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: Lizabeth ScottEdit

Article: Lizabeth Scott (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): LA Times Yahoo! News

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced recently, iconic noir film actress AmaryllisGardener talk 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks to meet the criteria, and the article is in excellent shape at a first glance. Connormah (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and needs attention. Ok, I'm a bit biased on this one, Lizabeth was one of my favorite actresses of the period. But I say her iconic status makes the grade. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kenji Goto allegedly beheadedEdit

Articles: Kenji Goto (talk, history) and ISIL beheading incidents (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant releases a video allegedly showing the beheading of Japanese journalist Kenji Goto.
News source(s): NBC News, ABC News The Guardian, BBC News

Nominator's comments: Lead story on the BBC and NBC News, also lots of coverage from elsewhere in the world as indicated by other links above. Video has not been confirmed to be authentic, hence use of "allegedly". Everymorning talk 23:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, blurb says it all, "allegedly". I'm skeptical that they ever even had Goto or Yukawa, the shadows in the pic didn't look right. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is why we have the ongoing section. Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Timeline_of_recent_events (which is linked to in the Ongoing section) covers these events. SpencerT♦C 02:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a blurb that says "allegedly". Even if there is confirmation, I think the ongoing listing covers this. 331dot (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if this was confirmed, I think we haven't been posting the other beheadings by ISIS? --MASEM (t) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if we get a confirmation. Huge story, and has now tied a very large country with ISIS conflict.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - huge story. international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We can't have an item every time ISIS kills someone, even if it's a Westerner and on video. Sad as it is, ISIS beheading people is a frequent event. There's no indication of why this particular incidence should be treated differently. There's already a link to a relevant article in Ongoing Events. Modest Genius talk 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    Westerner. He's Japanese... -- tariqabjotu 11:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose should be covered by the ongoing item. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Rambling Man. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we've not posted other items about ISIS executions and this one is no different. BencherliteTalk 11:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and propose closing. Per all the other opposes. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

RD: Geraldine McEwanEdit

Article: Geraldine McEwan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: McEwan had a long career on screen and in the theatre, she won a BAFTA and was perhaps best known for playing Miss Marple in recent years. JuneGloom07 Talk 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose she was a popular British actress for a certain generation, but her single BAFTA really fails to elevate her to the "top of the field" RD notability. P. S. She wasn't Joan Hickson... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Miss Marple? Mapp and Lucia, Henry V, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves? A Bafta? Definitely a very recognizable face, even to Americans who didn't necessarily know her name. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I wouldn't say she's a "recognizable face" to Americans, when I think of "Miss Marple actress", I think of Joan Hickson. Not seeing the importance Geraldine has for RD. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Be aware, please, that's not what I said. I said her face was recognizable to Americans, not that she was solely identified with Miss Marple. Again, I'd like to hear more from our friends acrost the pond. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose along the likes of TRM. One BAFTA may be significant, but the current shape of the article doesn't give an impression of how important she was as an actress - it's all rote details like rolls and the like. While her key role is memorable, I don't think that's sufficient alone here. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as she doesn't seem to meet the criteria. 331dot (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Had she accepted the damehood that she reportedly turned down in 2002, her notability quotient would presumably be higher - but, in any case,a very well known and respected actress to UK TV, film (Wallace and Gromit, etc.) and theatre audiences. Article not the greatest, though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not seem to be significant enough to her field. No "must watchs" in her filmography. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not seeing where she is particularly influential or important in her field. She appears to be an actor (a term I use without gender) of very long experience, but not among the most lauded or the most well-known or widely-regarded. Challenger l (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although I acknowledge her as a stalwart of the British acting world, in my opinion she doesn't quite make the grade. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Sergio MattarellaEdit

Articles: Sergio Mattarella (talk, history) and President of Italy (talk, history)
Blurb: Constitutional Court judge Sergio Mattarella is elected 12th President of Italy, following retired long-time president Giorgio Napolitano.
News source(s): NYT, WSJ

