrong based on your post. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Even good news media generally aren't aware of this distinction. Our article on Sharon uses the term "permanent vegetative state" in the lead and gives a reference. As our coma article explains, a true state of coma (lacking sleep-wake cycles and motor responses) rarely lasts for more than five weeks. It's not the worst thing in the world if we get this wrong, since the confusion is so common, but it would be nice to use the right term. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, even the BBC article tries to use "coma" and "persistent vegetative state" interchangeably. Getting it right in the blurb would be beneficial to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Question I don't expect to change this posting, but precisely on what basis did we post this as a full blurb? He was obviously significant in his lifetime, and we naturally have a major article on him. However, he died, expectedly really, effectively of old age, having had no impact at all on the world for at least eight years. He was head of a small country. I can imagine the deaths of past heads of many larger countries not being given full blurbs, or at least there being a lot of argument. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Question do we now post articles full of unreferenced paragraphs and sections? Just curious as this posting has set yet another unhelpful precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps User:It Is Me Here could confirm that posting with so many missing references was intentional and that this is therefore an acceptable approach for subsequent ITNs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • The article isn't of FA qualty, but my 2¢ is (not being the posting admin) is that it is more that sufficient for ITN. One reason for ITN is to draw attention to articles. And one reason we want to do that is to invite people to participate in the project by improving them. --Tóraí (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
        • That's fine, I just want to see it agreed therefore that we can now post ITN items with maintenance tags and many [citation needed] tags, this is new to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, in fairness, you added the most serious of the tags after the article was posted to the main page.
          • But eight citation-needed tags in an article of that size on a well-known subject isn't killer IMO. It's easily fixable either by a quick Google — I'm going to ref one now, for example — or, in many cases, the offending sentence can be removed without affecting the article. Let's fix it rather than decrying it. --Tóraí (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Indeed I did add them, it's a serious matter and I don't know enough about the subject matter to fix the swaths of the unreferenced text. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
            • Agreed. There need to be some standards, but we shouldn't insist that an article make GA or FA before posting to ITN. This article is longer and fuller than many that get posted here and so there is more room for referencing problems, but so long as the article is in reasonable shape and the event itself is well-referenced then I think we should post. GoldenRing (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
      • If we look at the versions of the article and of ITNC that I saw as I was posting (it seems unfair to look at future versions of the article), it was my judgement that the article did not contain so many tags as for this to preclude it from being added to T:ITN. On the subject of WP:ITN, the page also says: "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." So this last consideration would seem to support my decision to post the article; not that it was a total mess anyway, since it had had more than five sentences and three unique sources added to it, and the section on his death (#Incapacitation, coma and death and sub-sections) did not itself contain any tags. The other issue here is ITNA's instruction that there be consensus for posting at ITNC, which at the time I thought there was. It Is Me Here t / c 19:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
        • But presumably you didn't just count tags, you read the article over for quality and suitability, surely? Maybe not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment are we really serious about this blurb: "Israeli politician and general Ariel Sharon (pictured) dies after spending his last eight years in a coma."? "spending his last eight years"? Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Question an ip editor, on Talk:Main Page, has queried the use of an image with the American flag in the background. Any thoughts? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    Closer crop would help, or perhaps the inclusion of "Old Glory" is intentional...? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    Systemic bias? Surely we can find a better pic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    shucks, and I thought he was famous for his work in the West Bank?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    I've switched to File:Ariel Sharon Headshot.jpg. —David Levy 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    Excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Rambling Man's comments regarding the article are quite valid. The article is a mess of tags. This is a dubious posting at best and sets a dubious precedent. As it stands I'm leaning towards a demotion to RD unless the article is fixed. We are always struggling for credibility as a volunteer encyclopedia, and need to keep our standards as high as is practical. This ITN posting on our Main page points to a flawed article. Jusdafax 19:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    I concur. Article quality has long been an important consideration in posting. The willingness to ignore it here was a mistake that should not be repeated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    This posting was rushed, and definitely depended on systemic bias to be posted so quickly. How many other (long) past leaders of countries of 7 million people dying of old age would be posted so quickly? HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    I have added a request to fix the tags on the article talk page. Let's give it 24 hours or so. Otherwise it should go to RD. Jusdafax 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    I support that action. I do understand why this was posted quickly given his standing in world affairs, but if the issues are not fixed we should proceed as Jusdafax suggests. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, but where does the policy come from that we demote full blurb listings to RD listings because people critical of the nomination have added vague section tags to the article? If anything, the item should be removed entirely--which is absurd, since in this case the items being challenged are claims like that that his parents moved to palestine during the Russian Civil War. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Moving to RD makes no sense to me - the quality standards for full blurb & RD should be the same. It should either stay or be pulled, but certainly not moved to RD for quality reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

comment please link the bolded bit to Death and funeral of Ariel Sharon as his page has an orange tag and clearly insufficient update.Lihaas (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think that HiLo48's contention that this was rushed is a bit hard to sustain. This article had enormous support when it was posted - more than 20 supports (though some of the RD only) and no opposition. If we waited for so much support for every article posted here we'd never have anything on ITN. This was posted on the back of an overwhelming consensus to post it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    A misrepresentation of my concern. Why on earth do people do this? HiLo48 (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    I'm sorry; I certainly didn't mean/try to misrepresent you. What about "This posting was rushed" have I got wrong? I take the point about systemic bias, but the posting was hardly rushed; it was posted with very wide consensus. Even μηδείς and The Rambling Man both agreed it should be posted; how much stronger consensus do you want? GoldenRing (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahemm...article quality is the prime prerequisite regardless of support. This has an orange tag when in the past good articles vs. bad articles were judged more than mere consensus voting. Incidentally your comment proves voting does occur, contrary to User:TheRamblingMan's assertionLihaas (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Not just my assertion, but what should happen Lihaas. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree it should happen, but it doesn't happen. That's what im saying.Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • COmment I really think the article's problems were overstated. Yes it had an orange tag and guidelines (remember, only guidelines, not policy) do say that it should not be posted. Support was strong for posting, and the article's problems weren't terrible--as I noted two sections that needed more references Not the entire article by any means, and certainly not the updated portion of the article. Overall the article was rated B-class and well referenced. At most this is a tempest in a teacup. I think it was a correct posting, though I agree that in general articles normally shouldn't be posted with orange tags.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
So basically precedent is now officially set in stone that an articles update requirement/quality is null and void to post. Interesting..Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether it's set in stone or not is irrelevant, the point that this drive-by admin has neglected to assess the quality the article, regardless of the consensus. Very few people !voting ever bother to check the quality of the article they're !voting on, they're simply expressing an opinion on the concept of the article. This is a case in point. A lame article which needed some assistance before being rushed to the main page (and I tend to agree with HiLo48, there is systemic bias in play, Kruger National Park is the same size as Israel, I don't imagine we'll be posting the death of the President of Burundi in such a rush. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
1)Look, TRM, you're a very reasonable editor. I agree the existence of orange tags is/was an issue, but do you really think that it was a major problem that we posted a lengthy B-class article that had 70+references and just had two relatively small sections with need for additional references? This idea that the article was bad seems to be a gross exaggeration. And at time of posting there were no unreferenced sections. 2) I completely don't buy this argument of systemic bias. Are we really comparing Israel's importance in world affairs to Burundi's? OK, if we accept that premise that as the Israeli PM Sharon is no more important than the PM/head of state of a country of any country of the same population, there's still the matter that for several decades Sharon was a central figure of the Arab-Israeli conflict which surely ranks as one of the most, if not the most, significant military conflicts of the post WWII era. Surely reasonable people agree (and I think the above consensus reflected that despite a handful of dissenters) that Sharon's death ranks a one of the most significant deaths of recent years. It does seem that Sharon's perceived significance may have helped push the posting despite problems that may have held up less notable deaths, but that's not systemic bias. That's bias towards notability, a perfectly valid criterion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think any precedent of the sort has been set. The requirement stated at WP:ITN is that Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. There was never a requirement that the entire article be free of referencing problems, only that the update to the article must be thoroughly referenced. In this case, the article had an appropriate update for the event going into ITN and that update was appropriately referenced. Where has the "articles update requirement/quality" been infringed? There is a separate statement that, "Articles that are subject to serious issues ... will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." I think this article is a reasonable exception to that "normal" rule; it's a long article that covers a lot of history, both biographical and of the modern Middle East, and the sections with problems (fairly minor problems, too) are not relevant to the event going into ITN; the article is in reasonable shape for the purposes of ITN so I don't see the problem posting it. There is certainly no violation of the referencing requirement of WP:ITN here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no "rule" that says article with orange tag cannot be posted. Its upto the judgement of posting admin whether article is in good enough quality with updated content or not. Only exception would be AfD... it should not be posted till that's been resolved, which certainly was not the case here. Infact we have had whole bunch of discussions on this topic to ensure tags cannot be used as a delaying tactic.-- Ashish-g55 15:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Bold link switched to the death & funeral article. Hopefully that is an acceptable solution to all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Full Blurb - since RD has been instituted the rules have been very murky on which deaths "deserve" a full blurb versus a simple RD post. In my opinion nothing particularly stands out about Sharon that warrants a full blurb distinction as compared against someone like Nelson Mandela. If one takes worldwide coverage as a barometer, Mandela's death effectively spanned the front pages of every global newspaper (and their websites), while Sharon's death was largely a "brief" news item for most major media outlets. For Mandela, websites such as BBC, New York Times, and the Guardian dedicated full "feature" sections on the death alone, with "continual coverage" on news networks (some 24/7), while Sharon's death has elicited only two or three major articles per source. We are talking about vastly different orders of magnitude here. I vote we 'relegate' this post to RD. Colipon+(Talk) 18:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
If you start comparing blurbs to Mandela's death you will never have anything up on ITN. Our standards are not THAT high either -- Ashish-g55 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

January 10Edit


[Posted] World record price for a banknoteEdit

Article: Treasury (Coin) Note (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On 10 January 2014, at the annual Florida United Numismatist convention,in Orlando, Florida, Heritage Auctions sells a $1,000 Treasury (Coin) Note (Fr#379b) for $3,290,000, setting a new world record price for a United States banknote, beating the existing record of $2,255,000 for a different variety of the same type of note.
Alternative blurb: Heritage Auctions sells a $1,000 United States Treasury Note (Fr#379b) for $3,290,000, setting a new world record price for a banknote.
News source(s): http://currency.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3526&lotNo=17127#Photo
http://currency.ha.com/heritage-auctions-press-releases-and-news/heritage-sets-world-s-paper-money-record.s?releaseId=1279
ABC News
Wall Street Journal
Miami Herald


Both articles updated

 --Godot13 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Have added a much shorter blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have a world record price for a US banknote. Presumably that means higher prices have been paid for non-American banknotes. I cannot see why a non-absolute record for a note from one particular country is significant. Only our systemic bias would make this special. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • changed to neutral below
  • Oppose trivia? why is this important? -- Ashish-g55 03:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this is a worldwide record for currency (of any country), please let us know. Otherwise, this has no chance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am finding blog sources (not the best) indicating that the prior record was the highest ever paid for a banknote, any banknote. I will keep looking.-Godot13 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the second source, a press release from the auction company about the prior record does state it is (was) the world record for any banknote, which would support that this is a world record for any banknote.-Godot13 (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Every numismatic site I've checked refers to the prior record as being for a banknote (not just U.S.), so the title should read World record price for a banknote amended altblurb-Godot13 (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@ThaddeusB- It's not a record for all currency (i.e., coins), but it is a world record for all paper currency...-Godot13 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I support posting. We've posted other types of auction records on multiple occasions, and while I'm sure some will disagree I think a banknote record is as notable as an art record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Art usually has an artist. This is more like an antique item. breaking record for a banknote is just way too limited of a category in my opinion. -- Ashish-g55 05:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK This seems to be a result of artistic rarity, not one of inflation. That makes it a DYK fact, not a news item. No? μηδείς (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "This seems to be a result of artistic rarity, not one of inflation." - Huh? Isn't that the same reason works of art sell for so much, "artistic rarity"? Those often get posted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Art usually has an artist - The portrait was engraved by Charles Burt (of the American Banknote Company then the BEP); the reverse engraved by W. H. Dougal, E. M. Hall, G. U. Rose Jr., and D. M. Russell.-Godot13 (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose due to lack of news coverage outside of numismatic-niche sites; the sources given are by the brokers of the sale who have an interest in promoting themselves. If this appears in mainstream news sites I would reconsider. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Per 331dot. Nominate at DYK or something, if that is possible/feasible. Support now this has gotten better coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your reviews. I will monitor the mainstream press for the next day or so to see if this record is reported.-Godot13 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination; whatever happens with this I hope you continue to participate. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This came out today. Perhaps it gets picked up mainstream, or maybe not...-Godot13 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Info - Two new sources added including ABC News.-Godot13 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Change my Oppose to Neutral With the ambiguity cleared up, this is better now, but it does seem a very specialist area. There's still no way we should use the first blurb. The Alt blurb is better but, although it's linked, Treasury (Coin) Note is not a very good descriptor of what we're talking about here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to support. Now that more mainstream news has picked this up, I will come down on the support side. We've posted other record-priced auction items such as this in the past. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support mainstream coverage, pretty widely collected item (though perhaps not as much as coins). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    • (@ all reviewers) This is my first ITN, if there is something more I should be doing please let me know. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready - Consensus appears to be there now. I wasn't too happy with the state of the article, so I fixed it up. It should be ready for posting now. "(coin)" is a disambiguater of sorts - it is called a "Treasury Note" or a "Coin Note" - so perhaps better to drop it from the description for clarity (as I modified ALT1). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Michel Djotodia resignedEdit

Article: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amid civil conflict, Michel Djotodia resigns as the President of the Central African Republic and goes to exile in Benin.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 --Gfosankar (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, but it needs some more update. And we should mention the crisis in the CAR in the blurb. --Tone 14:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Added new article and about to update it. Done the ypdate and updated the blurb with the relevant article to the conflict. Obvious supportLihaas (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportOleg-ch (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major development in an ongoing conflict and is being reported widely. Teemu08 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; the resignation of a head of state is notable. Changes in head of state are normally ITNR, but I think we usually wait for the successor to take office in that instance. Does that mean there will be another posting? 331dot (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not updated - the update in both articles consists of a single sentence basically saying "Djotodia resigned on Jan 10". That is not sufficient for ITN purposes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
update the article I updated about the conflict has 3 sentences (see reactions section, domestic subsection, 2nd para). Perhaps de-bold Djotodia's articleLihaas (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Done that and marked readyLihaas (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is if you read the fact tht his article is NOT the main bolded articleLihaas (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Amiri BarakaEdit

Article: Amiri Baraka (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times USA Today NPR Toronto Sun The Independent Zee News (India)

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: He was an influential poet and playwright. USA Today said he was a "provocative and groundbreaking force in American culture." The New York Times said that he was a "major force" in the Black Arts movement in the 1960's and 1970's. Andise1 (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

oppose not a leader in his field, only focused on the usa.Lihaas (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"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."Andise1 (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas' criticism is too mild. Baraka was the Poet Laureate of ... New Jersey. And he taught at two state colleges in New York. His greatest recognition was the PEN Open Book Award, with which we are all very familiar, I suppose? None of this constitutes anything near his being at the top of any relevant field. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
He must have had some level of influence with his poetry and writing if the FBI thought that he was "the person who will probably emerge as the leader of the pan-African movement in the United States.". The point of his Poet Laureate position isn't that he held it but that it was abolished due to controversy he created(since they couldn't remove him from the position they removed the position). I don't think they do that to too many poets. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, 331dot, he should have been nominated as a middling Leftist activist and Black Nationalist. (His appointment by the second most scandalous (well that depends) of the last four Governors of New Jersey, his anti-American and anti-Jewish screed, "Someone Blew Up America?" and his total lack of serious academic and poetic credentials speak volumes.) Unfortunately, he was nominated as a poet, where he doesn't even reach the level of middling. As for the "he did his job so poorly he was great" argument, that was just invalidated this Novemeber, wasn't it? μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose a part of the campus scene in NY and NJ in the 80's & 90's, but of no wider influence. Known for controversy, not quality. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Support. Notable in his field, received several honors and awards. Jón - (Talk) 05:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable in poetry; received several awards, and also notable for his activities(one of his poems led to the abolition of his position as Poet Laureate of NJ). Also receiving coverage internationally. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support influence clearly demonstrated by international response to his death, nice article, award-winning and recognised poet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-known poet & playwright (perhaps better known as "LeRoi Jones"), key figure in Black Arts Movement according to the Independent & BBC. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose was not very important figure in his field. SeraV (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per SeraVs reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

January 9Edit


2014 Elk River chemical spillEdit

Item has been successfully re-nominated for DYK. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 14 January 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 Elk River chemical spill (talk, history)
Blurb: Up to 5,000 gallons of crude 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol spilled into the Elk River in Charleston, West Virginia, prompting a ban on drinking water in nine counties affecting 300,000 people.
Alternative blurb: A chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, prompts a ban on drinking water in nine counties affecting 300,000 people.
News source(s): Washington Post, Associated Press, National Geographic, CNN, The Herald-Dispatch, The Charleston Gazette, The Christian Science Monitor