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

Nominator's comments: A newly elected President of Italy is international top news. PanchoS (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, article needs better references. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as no where near as notable as Weizsäcker, whom I have opposed below. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that these two nominations are of two different types, one is ITNC and the other is RD? ;) I agree that it would help to have better references though the president part is fine in principle. --Tone 22:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, in the distant future, when Mattarella has some accomplishments as president, we can look at them. Otherwise, it's a ceremonial post, and we should never have posted the resignation of the prior holder of this office. And where's the discussion by which this became a part of ITNR? μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It was unilaterally added here, as a result of this "discussion"Mogism (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you are now questioning the posting of changes in head of state when it has been done somewhat consistently the entire time I have been here. I in no way am suggesting any nefarious motive but I am just curious as to why now. 331dot (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I assume you are questioning me? So far as I can tell, "presidents" in Europe are like Vice Presidents in the US. Stand-ins when trhe Prime Minister is too busy. Kind of like how Joe Biden attended the Charlie Hebdo unity march, because president Obama was too busy campaigning in Berlin. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The President of Italy is not like the Vice President of the US, and it is not just a ceremonial post. Among the other things he dissolves the Parliament and names the PM: please note that, while in some cases he has "hands tied" in other cases he has not, and he can decide whether or not to dissolve Parliament, and who to name as PM (as it happened e.g. with Mario Monti a few years ago). Anyway, Mattarella is going to be sworn on February 3rd: we may wait for Tuesday to write something like Sergio Mattarella is sworn as the 12th President of Italy. --Jaqen (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any need for support as this is on ITNR, but for some reason people are questioning this. It's the succession of a new head of state, ergo should be posted. I am agnostic on whether we should post now or when he actually assumes the office. Modest Genius talk 18:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Better referenced than when I first looked. I questioned it because it was sub-standard, nothing else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I will post now, since the top news in the ITN box is kind of old already. --Tone 22:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Carl DjerassiEdit

Article: Carl Djerassi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sueddeutsche.de Handelsblatt

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: Austrian-American and Bulgarian chemist, novelist, and playwright who is known for his contribution to the development of oral contraceptive pills  - The Herald (here I am) 14:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Subject appears to be notable, but the article could use some more references. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the maintenance tag is resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support I did not know him before, but he contributed a major medical revolution of the 20th century which also had huge impact on western society. there seems to have been work done referencing his article since first assessment, so I guess quality should not stand in the way now either. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Switched this to Attention needed, since I feel more people should chip in their opinion. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please note that "attention needed" doesn't normally equate to "please can more people come and look at it", it's usually to alert an admin in the event that an article is ready to be assessed for pushing to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Per the header instructions at top, the proper term is [Ready] rather than [Attention needed]. In any case, this isn't ready so I've removed that header. Mamyles (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Its now ready per the requirements.  - The Herald (here I am) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Richard von WeizsäckerEdit

Article: Richard von Weizsäcker (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC WSJ