Article updated
 --Caponer (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I could support this in principle, but is there a way to shorten the blurb? 331dot (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As this was the shortest I could come up with, I am definitely open to suggested alternate blurbs. -- Caponer (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer the alternative blurb that has been suggested above. -- Caponer (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Count me as a support now. Widely covered event affecting a large number of people. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a large and serious local story. But there are no deaths, no projection of the long-term effects, and no comparison with other spills internationally, which would be extremely helpful. Opposed for now. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment, μηδείς! I understand your point of view, and when I find sourced information comparing this to other spills, I'll most certainly include it. -- Caponer (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I only read the headline this morning, but supposedly they will be ending the ban on drinking water. I suggest you nominate this article for WP:DYK assuming it won't be in ITN. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestions and your attention to my nomination. I've already done so, and it has been reviewed and given the go ahead by a thoughtful editor there. -- Caponer (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, and good work. μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 14 January 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] Lawful killing verdict delivered at inquest into death of Mark Duggan.Edit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:11, 9 January 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: Death of Mark Duggan (talk, history) and 2011 England Riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A jury at the High Court, London returns an 8-2 majority verdict of lawful killing at the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan despite also finding that Duggan was unarmed when shot by Metropolitan Police firearms officers. His death sparked protests across London which eventually spread and culminated in the 2011 England Riots.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
 --SheffGruff (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this as newsworthy outside of the microcosm of a nuance of the British legal system. It's local news, and looks to have little impact (other than armed police finally being required to carry personal video recorders, much like our guys in Afghanistan). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Moderately significant story in the UK press, but not on the international stage. No major impact. Just not significant enough for ITN. Also, that blurb is far too long, and includes details which are not related to the current story. Modest Genius talk 12:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A pedant writes... the inquest was sitting in a courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, not in or at the High Court, so the words "High Court" should not be used in the blurb. The RCJ is a building where courts sit (including the High Court, but also e.g. the Court of Appeal - and both of these courts sit elsewhere too). The High Court does not conduct inquests - that is the role of a coroner's court. Instead of sitting in the local area, it sat at the RCJ because of the better facilities there for a hearing of this nature. BencherliteTalk 13:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    Another pedant quietly applauds ... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    Hear hear! Modest Genius talk 16:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For much the same reasons as above. The most relevant article is in good shape and well updated, but only of significance in the UK (and in the scheme of it, at least at present, not that significant there either). Pedro :  Chat  13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As per the statement near the top of this page, a story only relating to one country is no reason not to post it. However, Oppose as it's not even that significant a story in the UK. GoldenRing (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Local interest story; minor footnote in terms of the riots. Blurb is also far too long. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Outside UK, Mark Duggan is not a recognized name. Sca (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose slow news day. And don't carry guns, kids. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose - national story,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 9 January 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.

January 8Edit


[Closed] Akademik Shokalskiy Breaks freeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:14, 9 January 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: Akademik Shokalskiy (talk, history)
Blurb: Akademik Shokalskiy breaks free after being trapped in Antarctic ice
News source(s): SMH
Nominator's comments: I have been waiting to nominate this for few weeks now. The ship received a lot of coverage over last 2 weeks as you all know. 3 different ice breakers tried to break it free and one actually got stuck in ice itself. US's Polar star was also deployed but the ship managed to free itself before it got there. The overall story for the ship getting stuck is fairly international with atleast 5 nations involved. The article also has a very good update on the whole story (except the very last part of it getting free). I think the blurb only needs to mention this ship and rest can be read in the article. ---- Ashish-g55 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought this would be worthwhile posting, but then I read about how stupid/unnecessary this expedition was. I am assuming that a similar level of stupidity led to the ship being trapped. Nergaal (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this will be a two-liner tonight on Leno. It won't merit two sentences in the EB twenty years from now. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why Leno or something 20 years from now matters for this to be posted... weird reason for oppose -- Ashish-g55 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This will be on Leno tonight as a joke. In 20 years it won't be in print anywhere except some old newspapers. It is not encyclopedic in nature. Very obvious reason for an oppose. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Does something need to be encyclopaedic to be ITN? Nonetheless, this is approaching WP:SNOW GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This has been a high-interest, major international news story for some time (as judged by the type, location, and depth of coverage in various sources) and readers will be interested in an encyclopedia article about it. --Jayron32 00:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No one's lives were in danger, the worst that would have happened is the lost of the ship after evacuation if it could never gotten free. Interesting but not long-term news. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The crew had plenty of supplies and likely would have continued to have been supplied had they still been stuck, so they were in little if any danger. 331dot (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. A ship getting stuck in ice is not at al unusual. This one only got significant coverage because a) there were a bunch of journalists on board and b) it happened during a slow news week (Christmas - New Year). I'm not even convinced it's worth having an article, let alone an ITN posting. Nothing to see here, move along. Modest Genius talk 12:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — This is but a footnote to the original story, which was over-reported due to the novel circumstances. Good to update the article, but not ITN-appropriate. Sca (talk) 15:19, 9 January 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] Dinosaur fossils discovered in Saudi ArabiaEdit

Consensus not to post. If a separate article appears, take it to DYK. --Tone 14:18, 10 January 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: Dinosaurs (talk, history) and Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first ever remains of Dinosaur fossils are discovered in Saudi Arabia.
News source(s): PLOS One (official report)Nature World News UPI Toronto Sun RedOrbit Sault Star CBC LiveScience

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is notable as dinosaur fossils had not been discovered before in Saudi Arabia. Andise1 (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A rare find, not just for Saudi Arabia, but the whole Arabian peninsula. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither of those articles ([Dinosaurs]], Saudi Arabia) are specific enough. I'm struggling to think where this information could be discussed in sufficient detail for an ITN item to point at it. --LukeSurl t c 14:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Is this the first time fossils have been found in any of the Middle Eastern countries, or just specific to Saudi? If it is the latter, I don't think it's notable enough for ITN as where dinosaurs might have died wrt to today's geopolitical boundaries is significant. On the other hand, if it is the former and the first of its kind in that region of the world, that would be more significant. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • ( I see 331dot suggest it is for the whole region, but I just want to check this). --MASEM (t) 17:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • The UPI article states that such finds in the Arabian peninsula are extremely rare because sedimentary rocks(which typically are where dinosaur fossils are found) are not normally found there. A scientist in the same article was quoted as saying "these are the first taxonomically recognizable dinosaurs reported from the Arabian Peninsula." The CBC article also states that the very few fossils that have been found in the area were not recognized as belonging to dinosaurs, either. If this isn't the very first time such a discovery has been made, it is certainly a rare event. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Does the UPI article know what it's talking about. Oil is primarily found in sedimentary rocks, and they're telling that such rocks are not normally found in the Arabian peninsular? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose. There's nothing apparently remarkable about the dinosaurs themselves. In favor, WP is usually the place I would come looking for details on a story like this. A good article might be worth featuring if we had one. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable finding--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A fairly meaningless first. We should not feature obscure arbitrary "first" events. No more consequence for the world of hard science than a similar new dinosaur find in any other country, which we would never dream of featuring. The Dormaalocyon latouri story below is far more novel from a scientific perspective, at first glace. Thue (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, all published science should be a "first". Other than their location, there is nothing interesting about these fossils. Abductive (reasoning) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Many would argue that the more important published science is reliable replication of the "first" (but I think you mean discovery of objects, species, behaviours, etc?) I had assumed the location here was indeed the news? Perhaps more newsworthy if it had been elsewhere - but we need some expert judgement here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was going to support thinking from the blurb that these were the oldest dinosaurs remains, just happening to be in Saudi Arabia, but the same way we do not post the soccer winners for this country, we shouldn't post archaeological firsts for this country. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nergaal. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

RD: Mónica SpearEdit

Article: Mónica Spear (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Telenovela star and Miss Venezuela winner Monica Spear and her ex-husband are gunned down on vacation
News source(s): Al Jazeera Irish Times Variety The Guardian

Article updated

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

 Lihaas (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP:ITND#2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Notable does not imply "very important". Finished "only" #4 on Miss Universe, little international recognition per article. --hydrox (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. She was notable in her field (I am not going to go into detail and argue whether or not she was very notable in her field. To be honest, I am not an expert on beauty pageants, so I'll leave it as it is). However, the death was widely covered in the media (quick Google results show). As Lihaas states, the murder highlights the growing insecurity problems in Venezuela (as discussed by this source). This may very well be the first notable event of a bloody year in Venezuela. But I hope I'm wrong. ComputerJA () 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we really want to go down the path where celebrity status in any one country warrants an RD mention? --hydrox (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Everyone on ITN/RD has celebrity status. Especially actors and people like Vidal Sassoon. That's the definition of "celebrity"Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have misread or misunderstood my comment. I gather you think I said that this nomination should not be posted, because the deceased was a celebrity, and that I claim celebrities should not be posted. But then by the very criteria, it's obvious that everyone posted on RD is already by the very definition a celebrity. So you claim to refute my argument by having demonstrated a clear logical fallacy. However, this is not due to what said, but how you misinterpreted my comment.
What I wanted to say, is that achieving a celebrity status in one non-English speaking country while lacking major international recognition (I am willing to agree that this person seems to have been a "very notable" celebrity in Venezuela, but not internationally), should not mean that we post it here on English Wikipedia to the RD. This is because I foresee a flood of nominations if go down that path: there are lots of non-English speaking countries with lots of celebrities, and if we establish a precedent where we post every time one of those celebrities dies (tragically or not), we're soon going to have too many nominations. --hydrox (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Miss V is hardly notable, Miss Universe may have cut it. Death is shocking, but individual is not "very important" in her field. Welcome back Lihaas, happy new year. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She does not meet any of the RD criteria; as stated by TRM if she was Miss Universe that might cut it(though I have trouble with considering subjective beauty pageants a 'field') as that would be tops in the field. If this was posted, it should be as a blurb, not for RD if it is the circumstances of her death that make it notable(I would oppose that too, though). 331dot (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Considering youre the first one to make an argument about something being "in the news", how can you now say that this is NTO in the news? sO youre setting precedence in saying it doesn't have to be on the news?Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that she does not meet any of the RD criteria. I did not claim that this was not in the news- but as I have learned over time being in the news has never been sufficient cause to post a story. The fact is this was a single unfortunate murder which we wouldn't have heard about it she were not a past Miss Venezuela(not even the current one) who was 4th runner up, not even the top three. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support On the front page of my newspaper today, the Miami Herald. The death was lamented by the President of Venezuela. Yes, the woman was a former beauty queen; but she had gone on to be a successful soap opera star. GroveGuy (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • GroveGuy, even as a soap opera star, it is difficult to see how she meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, 331dot, as the others above point out, she fails RD criteria. But I woke up today and saw this story on the front page of my (world class) newspaper. I looked here in Wikipedia and saw this nominated article. With a lot of opposition. If is worthy to be noted by Al Jazeera and The Guardian, then I support it. GroveGuy (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • GroveGuy, Justin Bieber's latest shenanigans are often on the front page of the news; should that be an ITN item? Not the same situation but the point is that merely being in the news has never been sufficient cause to post a story. 331dot (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fails the RD requirement - how she died does not change this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per fact that she was a notable actress in her part of the world. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beauty queen and soap opera actress (not exactly "notable actress")doesn't rise to RD criteria, I'm afraid. 212.139.241.55 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Then you do not understand how popular these telenovelas are in that part of the world. but that is another discussion..--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But then again, the criterion says "The deceased was widely regarded as as a very important figure in his or her field" (my emphasis). Clearly not that widely regarded I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose support fails rd requirement, however so did punch of other people in the past so I quess that doesn't mean much anymore. Changing to support thanks to earlier precedent set by Walker and Monteith. SeraV (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Miss Venezuela winners just aren't that important in the context of world history. Thue (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb first, this is a murder, so the mode of death is newsworthy. Also, this is huge news in the Spanish press, and there's no question we'd be posting this if it were an English-speaking actress of the same calibre--certainly more newsworthy than, not to put it rudely, an overdose of a one-hit-wonder. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis, BabbaQ, etc. Death is receiving a lot of worldwide press. --Jayron32 00:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This nomination seems similar along the lines to the Cory Monteith and Paul Walker nominations: mildly famous subject (article exists but not at the very top of his/her field) with a dramatic, surprising/early death. Not a statement of support or opposition, but I'm curious to see how this nomination will end. SpencerT♦C 02:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Monteith and Walker died of their own misadventures. Here we have the murder of a national beauty queen and TV star and her husband on vacation in their homeland. It is being reported as emblematic of her country's problems, not the death of a cute boy from his poor judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose At least Paul Walker had a large role in a notable series, and his death had a pretty big affect on the production of the next one. I can't say the same for a soap actress who happened to win a beauty contest. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable actress in her home country that is receiving international and global coverage for her death. The only difference between Spear and Paul Walker and Cory Monteith (B-list movie and TV actors) is the systematic bias that hypes up the deaths of North American celebrities over one from an area of the world that receives less coverage. AgneCheese/Wine 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article needs work as the English is rather poor (probably written by non-native speakers, so understandable, but still needs fixed for teh article to get serious consideration). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
comment in line with all the other actors et al we post: (from the page) "Spear became one of the most successful actresses in Venezuela for her main roles in soap operas". And weve posted plenty of people who are not at the very top but one of the..Lihaas (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment At least Walker (and Monteith to an extent) had worldwide (i.e. broad) notability as actors in hugely successful international television shows and movies. They spanned the globe. This woman appeared in a handful of episodes in a handful of soap operas, and won no awards whatsoever for doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
nevertheless neither of them met our requirements and were posted only because of anglo bias we have here. Indeed I agree with anon that since Walker and Monteith died of their own misadventures they were much worse candidates than Mónica is thanks to her being murdered. SeraV (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't buy that. All three died unexpectedly, who are we to determine whether one unexpected death makes someone a better candidate than another unexpected death? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, I think Walker's and Monteith's contributions are being over-hyped and oversold due to North American bias. Unlike folks such as Peter O'Toole, no one will be talking about the cinematic accomplishments of Walker and Monteith 30, 40, 50 years down the road. Will people be talking about Spear? Probably not but, again, the only difference between her and Walker/Monteith is the systematic bias that favored and over-represents the contributions two b-list North American actors over a notable actress from an area of the world that is grossly under-represented. AgneCheese/Wine 17:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree with your assessment of Monteith, but Walker featured in films that took global box office receipts in excess of $2 billion. And that was just six of the dozens of films he featured in. Your enthusiasm for a Venezuelan soap actress is admirable, but really she's not "top of her field" or "widely regarded as notable". This is just fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Neither of which makes him (Walker) "top of his field" or "widely regarded as notable" so you claiming high ground in this discussion is just ridiculous. SeraV (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, worldwide recognition and an actor whose last few movies had more success outside his native country, makes him widely regarded as notable. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Walker was anymore worthy of RD featuring than Spear is. I doubt anyone 30, 40, 50 years down the road will have the faintest idea how many The Fast and the Furious movies were made (or Walker's role in them) much less that it took 6 feature films and 2 shorts films to reach a combine gross of 2.3 billion (or an average of 287.5 mill a film which is actually kind of pathetic). Toy Story 3, alone, made 1.06 billion and while I'm sure Tom Hanks and perhaps Tim Allen would get some RD consideration, I doubt Joan Cusack would get much support even though she voiced a very notable character (Jessie) in a film series that completely dwarfed F&F in both box office receipts and lasting cinematic value. Though you could argue that Cusack doesn't have the same "cool-factor" as Paul Walker does for the 18-35 North American male video-gamer demographic if that matters. Do I think Mónica Spear is on par with Joan Cusack? No, but, obviously the Walker/Monteith precedent shows that we're not too concerned with cinematic accomplishments. And, again, outside of systematic bias of that same 18-35 North American male video-gamer demo, I see little difference between the accomplishment and global coverage of Spear's death compared to Walker's. AgneCheese/Wine 18:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
287.5m is "kind of pathetic"?! Never mind. Spear accomplished nothing but minor celebrity status in soap operas in Venezuela. Walker accomplished worldwide notability. Just because you don't like the kind of movies he was in, that's irrelevant. (Oh, and Cusack, at least, has won some Emmys, I couldn't see any awards for Monica, I think Cusack would stand a good shout for an unexpected death RD should the need arise). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've made no personal comment on whether or not I've liked any of Walker's movies. While not male, I certainly do fall into the 18-35 North American video-gamer demographic. But I'm able to set aside my own personal systematic bias towards over-hyping the accomplishments of someone like Walker to realize that in other parts of world the death of someone like Spear merits global coverage and consideration. AgneCheese/Wine 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I gave it due consideration, and it fails to meet the RD criteria. That's not systemic bias, that's "failing to meet the RD criteria". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Participant in Miss Universerse and playing in soap operas, but not widely regarded as a particular important person in neither of these two fields. So, doesn't meet the ordinary criteria for RD and we don't normally put much weight on notability gained trhough an unusual death. Also oppose blurb, while this death is reported internationally, I don't think it is a dominant news story or one with particular encyclopedia value. Iselilja (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is so unimportant, why are we discussing this so much? For the second day this is still a featured story on CNN. Now they have caught the murderers. I'd be willing to make a big $ bet that they make a movie about this. Plot: As a little kid her middle class family flees the chaos of an evolving dictatorship. But she goes back to her country to become mega famous - in 2005 she is voted the fifth most beautiful woman in the world. She then gets some small acting jobs but again flees her country to get starring roles in Miami. Last - she visits her homeland to show it off to her five year old daughter. Gruesome death scene. GroveGuy (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably still being discussed because of the previous postings of Monteith and Walker, nothing more. She fails RD, simple. If you all want a blurb about how this is going to bring peace to Venezuela, suggest that (I see opposing political leaders actually shook hands so things must be on the up.) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Miss Venezuela and husband killed in contract hit? Per VZ' president. This is top of the news for the third day. Portraying this as the "death" of a Miss Universe participant obscures the fact that it's the murder of a Miss Venezuela winner. Certainly the top of her field, and notable world-wide. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD, Neutral Blurb this is a murder... that should disqualify it for RD automatically. Either discuss full blurb or dont post it. I dont think we've ever posted a murder on RD. -- Ashish-g55 02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable or important enough to be ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone above claims "Certainly the top of her field"; which "field" is that? The "being a model in Venezuela in 2004" field? No. Eva Ekvall was far classier, had a much bigger and more important message, died tragically, but wait, she wasn't in a soap opera or two... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment removed..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I too am perplexed by this comment. It's not like this was in any danger of being posted, so why randomly state your opinion yet again? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dormaalocyon latouriEdit

Article: Dormaalocyon latouri (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Newly discovered fossils of Dormaalocyon latouri, which was an early ancestor of modern carnivores, is discovered in Belgium.
News source(s): Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology International Business Times NBC News CBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A new species of mammal carnivore that can be linked to modern mammal carnivores was discovered via newly discovered fossils. The blurb can be changed or tweaked if needed. Andise1 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • If this is going to be posted, we need to make it clear that Carnivora is what is intended, and not carnivore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't post without expansion--two sentences at present! Abductive (reasoning) 20:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That is why I said the article needs some work. Andise1 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • DYK It's interesting in that it shows Miacis as historically viewed is an invalid, polyphyletic group. But for the general readership I doubt the teeth and jaw and foot bones rise to the level of ITN notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 7Edit


[Posted] RD: Run Run ShawEdit

Article: Run Run Shaw (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News South China Morning Post Bloomberg The New York 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.