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: Former German President  - The Herald (here I am) 13:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 as a former head of state, and additionally the first of a reunified Germany. Article seems in OK shape. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article's in bad shape right now. Will support after reffing is done. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks okay. Seems to meet DC2. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AmaryllisGardener. Huge swaths of text have no reference at all, if that is fixed, consider this vote equivalent to an enthusiastic support. But unless and until article quality issues are corrected, it should not be on the main page advertising itself as the best we have to offer. --Jayron32 21:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is "not" in OK shape. Solve the referencing issues and we can think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What referencing issues are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you might have looked at the article. For instance, the entire "Early life" section is completely unreferenced. "Other activities (selection)" section is entirely unsourced. "List of state visits" section has not one single reference. I apologise, I thought it was obvious what the referencing issues were. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I did look at it, as I look at each nominated article; please don't assume that what is obvious to you is obvious to everyone else. I saw many references at the bottom of the page so I initially thought that was sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's a problematic approach, just basing a decision on sheer volume of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the unsolicited opinion about my approaches. That isn't what I solely based my decision on but I don't really think this page is for analyzing my decisions. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but worth admins closing ITN candidates understanding that your support isn't based on whether an article is correctly referenced, just has lots of references. Certainly significant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm not as familiar with referencing as you are. Frankly I didn't think the sections without references were just made up and that perhaps the references were just not properly placed or something. Perfect should not be the enemy of good. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Nobody mentioned perfect. Someone mentioned whole sections without a single reference. Your frankness is laudable but doesn't help improve the content of Wikipedia, does it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Your sarcasm toward other, especially new users, hardly helps improve Wikipedia. I don't see a need to comment further. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Then why did you? I called you out for supporting a sub-standard article and now you get all pissy? Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Everyone has their opinions on what the standard is for article quality to be ITN. Keep in mind that mine and yours focus on referencing especially. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose regardless of quality, the role was ceremonial. I was studying German in high school and university during the entire time of his presidency, and he never played a role comparable to any of the Helmuts. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [see below]
  • Support per nom. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this. I will try and go into the library later on and reference the article through biographies. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Although von Weizsäcker is a famous name in Germany (and in German history), I don't believe it's widely known in the English-speaking world (although, since Richard studied in Britain, perhaps he's more widely known there). OTOH, he was a head of state – at a key time. Undecided. Sca (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major political figure in an important country at an important time. Maybe not widely known in the UK, but sufficiently well-known that his omission from RD would seem extremely strange. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please re-assess!!: I included a lot of references to the early life and political career sections, mostly from German biographies. They might not be ideal since they are inconvinient for English speaking readers but on the other hand they have more academic reliability than internet sources. Also added some english news items as references. Good to go? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets DC2 and the article now seems to be sufficient. Modest Genius talk 18:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment referencing is now mediocre rather than shoddy, good work from those who want to improve articles here, well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Good work on the sarcasm. I am quite new to editing Wikipedia. If in the past 13 years that Weizsäcker was alive and Wikipedia was around no one cared to produce a decent article about one of the world's major leaders than maybe I am not to blame if my references that I put together in a couple of hours are not up to highest standards. I still feel that the article is now in a shape that allows it to go on the Main Page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't let other users get you down; thanks for your work. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
it wasn't sarcasm, the improvement is good, but there are plenty of other tags to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Zwerg Nase, Leider typisch hier herum. Keine Sorge. Sca (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support the article has been quite nicely updated, 5kb of new text. There remain just a few cn tags--I'll change to support from my oppose once these are addressed.

μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tags! I believe I got them all. Concerning the state visit table: I believe it could simply be erased from the article, but I did not want to make that decision by myself. If it stands in the way of him going to RD because it is not referenced, we might just kick it out for the moment until I can find references for every trip? But that might take some time and I believe we should put him in RD now since it's already quite embarassing that it takes Wikipedia 2 days to put him on the Main Page... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I hid the section by commenting it out. The nomination can go forward and the section can be easily restored once we have sources. (Marked Ready). μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So when will it appear? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

January 30Edit


[closed] RD: Geraldine McEwanEdit

Duplicate nomination, see above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English actress known for Miss Marple, the Agatha Christie sleuth and a BAFTA Awardee.  - The Herald (here I am) 12:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Zhelyu ZhelevEdit

Article: Zhelyu Zhelev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Novinite, Fox News, Yahoo