 —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Reading his article, he seems to be very important in his field. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Well, to be honest my first reaction was he was still alive?. But yes, very influential individual in the growth of the Singaporean/Malaysian and HK film industries. The Shaw brothers helped Malaysian cinema grow to rival that of the Indies in size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, I read the article, having never heard of him, and it's really good. He has won numerous significant awards and also established a prize. CaptRik (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable death and a very good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - one of the most influential film moguls in China, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia. -Zanhe (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Never heard of him before, but his bio is compelling. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 6Edit


[Posted] Sobekhotep I tombEdit

Article: Sobekhotep I (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A team of archeaologists identifies the tomb of Egyptian pharaoh Sobekhotep I.
News source(s): UniversityHerald, Mail&Guardian, VoiceofRussia

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Egypt's antiquities minister announced the discovery on this Monday. Brandmeistertalk 18:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support the article is updated, and where do you expect to get info on a find like this, if not WP? μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support the article isn't brilliant, I've made a few changes, and written some of the sentences in grammatically correct English, but it's a reasonably interesting topic, albeit one that seems to have very little to say about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I haven't looked too deeply into this, but it seems interesting and encyclopedic, it's a topic that we rarely cover, and it's somewhat analogous to the discovery of Richard III's remains, which we posted last year. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the type of news that befits an encyclopedia. -Zanhe (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Janet YellenEdit

Article: Janet Yellen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Senate confirms Janet Yellen's nomination to be Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Alternative blurb: Janet Yellen is confirmed as the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the first woman to hold the position.
News source(s): New York Times Reuters Washington Post

 --GroveGuy (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support based on the precedent that her predecesor, Ben Bernake, was posted when he was confirmed by the Senate for a second term, and because Yellen is the first woman to be Fed Chair. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb - chairman of the Federal Reserve is one of the most influential positions in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Especially in this time of financial crisis and controversial loose financial policy by the US Federal Reserve, this is one of the economically most important positions in the world. Her economic policy (dove) is much more important that her being a woman, so support main blurb, though "confirmed" should be changed to "confirms", as we write blurbs in present tense. Thue (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Arguably one of the most powerful positions in the world. And the first woman to hold it. The first point is the most important, so I support the main blurb. Iselilja (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support basically opposed as biased (we don't normally post cabinet-level appointments), but this will have huge interest and we will be a good source for readers. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is actually above cabinet level, since the president does not have to power to remove the Fed chair. It is more like a Supreme Court nomination, albeit term-limited. (I support, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable by virtue of being the first woman in the post (oh for the time when this isn't, etc. etc.) doktorb wordsdeeds 19:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Notable for the first woman to hold such a powerful position. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The head of the CIA must carry out the President's wishes and can be removed by them. The Fed chair cannot be removed by the President. The Fed also has a wider effect on the economy(both in the US and globally) than the CIA. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait? Clicking on the Chair of the Federal Reserve link above shows that the current chair doesn't leave office until 31st Jan. When we post (for example) change of governments the assumption is, I think, that they happen immediately. CaptRik (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
We generally post the result of an election when it's announced. We only very rarely post the consequent change of government. I would see this akin to her being now elected, and someone already said the Bernake too was posted on his election by Senate. --hydrox (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb is okay i.e. I think her being the first woman in this position should be mentioned. Post now, although does not formally take office until the end of month, as this was reported now and she has now been definitely designated for the office by the body that decides on the nomination. --hydrox (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
PULL we always wait till they take office as in the UNSC elections. Its 3 weeks away and that's what notable. Why the hypocrisy?Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This isn't an election, it is an appointment and confirmation. It is also in the news now as notable for her being the first woman to get the position. Could you also demonstrate where we waited until the person took office to post? We generally post the results of elections when they are known, not when the government takes office(as ITNR states we generally do not post inaugurations) 331dot (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
An election is a choice, She was elected by the senate just as the UNSC is elected by the UNGA. Similar two deliberative bodies.Lihaas (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There was not a 'choice'; the Senate could only accept or reject her, not select a different person. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize with Lihaas's pull. But if she dies or withdraws in the meantime that will be even bigger news, and we'll publish an update. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] North American Polar VortexEdit

Article: 2014 polar vortex (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 polar vortex, an Arctic cold front, brings record low temperatures to Canada and the United States
Alternative blurb: ​The 2014 polar vortex brings record low temperatures to North America and gales and heavy rain to Northern Europe.
News source(s): Fox News (record lows, deaths), NYT (record lows), BBC (damage caused), NPR (some good quotes on the severity)

Nominator's comments: Current extreme weather event --Sven Manguard Wha? 17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support though I've suggested an alternative blurb that mentions some of the wider effects. Does anyone know if the same phenomenon is causing extreme weather in Russia? GoldenRing (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    • GoldenRing: Do we have sources that connect all of these as one event? If so, we definitely need to change the article, as the sources I have found (and thus the article) are all focused on North America. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
      • The contrast between the cold north and warm south in NA has apparently caused the polar jet stream to go faster, leading to windiness in Europe. I've heard that on the news a few times - I don't imagine it would be hard to source. As to whether it is fascinating enough for tthe blurb or whether the story should be posted at all - less sure. Formerip (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is unusually extreme, definitely in the news, and probably got quite a high amount of page views at the moment. CaptRik (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any mention of Europe - The European & NA weather events are not being treated as a correlating event here, even if it technically is. While the weather in Europe is bad, it's not ITN-worthy, and as usual in the UK we have the news making a big deal over a few flooded homes (always by rivers and the sea) and people acting foolish around fast flowing water. As for the NA side of things - Neutral - I could of sworn other record-breaking weather events have not been posted, correct me if I'm wrong on this. In the grand scheme of things, the weather in North America is not really a major, mass-causality causing catastrophe. --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb, no need to mention "heavy rain" in Europe --Երևանցի talk 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Leaning support but the linked article is still sketchy. Jusdafax 00:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted without mention of Europe. Stephen 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull cold weather in winter is of no notability; there's not even a major storm associated with this stub. We usually have at least four supports before we post an article so quickly. It's not like the death of the King of England that it needs posting with barely 6 hours of comment. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, pull OK. I would agree there was not enough support to post this(and don't object to pulling it), but the coldest weather in decades, if not ever, for most of the affected area is clearly notable as it has disrupted air travel across North America, closed schools, and is life-threatening in many places. News coverage is widespread and not limited to the US. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The coldest weather in decades happens in various places every year, but we don't post them all. I'm not necessarily saying pull, but that that doesn't seem like a very strong rationale. Formerip (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, clearly this is an unusual weather event, with records being broken. But the article is far too short, and does not fully explain the causes and extent of the event. Perhaps a map would help. Abductive (reasoning) 01:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think blurb needs to say Canada and US instead of North America. I dont know why but the way its written it sounds weird as 2 specific countries are affected and not the entire North America. Proposed blurb was factually correct -- Ashish-g55 04:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's compare this to Typhoon Haiyan which killed well over 6,000 but took us days to post even after it had more casualties than this low. I am sure this is a huge matter to people who will be warming up their cars in a few hours (I am expecting a low of 0 F when I walk out the door on the 7th), but the article is a stub, the occurrence is a regular one, and the local bias is obvious to the point of blindingness. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It actually took slightly less than a day to be posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It took a day from landfall for it to be posted. The nomination was up well before that. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect. It was nominated at 17:41 on 7 November 2013, and posted at 17:35 on 8 November 2013, with landfall occurring 5-6 hours after nomination. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledge your correction, thanks. I must have been thinking of the other major Typhoon that hit southern China east of Hong Kong last summer and only killed several hundreds or so. Unfortunately I can't think of the name. In any case, we're not looking at a six-hour turnaround. I will withdraw my objection to that article itself at this point, which has been updated above three bare paragraphs. I think it is still clear that the rush to post this contrasts very strongly with the usual standard for weather events outside the anglosphere. I am not sure that last year's cold weather in Eastern Europe was even posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking to my own motivations for posting this, according to the sources I've read, this isn't just cold, it's once-in-twenty-years cold. I'm also not at all active in this area, so I had no idea if this was going to stick or not. It was, however, in the news, including international news, so I figured I'd give it a shot. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
A cat rescued from a fire in Los Angeles makes international news these days. Hollyowood romances make international news these days. I wish we had a better measure. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
For those of us who remember what the Encyclopedia Britannica was, one can ask, "Would this article merit a quarter of a page of coverage 50 years after it happened?" If not, it's not encyclopedic, and not worth front page coverage. That would, of course, mean 99% of the sports coverage we have would go away. But that's to be wished, just as it is a good thing that we are no longer listing a video game as the featured article every 8 days. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I reckon that time perspective is a valuable one. I usually suggest ten or twenty years. Though when it comes to sport, I'd still argue that three articles a year on the world's second most popular sport (discussed elsewhere on this page) is not out of order. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Point conceded. Perhaps 1/98 of the sports items are justified. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have supported had I seen this last night (whether I would have opposed or declined to comment would have depended on how much research I was willing to do), but I wouldn't pull now. Even in a country with as convoluted a legal system as the US, it now being illegal to drive in most of Indiana is an indication of how exceptional these conditions are for the region. —WFCFL wishlist 14:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Turkey Corruption ScandalEdit