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: Former head of state. Very notable for a RD tag --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Not only a head of state, but notable as the first non-communist one in Bulgaria. Seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but the article is poorly referenced and has an orange tag at the top of it. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, notable head of state. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, fix the orange tag before you nominate. Seattle (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no obligation to fix tags before a nomination. In fact, nominations often motivate improvements. --331dot (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we do need to include additional references at least to a degree where it is reasonable to remove the orange tag. That doesn't necessarily mean creating an impeccably referenced article. There's also some material under "Author" which looks to me like original research. Someone should investigate that and remove it if it is. Formerip (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree; my only point was that tags do not need to be fixed in order to be nominated as Seattle's rationale suggests. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, my misunderstanding. Formerip (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I might work on it tomorrow. That said, opposes based on article quality usually say something like "Oppose, until the article is improved.", not blaming the nominator. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs a lot of work before it is considered of sufficient "quality" for the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleaned up and added refs to the article, I don't know if it's good enough for The Rambling Man or Seattle yet though. --AmaryllisGardener talk 13:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    For me there's still about 30% unreferenced, so no, but thanks for your efforts so far, much better than those who blindly have supported without bothering to read and assess the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – per 331dot. Sca (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per AmaryllisGardener. Mamyles (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – when improved ofcourse.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Election of the AU ChairpersonEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Chairperson of the African Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is elected as the Chairperson of the African Union.
News source(s): Reuters, ABC News, Bloomberg, BBC News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: President Mugabe is elected as the new Chairman of the continental union at the age of 90. He had also led the AU's predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (in 1997-8). I believe this is a Recurring Event under the Elections section - the EU acts as a precedent. The event is significant as evidenced by its coverage in the major media houses. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not ITNR so I have removed it. If it is thought that the AU should be added that should be discussed at ITNR's talk page. I'm not sure the AU is equal in stature to the EU in terms of structure or influence on its member countries. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, this is equivalent to the EU's rotating presidency, which we do not post. It's a largely ceremonial role (AU Chairperson doesn't have much power) which changes regularly, and the holder is always more notable as a head of state than as AU chairperson. The actual leader of the AU is the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (yes, it's confusing that they're both called "chairperson", just as it's confusing that the EU has four presidents), currently Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. If we did post AU leadership news, that position is the one to post (next election/appointment in 2016). Smurrayinchester 15:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - let's not give him any publicity or legitimacy. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This strikes me as a weak reason to oppose. Regardless, I do oppose as well because the actual head of the African Union, like in the European Union, is the head of the Union Commission, not the chairperson. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mjroots:I agree that is a poor reason to oppose; very little would be posted if we only posted things about good people or good events. Publicity and legitimacy are not our concern; only what meets criteria for posting. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a completely irrelevant and invalid reason to oppose. We are not here to make judgments about Mugabe or attempt to deny him publicity. There are good reason to oppose this, but that isn't one. Neljack (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I totally disagree with Mjroots. Whilst the editor is entitled to his/her own opinion; I believe it goes against the grain of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It may appear thus as untoward and biased - given the fact that Zimbabwe was a former colony of this editor's country of residence and therefore not befitting. The fact of the matter is that Mugabe has been elected by the continent's leaders and will serve his mandate. I have made a proposal at the ITN/R talkpage and would appreciate if you could take a look. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe the reason is a weak one, but the opposition is still strong. As for Mugabe being elected, that is only because he rigged the last election that enabled him to be in a position to be the head of state elected to chairman of the AU. Mugabe is an international pariah, and should be treated as such, even by Wikipedia. Doing so does not break NPOV because Wikipedia would merely be following the rest of the world. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should not be used to make judgements of any kind. We can certainly tell people what RS state, but we aren't here to add or detract from any status Mugabe has. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't denied the opposition from other editors to this nomination. Forgive my digression, but I'd like to state this for the record. What I meant regarding the NPOV was that both extreme views ought to be included on Wikipedia without bias i.e. his status as a nationalist hero and the other controversies. And that is why I disagree with your rationale of giving him "publicity or legitimacy; and Wikiepdia treating him as such" Why should Wikipedia ONLY follow the "rest of the world?" By saying this, you exclude those who disagree with your POV. As for the 2013 elections, the AU declared it as free whilst others questioned its legitimacy. Therefore, from an NPOV both views ought to be expressed here. Since yesterday's announcement, the page hits on both these articles: AU Chair and Mugabe increased by 394% and 196% respectively. This shows the level of interest of our readers has increased. Numbers don't lie and I hope these statistics will enable you all to re-consider your prior decision. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Not an "election election" with voting open to average citizens, seems like kind of a backroom thing. Not sure if this will impact anything significantly. But, it can't hurt putting it in ITN. Busy Moose (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose linked article is not updated adequately, it's just a list.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Smurrayinchester. Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for lack of a sufficient update (per TRM) and because, even if it was updated, this is still a story about a ceremonial position, not one equivalent to the EU presidency (per Smurrayinchester). BencherliteTalk 11:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

January 29Edit


[Posted] RD: Rod McKuenEdit

Article: Rod McKuen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times Billboard The Independent

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: Prolific songwriter, poet, author, twice nominated for Academy Award, once for Pulitzer Prize, including theme "Jean" to The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and lyricist for number 1 hit and record selling (more than 10,000,000) single "Seasons in the Sun" μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Marked ready per above comments. Marked FriarTuck1981, Rothorpe, Bede735 as updaters. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Sinai attacksEdit

Article: January 2015 Sinai attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: Attacks by Islamist militants in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, kill 32 people.
News source(s): Reuters The Guardian The Japan Times Sydney Morning Herald Zee News