Article: 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In response to the ongoing corruption investigation into his government, Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan orders the removal of 350 police officers from their posts.
News source(s): [12], [13]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A major, ongoing government and constitutional story from Turkey, with possible implications for the EU given Turkey's membership bid, and this is a major development in it, probably as good a reference point as any for ITN. Note that the decree issued at midnight in turkey on the 7th but that is still the 6th UTC. --GoldenRing (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The blurb does not fully do justice to the magnitude of the story, which has brought down a number of senior government ministers – the economic impact is alleged in some sources to exceed $100billion. Even if that is a somewhat inflated figure, there is no doubt that this story is too big to dismiss out of hand. The only question is whether this is the optimal moment to run it. —WFCFL wishlist 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if even bigger things happens about this in the future we can just post this again. SeraV (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable corruption scandal which is having an evident impact of the Turkish body politic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in some form, but this story is bigger than just the removal of 350 police officers. Thue (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but it is one of those stories that is so big it rumbles on for months without finding anything that is individually ITN-worthy. I'd be very open to anyone formulating a better blurb that better encompases the whole story, though. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, situation is murky and hard to read. Should it wait until the government falls? Abductive (reasoning) 20:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well it's not clear that the government will fall - it's just WP:CRYSTAL. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make this event not important enough to post? When have any scandals ever been posted to ITN? Abductive (reasoning) 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The story here is not 'scandal' as such, but the exposure of an enormous amount of corruption (value est tens of billions of US$) and a developing constitutional battle between the police, the judiciary and the executive. The removal of 350 police officers struck me as representative of the constitutional battle going on. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for editing discussion, just noticed that I'd posted this in the wrong place. GoldenRing (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WFC and SeraV.
  • Comment: The article could probably use some cleanup. There seems to be an indiscriminate listing of names of anyone and everyone charged; this should probably be limited to notable people or at least those with an article. SpencerT♦C 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 5Edit


[Closed] Result of 2013-14 Ashes seriesEdit

Clear consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 16:06, 7 January 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: 2013-14 Ashes series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cricket, The Ashes conclude with Australia defeating England 5-0.
News source(s): NDTV

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Australia regain the Ashes after 7 years. RRD13 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if we didn't also post it after the third test - I remember a discussion but not what the outcome was. Of course, I'd like to see a blurb that included the words 'crushing' and 'whitewash' but we can't have everything... GoldenRing (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Moot: we already posted the story on 20 December, after the third test. No reason to post it again just because we now know the final scoreline. Modest Genius talk 17:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Again support England cricket team for the recent deaths blurb. And a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Mitchell Johnson... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius, no reason to post twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I posted this previously after the 3rd test. SpencerT♦C 20:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. (support Lugnuts' comment tho) CaptRik (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Already posted. Although if you want to show wikipedia readers how much the England team sucked, be my guest. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, we did post that Australia had regained The Ashes after the 3rd Test, but this final result after five Tests is a newsworthy one. A five-nil result is rare, and was completely unexpected in this case. A new posting is appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Though truth be told I think we erred in doing the Dec 20th posting and probably should have just waited till the conclusion. AgneCheese/Wine 23:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Which is why ITNR says 'the conclusion of the tournament or series', but apparently no-one read that. Modest Genius talk 01:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Should probably have been posted now and not then, but it was done and we don't need to do it twice. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a feeling we still have a number of editors commenting here who have no idea how The Ashes work. This is not the same event twice. Nor is it similar to the World Series. There are two distinct newsworthy events here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
If the newsworthy event is the 5-0 win and not the win itself(why was there a need to play two more rounds if they had already won?), then the blurb should be radically rewritten to state that's the story here. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your bracketed question proves my point. You have no idea how The Ashes work. It's not my job to teach you here. There's plenty of material available here on Wikipedia and elsewhere for you to learn from. But until you do learn, please stop commenting on matters you know almost nothing about. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your criticism of my opinion completely dodged my valid point that the blurb does not reflect what you feel the story is here. Whether I understand cricket or not is irrelevant if the blurb does not match the story. I can certainly make a judgement as to the newsworthiness of a story without a total understanding of it; people do that here every day. Until there is a policy prohibiting me from doing so, I will comment on what I see fit. You are free to ignore me or criticize me(as you did). And, by the way, giving a little info to opponents of this or those who you feel don't understand it, to help them understand will only help it get posted, not hurt. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, for the Ashes nomination in December you wrote "This is big news NOW. The final result of the series will definitely be lesser news. It's ITN/R, this is the big news from the series, so it should be posted now." So it was posted. So why are you pushing so hard for another posting, against your prior commentary? Stephen 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Because of the completely unexpected 5-0 result. Australia lost to England 3-0 just a few months ago in England. (In a five Test series, just to confuse some people!) The media didn't expect this result. The players didn't. I didn't expect this result. Hence my enthusiasm to post this now. had it been anything less than 5-0 in a five Test series, I wouldn't be pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the moral of the story here is to wait for the conclusion of the event, as some have said here. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well I'd say that by 3-0 we had a pretty good idea that this was an insipid and uninspiring England team, and 5-0 was rather likely. But hindsight is always 20:20. Stephen 01:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Both events have been covered extensively in the news. Why should only one be posted? HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think saying "Well you just don't understand The Ashes" counts, especially since it is likely that a fair number of English Wikipedia readers will likely "not understand" and similarly be confused about why we are posting a 2nd blurb from the same cricket event so soon after the first. As Wikipedia:ITN/R#Cricket notes, we usually only feature around 3 blurbs about cricket in an entire year so I think it is fair to question why we are featuring another blurb only 3 weeks after the previous one. AgneCheese/Wine 01:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Only three a year? For what's probably the world's second most popular sport? (For those questioning that in their minds, think of India.) Our systemic bias really is a problem, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
On the flip side, you can look at the long list of non-sports related news blurbs that weekly get rejected for various reasons and ask if a systematic bias is at play in that we have upwards of 65-74 slots a year on ITN dedicated to reoccurring sports stories? AgneCheese/Wine 01:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(to HiLo) You bring up systemic bias but also say it is "not your job" to educate people which might help to blunt it. You want to be an anti-systemic bias warrior, then be one and help people. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I do get a bit worn out here with non-experts expressing opinions on matters in deep ignorance. How would you feel if Australians kept making dumb comments on the World Series or Superbowl, insisting they weren't important? I won't dare comment on the Superbowl. I might comment on the World Series, because I'm one of those rare Australian who knows a fair bit about baseball. (Want me to explain the infield fly rule?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The result is worthy of posting once, not twice. For those who believe that it should have been posted now, blame the idiots who supported posting mid-way through a series (which we rightly didn't do for the series in England). —WFCFL wishlist 15:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment for some persepective on this, it's only the third whitewash in the whole of the history of The Ashes as this BBC article notes. In that regard, saying it was unexpected is a little like stating the bleeding obvious. However, The Ashes were won after the third Test. Not the fourth. Not the fifth. The remaining Tests were dead rubbers. Meaningless, in the context of who's got The Ashes (which, incidentally, will always be England as they don't leave Lords, after all). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 7 January 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.

Successful launch of the GSLV using an Indian cryogenic stageEdit

Article: Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A launch of the communication satellite GSAT-14 aboard the GSLV MK.II D5 marks the first successful flight of an Indian cryogenic engine.
Alternative blurb: ​India's first cryogenic rocket engine, the CE-7.5 makes its first successful flight as part of a GSLV Mk.II rocket carrying GSAT-14
News source(s): (The Hindu)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The sixth space agency to demonstrate a successful flight of a cryogenic rocket engine --Piyush (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Questions. Does a new engine make this a new rocket? It would be ITNR if it does- it would also be ITNR if the fact this is an Indian built engine makes it an 'indigenous orbital launch'(if it's their first one). 331dot (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    A previous launch of the rocket used, the GSLV Mk.II, occurred in April 2010. On that flight the new engine failed to ignite. India's first indigenous orbital launch occurred in 1980 - Sunday's is their forty-first. --W. D. Graham 16:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the information; it clearly is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a little ambivalent about this one. It's been a slow month for news so far and this is quite a significant achievement for India, however sixth country isn't the same as first country - cryogenic propulsion is nothing new - and India has had launch capability (albeit using solid and non-cryogenic liquid propellant) for years. Neutral on posting, but if it is posted I'd suggest making CE-7.5 the main article rather than GSLV. --W. D. Graham 16:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
    I've added an alt blurb to this effect. --W. D. Graham 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] ISIS captures FallujahEdit