Nominator's comments: One of the deadliest attacks in the Sinai insurgency so far. The last one (which was the deadliest) wasn't posted for lack of attention even though the article was in good shape. This one may need some expansion, but I won't work on it until tomorrow, if no one gets there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - definitely notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A very easy to read article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is very easy to read because it has little to no content, just an intro and a list of names. Expand beyond a stub and perhaps it's worth consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want this to die out like the previous Sinai nomination, and therefore I've marked it. Three more sections were added to the article: casualties, damage and reactions (domestic and foreign). Any further recommendations? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, still oppose, the majority of the article and its bytes is a seriously over-heaped section on the reaction. Without the super-heavy reaction section, you have 270 words about the event itself. That's sub-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked header again. To be honest, this may be the first time I hear that "bytes" defined article quality (it's just that there are many refs in the reactions section), but I think it looks fairly good now. Now I hope you don't expect me to build a B-class, or even C-class, article so soon, do you? This is still a developing story, despite being two days old. I'm currently fishing for details to add, and this is all I can find for now, unless you want to discuss the merits. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well until recently, a B-class article was the minimum expected from most articles to be posted at ITN. I advocated that it be removed, which it duly was, but not because the principle of a quality article should be maintained, more because nobody, reviewers nor posting admins, paid any attention to the class. In any case, the article is in a far better state now than when I reviewed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Colleen McCulloughEdit

Article: Colleen McCullough (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, CNN, CNBC

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: According to the New York Times, The Thorn Birds "became an international best seller and inspired a hugely popular television mini-series". It also sold 30 million copies worldwide (see CNN link). This seems to indicate that McCullough was a very important figure in her field. Everymorning talk 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I've tagged items in the article which currently remain unreferenced, there are plenty of things that need addressing. Otherwise she was a highly popular author and worthy of consideration here, particularly with The Thorn Birds. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • support on notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • support in principle, hugely notable writer of historical fiction; will be personally unable to contribute to article improvements myself before Sunday. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; the article is what it is, especially since the author apparently kept mostly to herself; what she's known for is her books. The article on The Thorn Birds is much better. She's still a novelist who's a household name wherever English is spoken. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for prompt RD posting, although additional referencing would be good. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready I have added about 700b of sourcing, removed some farcical or circular claims, and hidden material like the Candice Bergen 1996 TV adaptation Mary & Tim for which there are no sources. The article is untagged as of this edit. It might be appropriate to add others as updaters based on the history. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done --Jayron32 21:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

[Close] Gunman storms Dutch TV stationEdit

There will be no consensus to post what is a minor incident of limited significance. Stephen 03:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Nederlandse_Omroep_Stichting#2015_gunman_incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A gunman claiming to represent a 'hacker collective' stormed Dutch TV station Nederlandse Omroep Stichting demanding air time before submitting to Dutch Police.
Alternative blurb: ​Gunman storms Dutch TV station Nederlandse Omroep Stichting.
News source(s): NOS, BNR, Express, NBC, etc.
Nominator's comments: Temporally significant as violence in the context of European media following the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris earlier this month. prat (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no deaths as far as we know, and the hostage/shooting situation is already over with. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You seem to be opposing on two points, but I don't understand your argument. First, you say you oppose because there were no deaths... but death is not a requirement for news! Second, it is not ongoing news. However, I don't think 'ongoing' is a requirement either? Therefore, I cannot follow your argument. prat (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My point was that if it was ongoing, then some fatalities may occur. And I don't think this is getting very much attention from the news, at least not so far. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is significant global media coverage... certainly the US, across Europe, and even here in Australia. Remember, this event is only a few hours old. The question of fatalities still seems irrelevant to me. prat (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While interesting, the event is rather insignificant in that there is virtually no national or international repercussions. But thank you for putting forward the nomination - we definitely don't get enough around here lately. Mamyles (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would again query whether national or international repercussions are needed for an event to be 'in the news'. prat (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What is required is for an event to be judged as significant by the community. I'm not sure if you have or not but please review WP:ITN for some general guidelines. National and international repercussions certainly help; merely being in the news is not sufficent. --331dot (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, WP:ITN states under Purpose the following points, all of which I believe suit this nomination very well.
  • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
  • To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
  • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
  • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
This is the real spirit of the thing... and the nomination suits it. prat (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
That is the purpose, not the criteria, which is further down that page. --331dot (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Right, the criteria is presently an unstructured waffle that self-reports as subjective. Its main two points, 'quality' and 'significance' are inherently POV. prat (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Thank you for the nomination, but I don't think this is that significant an event given its circumstances. --331dot (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • How can you consider an armed incident in the context of European media insignificant within a month of the Charlie Hebdo shootings? There is even linking commentary from officials. prat (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The only connection I see to Charlie Hebdo is that media security was discussed; I don't see any other connection from what I looked at. --331dot (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sigh. prat (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