Article: Anbar clashes (2013–14) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant captures the city of Fallujah in Anbar province.
Alternative blurb: ​The Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant captures the city of Fallujah in Anbar province.
News source(s): Fox News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Fallujah is an important city, close to Baghdad the capital. Also, one of the deadliest battles of the Iraq War was fought there. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Changing "Al Qaeda-linked militants" to "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as it's more specific. -LukeSurl t c 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Capture of a city of 300,000 people just 40 miles away from Baghdad is significant, isn't it? I also love the irony of Fox reporting it! Quite a success for neo-cons. --Երևանցի talk 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support In itself, the capture of a city of 300,000 would always be notable. The symbolic value of Fallujah wrt the Iraq war just makes it all the more notable. Thue (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant development being widely reported. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt-Blurb the shorter name of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is the relevant fact being universally reported. We shouldn't obscure facts in the name of accuracy. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is actually correct. Al Qaeda in Iraq is one of a number of groups that merged to form ISIL. So it's not really accurate. A bit like calling Time Warner "Warner Brothers". Formerip (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It is our article that says this is AQiI. In any case, my blurb says AQ-affiliated, and that is being universally reported. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Should we also think about merging our articles on Iraq, Syria and Israel, or would that be premature? Formerip (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, significant for regional stability and of international interest. --W. D. Graham 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Important story of international interest. As Thue points out, Fallujah has major symbollic value. Linked article reasonably well developed. Jusdafax 23:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious support Wow, that's a surprise. Neljack (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Bangladeshi general electionEdit

Article: Bangladeshi general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amid boycott and violence, Bangladesh Awami League wins the general election.
Alternative blurb: ​Amid violence and a boycott by opposition parties, the Bangladesh Awami League wins the general election.
News source(s): Reuters Business Line

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: Election boycotted by opposition parties, election day violence killed 19 people. Ruling party wins 127 seats as unopposed. Waiting for official results. --Gfosankar (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once it is official per ITNR. -W. D. Graham 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; offering ALT blurb to clarify what the boycott was. SpencerT♦C 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Elections were boycotted not only by Bangladesh Nationalist Party but also 20 other parties. Official result is Awami league won more than 2/3 majority. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once it is official Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. For transparency: Yes, I know I supported this item, but it is ITN/R and the article meets update criteria. SpencerT♦C 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted at RD] Death of EusebioEdit

Article: Eusébio (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Portuguese football legend Eusébio has died at the age of 71.
News source(s): Daily Mail

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD only. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Among the all-time greats of the game, but the threshold for obituary blurbs is very high. I would say that very few sportspeople would warrant a blurb (Pelé is probably one). Neljack (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Agree entirely with Neljack. CaptRik (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD only. My personal criteria for a death blurb is that either (1) the death itself needs to be in the news (i.e. more than just "$person has died, let's look back at their life") (2) the person needs to have been a massively significant person in the history of at least one major country - if they hadn't done what they did the country/world would be a significantly different place (in a British context Margaret Thatcher got a blurb but I probably wouldn't support one for John Major); or (3) the person's death has a significant impact on the news or day to day life of at least one country (e.g. disrupted TV schedules on several major channels, state funeral, multiple days of national mourning, etc). Eusabio doesn't meet those criteria, but he certainly merits a slot on RD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD LegalEagle (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD along with the England cricket team. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD clearly notable in his field (And no Lugnuts, the England Cricket Team died at the start of the series)... --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tagging as ready for posting to RD; universal consensus for doing so, article significantly updated with death info and reaction to it. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Remarkable person worthy of being showcased on our front page, but the circumstances of the death itself were not unusual. —WFCFL wishlist 18:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD I don't like soccer at all. But there are names which I have definitely heard of during my 54-year long existence (or at least the conscious part thereof). One of them is Eusébio. In my country, Bulgaria, he is said to be one of the legends of soccer. The same is heard in many European countries. Xakepxakep (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. One of the best footballers of his generations and among the best of all-time. ComputerJA () 19:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Notable in his field, and worldwide coverage. Miyagawa (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, pretty confident that I can assess consensus here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championship FinalEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:19, 6 January 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: 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championship Final (talk, history) and 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the 2014 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships concludes with Finland defeating host team Sweden in the final 2–3.

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: A high-profile ice hockey tournament. --Heymid (contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, previous consensus has been against posting any youth competitions. Abductive (reasoning) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Abductive. Jusdafax 02:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. minor compared to Olympics coming up in a month or so. —Ed Cormany (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN is not a sports ticker, and so we are selective about which sports news we post, restricting it (almost) exclusively to the very top level of sports with significant following. Youth competitions are not the highest level of the sport. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As a junior competition it lacks significance. --W. D. Graham 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I know, there is no precedence for posting junior level games, and the Sochi Olympics are anyway coming up soon. --hydrox (talk) 21:03, 5 January 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.

January 4Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Phil EverlyEdit

Article: The Everly Brothers (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN LA Times Daily Mail Sydney Morning Herald Euronews Le Monde

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: Half of highly notable duet. Article could use some work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Receiving wide coverage, half of a duo with 35 top 100 hits. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Leading pop figure. Bye Bye, Phil. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Quoting the BBC, one of the biggest acts of the 1950s and early 60s. CaptRik (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Straight RD, I'd have thought. Miyagawa (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Grammy Lifetime Achievement, one of the first ten in the Rock & Roll HOF, so on and so forth. Clearly a leader in the field. Teemu08 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clear RD worthy candidate per above. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready updated with NYT quotre of Paul Simon, universal support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support to post (and keep posted) I've seen headlines that say things along the lines of "Rock n roll today would not be the same without his contributions" – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

January 3Edit


January 2Edit


January 1Edit


2014 PDC World Darts ChampionshipEdit

Articles: Michael van Gerwen (talk, history) and 2014 PDC World Darts Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael van Gerwen defeats Peter Wright to become the youngest world champion at the 2014 PDC World Darts Championship
Alternative blurb: ​In darts, the 2014 PDC World Darts Championship concludes with Michael van Gerwen defeating Peter Wright
News source(s): The Guardian

Nominator's comments: I'm not sure who to put for the updater as it was mixed between a few users and IPs. --Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: James AveryEdit

Consensus not to post. --Tone 10:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: James Avery (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sky News 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.
 -- The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Notable for one role, but I'm having a difficult time considering him as 'very important' in his field- though I am willing to be convinced otherwise. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per 331dot, played one notable role, but that's it. No awards, not top of his field by any means at all, just another C-list actor I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support We've had ethnic-interest nominations before, and I expect there will be a large fan interest. I can support this if there's a good update and space on the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. He was a world recognized actor, particularly in his Fresh Prince and TMNT roles which have large worldwide fanbases. I think there is importance here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • He is arguably 'important', but the criteria is 'very important' in their field. I'm not seeing recognition of his work (awards, honorary degrees, comments from other actors, etc) or other explanations of why he was very important(such as he created a new method of acting, influenced other actors, etc.) in the article. We don't post things just because they might be popular. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say that he did influence his fellow actor Alfonso Riberio, especially given the comments he made that have been reported in the news. That's one for the influencing other actors I'd say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose One big role (didn't know he voiced Shredder until I just read it; interesting but not that important), not influential in his field – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    So voicing the main villain in one of the most popular internationally broadcasted animated series isn't a major role? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    Certainly not important enough to make him "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not at the top of his field, having two major roles isn't that many in the grand scheme of things. Dennis Farina had many more notable roles and yet he wasn't posted to RD either. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Avery just isn't major enough in his field. SpencerT♦C 21:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a very important figure in his field, per the previous opposes. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 1 January 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] Higgins Armory MuseumEdit