January 28Edit


[Ready] RD:Yves ChauvinEdit

Article: Yves Chauvin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT RSC

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: French chemist and 2005 Nobel Prize laureate  - The Herald (here I am) 16:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Improve The last update prior to his death was October 2013, the current update consists of citations (good) and a mere mention he has died. The article could use better formatting into sections, and an explicit rationale for his posting given, since it is standing policy that we don't post people just because they got the Nobel. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks fine to me. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose the "Life" section is mainly about olefin metathesis and not really his life at all. And then suddenly it talks about his life midway through the fourth paragraph... The lead contains items that aren't expanded upon in the main part of the article. FWIW, there's a nice quote from Chauvin in this article about his embarrassment at receiving the Nobel Prize. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Considering Charles H. Townes, Chauvin should be posted in RD as well. The article does seem a little slim though.. if someone could add some more information, I would change to an unconditional support. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks a lot better! Consider me a supporter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
May be the infobox added can let it go.  - The Herald (here I am) 03:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

January 27Edit


2015 Corinthia Hotel attackEdit

Article: 2015 Corinthia Hotel attack (talk, history)
Blurb: A terror attack at a hotel in Tripoli, Libya kills ten people.
News source(s): Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, CTV News, BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: An ISIS-affiliated group has claimed responsibility for the attack (see CS Monitor link above). The event itself has received coverage from around the world. Everymorning talk 16:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

support but it would be nice to see an actual article about the event and not the hotel. It would probably be considered part of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) and it looks like there's additional text and references here[1]Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Here you go. APK whisper in my ear 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
support - definitely. notable attack.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Suppprt but think the article's a bit too thin at this point (even considering the expansion after Monopoly's comment above). --MASEM (t) 22:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Suppprt - major terrorist attack. -Zanhe (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The article is handsome, but light on prose, especially the body text, and has only three sources, so I am marking unupdated for now, but it really should go up as soon as it can be a little improved. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Michelle Obama refuses to wear veil in Saudi ArabiaEdit

this was oddly a really big thing in the news for about an hour; happily withdrawn, and collapsing for the sake of space μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Snow close. SpencerT♦C 07:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Michelle Obama (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a show of feminist solidarity, Michelle Obama refuses to veil herself on a state visit to Saudi Arabia.
News source(s): Yahoo News (AP)
Nominator's comments: An American First-Lady refuses to bow to misogynistic Saudi custom μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A non-Muslim doesn't do a thing expected of Muslims. Next you'll be telling me her husband won't be making Hajj. This is a non-story. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Non-story. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Charles Hard TownesEdit

Article: Charles Hard Townes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Berkeley University News Center

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 Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Very notable for a RD. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as he's a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, therefore important in his field. Article needs a bit of work, though. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of yet. The article hasn't got the required three full prose paragraph minimum even for a new article: it's just a bare list. Also, there's long-standing precedent that having won a Nobel is not by itself sufficient for a listing. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the article has been improved somewhat, but things like the unsourced "2012 - Boy Scouts of America named their Webelos SUPERNOVA award for Townes" don't help. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay I removed that information because I found it unmeaningful. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per AmaryllisGardener. Article looks fine to me now. Mamyles (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nobel Prize winning. Enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Precedent here seems to suggest that it is not. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear cut RD case. Article looks fine. Modest Genius talk 13:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have removed my oppose, since the claims now present are supported, but it's still quite a small article. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - top scientist in his field (laser), Nobel Prize winner. Article is decent. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. (As a minor point, note that "Charles Townes" or "Charles H. Townes" appear most commonly in sources, not the form with the full middle name.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] January 2015 nor'easterEdit

At this point there's a federal meteorologist apologizing for the misforecast, and nothing out of the ordinary for New England. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: January 2015 nor'easter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A nor'easter cripples the Northeastern United States.
News source(s): NPRWaPo
Nominator's comments: The predictions were for a blizzard of historic proportions. It looks like that we won't get it quite that badly, but it's still a significant disruption. States of emergency are underway. There were travel bans overnight. And we have our first death. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a significant one. WaPo report do not reports the issue, but on the bad weather.  - The Herald (here I am) 13:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the storm has concluded or nearly so and its effects can be better judged. I live in the affected area and it is significant but we should have a better handle on what the effects are before judging if it should be posted or not. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - If it turns out that this weather event is highly unusual then maybe; but a weather forecast is just that. A forecast. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the storm is over. It may just be a regular winter storm. Epic Genius (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed blurb is sensationalist. The storm did not "cripple" anywhere, the authorities prepared weeks for this and there is so far a very low death toll. Most "crippling," such as shutting down the New York City subway, was done in anticipation and possible over-preparedness of the storm. Mamyles (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the BBC are referring to this as "Storm Juno", that would appear to be more appropriate than "a nor'easter". But in any case, it seems like the US was well prepared for this and as such is not really a stupendously interesting item, so weak oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Naming a winter storm is a construct of The Weather Channel, and the use is discouraged among meteorologists. It's more a marketing ploy than an encyclopedic reference, but we still could use it somewhere for identification. Mamyles (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"...but we still could use it somewhere for identification." But not on the Main Page, please. -- tariqabjotu 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In that regard, nor should we use "nor'easter". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait, per Epic Genius. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now This storm was well-forecasted, and everyone that had power to took steps to reduce risks to residents (eg the entire shutdown of NYC yesterday). Yes much of the NE is shut down, but it is not like a surprise of the like. If the storm hit, stranded thousands and risked serious loss of life, that would be different. I agree with the wait comments that if something serious does happen, we can include it then --MASEM (t) 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was a huge bust in comparison to the predictions of NYC's "biggest storm ever". The current headlines are "snow job", "meteorologists apologize", "analyse modesl". Thery're getting 12" in Boston, which happens regularly during what is called winter.
  • Support There's a state of emergency in several states. This should be seen as comparable to a large hurricane, thus the new naming attempts. Busy Moose (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • While there is a state of emergency, it is not because they were unprepared, but to make sure critical services like fire/ambulances/etc. have the necessary priority/rights of way to deal with emergencies or the like (take the street parking ban NYC enacted), as well as to restore life to normal as soon after the snow has stopped. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Doesn't matter. The shut down of this region has economic ripple effects across the world and will for a few days. Busy Moose (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not only is the language in the blurb melodramatic, it's also not true. The snowmageddon has failed to materialise. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Your assessment might be correct in certain areas (NYC) but many places are getting large amounts of snow. 30 inches in Massachusetts for example. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There is also no power on the entire island of Nantucket along with significant flooding and near-hurricane force winds. [2] 331dot (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
But ultimately it's just unpleasant weather, something that the US and many other parts of the world see regularly. This is in no way more notable than any other snow storm that might put a few people out. Moreover, it now looks like the powers that be are being criticised for overplaying the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That (the criticism at the overreaction) might be the story for ITN at the end of the day , but damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's winter, blizzards happen, this is nowhere close to the worst blizzard the NE has seen. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You both might be totally correct and I'm not saying this should be posted. I was only saying that some areas have indeed gotten what was initially predicted. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Alberto Nisman (slight return)Edit