Consensus clearly not to post. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 4 January 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: Higgins Armory Museum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Higgins Armory Museum, the second largest collection of arms and armor in America, closes.
Alternative blurb: ​The Higgins Armory Museum, the largest freestanding collection of arms and armor in America, closes.
News source(s): [14][15]
Nominator's comments: Second largest collection of arms and armor in America and the largest freestanding collection. Also it is possibly the first multi-story steel building in the country. Not sure if it will pass, but worth a shot. --Found5dollar (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it's always sad when this kind of thing happens, but "second largest" rings alarm bells for me for ITN, and "possibly" does too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It is only the second largest because the Met in NYC has a collection that is impossibly big. The Higgins was the only museum solely focused on arms and armor in America for over 80 years.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per TRM. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose no international significance. --W. D. Graham 19:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • A major museum closing is just as international as a major election in some countries. Just because something happens in a single country does not make it of no international significance. Objects from the Higgins sold just before the the closure are already appearing in private and public collections around the world.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would be one thing if the museum burned down and the works were lost, but they're just being transferred to another nearby museum. Teemu08 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose. I'm struggling to see even the national importance of a collection of firearms being moved from one museum to another. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf, unless I'm missing something. Modest Genius talk 18:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. Newsjunky12 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 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] Colorado becomes first US state to sell cannabisEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 13:18, 2 January 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: Legal history of cannabis in the United States (talk, history) and Drug policy of Colorado (talk, history)
Blurb: Colorado becomes first US state to sell cannabis
Alternative blurb: Colorado becomes the first US state to legalize the sale of cannabis for recreational use.
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph, BBC NBC News
Nominator's comments: Important and notable event when any part of the USA allows sale of cannabis. Alt blurb seems clearer, thanks. I think the articles are still in need of updating. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • WOAH! The Sate of Colorado is selling cannabis? You must mean that it's either legal to sell it or buy it - not that the state is actually selling the stuff. 86.172.46.72 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's what The Daily Telegraph tells us simple Brits, anyway! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There are several precedents for cannabis legalization - one US state is not a really significant addition surely? Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
BBC Radio 4 News today seemed to suggest otherwise. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I would hesitate to support listing future states which do this (such as Washington state later this year) but I think the first state is somewhat notable, though cannabis is still illegal under federal law. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
How's that even possible? Is this a real legalization, if concurrent laws remain on the federal level that still criminalize the drug? How can the state of Colorado enact laws that are in conflict with the existing federal code? Will a federal court later strike down this law? I understand Obama already said he is not going to enforce federal drug laws for cannabis in these states, but that's different from legalization. --hydrox (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the position of the Obama administration on enforcement I don't think they will be challenging these state laws- though a future administration could certainly do so(and reverse the current position on enforcement). They still will enforce federal laws on federal lands (such as the many National Parks and Forests in Colorado) so Colorado citizens need to be careful about where they bring their cannabis, though. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Solely on the basis that this is the first US state to do so, one with a population of 5,000,000+, and there will be great reader interest in this in the US. I don't think we should list any more after this. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support main page news on British BBC News website all day, although perhaps it's been a slow one. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Uruguay was posted last month as a "world first", so I don't see the international significance of this. --W. D. Graham 19:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Uruguay has two-thirds the population of Colorado. There will be a heck of a lot more pot tourism in Colorado than Uruguay. "International" doesn't really apply here except to the coverage. This is a notable first, encyclopedic, and will have a long-lasting effect on the US. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree, Medeis. I think this is potentially much more significant for the US as a whole, and hence also for UK and Europe. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123, what has the UK and Europe got to do with it? Is Uruguay's decision not significant for the whole of South American?
And Medeis, if you're going to apply population criteria to all stories, I look forward to you nominating dozens of stories from India and China. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, trends in US tend to affect UK. And I'm sure you're quite right about Uruguay. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WDGraham's very strong argument. We posted Uruguay very recently as the first sovereign country in the world and there is no need to repeat the same with the first US state. I'd even be hesitant to support such nomination when the second country in the world will do the same unless the decision has the potential to develop implications on higher scales. If it were, however, a decision legalising it on the whole territory of the United States or at least in a group of states with more than a half of its total population, then it would have surely had major implications and might have been worth supporting. Unfortunately, it's far from being sufficient for posting in my opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Did I miss something? WDG's very strong argument seems to consist of noting we listed Uruguay last month. Colorado has 50 million domestic tourists alone per year, compared to 1.75 million international tourists a year for Uruguay. I think that speaks for the impact here. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you already use numerical figures to support your point, then Uruguay really has less population than Colorado, but was the first sovereign country in the world of more than 7 billion people. Within the US, Colorado is the first state in barely 4-5% of the world to do the same.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose, per the arguments above, it is not actually significant that a state of the US legalizes cannabis, if Colorado was a country I would have considered supporting Küñall (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
.. um, Liechtenstein perhaps? or Malta? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There are more than 100 sovereign countries in the world with population greater than the one of the US state Colorado. Liectenstein and Malta are among the worst possible examples to illustrate your point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My point is that this is part of the USA. That's it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC) (I was trying to suggest to Küñall that a country isn't necessarily more important just because it's "a country".)
Yep, the size of the state is somewhat irrelevant, it's that it's a state within the USA that's key here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I meant that it only marks a precedent in a state and not in the whole country (yet). I'd be surprised if marihuana becomes legal in the whole US, but a relatively small state inside a country/nation (like other countries have their provinces, regions, etc.) doing it does not seem relevant to me. Küñall (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can only presume that most of the voters on 10 December were on drugs and thus couldn't be bothered to read the small print. If they had, they would probably have waited until April 2014.

    Cheap shots aside, Uruguay has been posted, and for clarity I actually support that (just think it was premature). But where do we draw the line? The first country? The first US State? EU member state? UK constituent country? A de facto independent country? Every territory that is bigger than the previous one? Is anyone above actually aware that cannabis is legal in parts of Iran, as well as in parts of a country bigger than the United States? What about the numerous places, including some in the West, where some or all parts of the process are legal in all but name? Weighing all those questions up, and given the proximity to the Uruguay posting which shouldn't have happened, I think to post this would be seen as unduly indulgent in the goings on of a relatively small part of the US. Had we not made a mistake of prematurely posting three weeks ago, there just might have been enough of a case to justify a post on the grounds that this is the first notable example of legalisation (as opposed to it having been legal/decriminalised/de facto legal for a long time) and that we tend not to cover drugs on ITN. —WFCFL wishlist 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd happily draw the line at first US State. Sorry but "UK constituent country" is not legally possible. ( Well, maybe north of the border, later this year, but not best suited to production.) But is there any "fine print" here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 WFCFL wishlist 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. So sorry you felt had to look. I thought this was the law in Colorado now, not in April? But please explain how you think the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly could trump Westminster in this regard? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is getting international coverage (being reported by mainstream news sources in India, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Denmark among many others) and is globally relevant as it leads to discussions about whether more states (and countries) will follow suit. However, I agree with others that only this first state is notable and there is no need to post any additional blurbs about other US states legalizing pot such Washington State's pending implementation of their pot legalization initiative. As for the slippery slope "When will it end" objection of how many of these "First pot legalization" blurbs to post, the bar should be simple. If the next country or sub-political entity or "UK constituent" or whatever gets the same scale of global coverage as Uruguay and Colorado has then consider it for posting. If it doesn't (which is likely unless it is a large and highly populated country such as Germany, Australia, South Africa, etc) then it will likely not muster enough support to be posted. AgneCheese/Wine 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just a local law. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I already noted, not a true legalization, but establishing a legal limbo where cannabis remains illegal, but the federal agents say they will refrain from enforcing and prosecuting those laws under some conditions. Similar limbos (de facto decriminalization of cannabis) have existed for decades in The Netherlands and Germany. Say, if the next U.S. president is a Republican, will the feds carry on with this policy of toleration? The actual legalization of cannabis on every level of concurrent jurisdiction, as happened in Uruguay, seems like a very different beast altogether, as there is currently no precedent for a signatory contravening the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. --hydrox (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. But I don't think we need to wait for the next President to decide if this is news. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support reported by major new agencies and clearly newsworthy. --Երևանցի talk 02:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb is misleading, since cannabis is still illegal under federal law. In any case, this is just a sub-national entity. Would we be talking about posting this if the entity in question were, say, a German land, a Swiss canton or a South African province? Neljack (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As per my comment at the top, I quite agree about the blurb. Sorry, I really don't see a realistic parallel between a US state and the province of a European state. I see a US state as similar to an entire country in the rest of the world. Maybe I'm just being naive. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
If it got the same amount of international coverage as Colorado has, of course. AgneCheese/Wine 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • comment blurb misleading implies that the Colorado state will itself sell weed, so ought not to be used if there is sufficient support for this item. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite agree. I originally just copied the headline from The Telegraph. "Legal" seem to be a more complicated concept in the US. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As per my comment at the top, I think the articles still need updating. Or are you suggestion this is all untrue? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack and hydrox. SeraV (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to suggest closing this nomination as there is clear consensus not to post this. The nominator attempted multiple times to express his view that a US state equals to any other sovereign country in the world, which is nothing else than an individual opinion widely rejected by the others. Sorry, but you're right if only you compare the United States with any other country in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:53, 2 January 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.

John Fortune for RDEdit

Article: John Fortune (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Telegraph Independent Irish Independent

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: John Fortune was one of the two most prominent and most important political satirists in the United Kingdom (the other being his comedy partner John Bird). One of the earliest predictors of the 2007-10 financial crisis and a BAFTA award winner (1997) and multiple nominee. This is an RD-only nomination, I would not support a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC) --Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, nomination shows no sign of meeting "top of his field" requirements. Many British comedians/satirists are indisputably better known and laden with awards. Also, I have never heard of him, and I speak English. Abductive (reasoning) 16:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
What a brilliant argument, you've not heard of him. Almost beat your oppose on Wojciech Kilar. SeraV (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not weighing in either way, but I have to add that I'm British and I don't think I'd ever heard this name before his death made the news. I'm just saying. 86.172.46.72 (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a leading figure in British comedy over many years. (I suspect that very many people who speak English may not have heard of him). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to support, but the article is pretty slim and doesn't make it clear to me how he is 'very important' in his field. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Not very storied, mentioned as appearing with bigger names like Cooke and Sellers, one episode of Yes Minister and a bank commercial. Would change vote if awards and great accomplishments were shown. μηδείς (talk) 2:05 pm, Today (UTC−5)
  • Weak oppose as I'm certain he's not top of his field, despite having appeared in a BAFTA-winning show. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Our article does not establish him as a perosn of stubstantial importance in his field. He won one BAFTA, but it is a fairly obscure one and only won it as part of a team. Teemu08 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think his show with John Bird was pretty significant. There was a reason that it was said of them (at the height of the New Labour era): "Along with Rory Bremner, they’re the only real political opposition we have."[16] Neljack (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence of his being "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Person of local significance only, and per Muboshgu's reasoning above. Küñall (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose local significance only.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose Although the "he was of local notability only" are invalid arguments (which has been stressed dozens of times!) he was not considered "widely important in his field". This clearly demonstrated by the size of the article, and his career notes. And his BBC obituary. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)