Articles: Secretaría de Inteligencia (talk, history) and Alberto Nisman (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Argentine president Cristina Kirchner announces the dissolution of the Secretaría de Inteligencia, following the suspected murder of Alberto Nisman.
Alternative blurb: ​Argentine president Cristina Kirchner announces the dissolution of the Secretaría de Inteligencia, following the death of Alberto Nisman.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: "Suspected murder" may now be fair, based on statements from government officials, including the president. But, for the morbidly cautious, I have added an altblurb anyway. We seriously under-represent Latin America on ITN. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - We'll still wait until the official dissolution of that agency and the foundation of the promised other. Kirchner's words don't become official until things happen officially. --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Major development. If David Cameron said he was going to dissolve MI-5 or Obama said he was going to disband the CIA, it would be stupendous news. Kirchner may just have signed her own death warrant. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose All that has been announced is that the President will propose a bill to replace the agency with a new one. It would be highly misleading to say that she has "announce[d] the dissolution of the Secretaría de Inteligencia" when, as I understand it, she has no such power and the dissolution will only happen if Congress approves the bill she is going to propose. Also, the blurb should refer to her as "Cristina Fernández de Kirchner", not Cristina Kirchner, as that is the title of her article and she is widely referred to as such - indeed the BBC article linked to refers to "Ms Fernandez", rather than "Ms Kirchner". Neljack (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the story that keeps on giving, per Neljack. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the bill is passed and/or signed. This is just a proposal. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The article Secretaría de Inteligencia has not been updated. Cambalachero (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support We've got Kirchner saying this was a murder to set her up, the lead investigative journalist fleeing the country, the victim shot point blank in the forehead (go ahead, try to do that yourself) and the country's top secret spy agency dissolved, the last of which alone would normally merit a posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Big story, the dissolution of the MI-5 of CIA would be on ITN, so why not this? --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support We didn't post this death earlier because the details were murky - they are now clearer in the direction of state sponsored assassination. And per Medeis, a spy agency dissolved alone is noteworthy. But, it seems to me that if this event is notable it should have its own article. Mamyles (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the many occasions when ITN has decided against posting announcements or proposals as opposed to actions or outcomes. BencherliteTalk 12:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Shutting down a country's intelligence agency is a big deal - imagine if this was Obama shutting down the CIA. The issue is murky, but this specific action is clear and provides a good point to post the story. Modest Genius talk 13:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, per Modest Genius and others. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, dissolution of that agency is important news. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

January 26Edit


[Posted] RD: R. K. LaxmanEdit

Article: R. K. Laxman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TOI India Today IBN

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

Nominator's comments: Most notable Indian cartoonist  - The Herald (here I am) 14:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Easily the most notable Indian cartoonist - winner of the Padma Vibhushan (second highest civilian honour) and Ramon Magsaysay Award. His cartoons appeared daily in the Times of India, which is the largest selling English-language daily in the world with a readership of 7.643 million. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape, seems clearly at the top of his field. --Jayron32 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I guess he must be the most read English language political cartoonist of all time, and the article looks fine. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support One of India's most well known cartoonists, with President paying tribute too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article fixes on qualifications, but there's a paragraph under "Other creations" and "Personal life" that need sourcing. (Also, I know there's a ref on the blockquote but the ref# is not appearing for me. Dunno if this needs to be checked for template change?) --MASEM (t) 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is not in a fit state for main page, many unreferenced claims need citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -article is indeed in good shape, and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be very important to their field. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - per Jayron. Death of someone at the top of a field is notable, although I'm not sure if he's at the top in a national rather than international sense. Busy Moose (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted - thanks for the article improvements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    Post-posting support, good work not he article, if only some of those early supporters had even bothered looking at the article and improve it, we could have been doing this a while ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD Demis RoussosEdit

Article: Demis Roussos (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Le Figaro Telegraph (UK)
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.

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Just coming on here to nominate this myself. The artist sold more than 60 million records, which to me qualifies him for RD. The article does need some work though which needs to be fixed before it gets linked to from the main page. Miyagawa (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, in my view his work with Aphrodite's Child alone would warrant his posting. A pop icon of the '70s. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support subject to article quality meeting the required standard. Major pop icon of the mid-1970s. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality grounds. Would support if article was up-to-snuff (I don't like to bold the support part when the article quality is poor, it can mislead posting admin into thinking this is good enough to post.) --Jayron32 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you think needs doing? And/or even add appropriate template(s)/tag(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the two sections covering his career are completely unsourced. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It gets a bit lonely in the Valley of Sadness.... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Amending vote to full Support article is fixed up, and looks good enough for the main page. No problem seeing this make the RD list! --Jayron32 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron. I won't tag the article, not being familiar with him. But it strikes my interest that he's associated with Vangelis and the Blade Runner soundtrack. Neveretheless, that's a bit short of the needs of RD. He's not included in list of best-selling music artists. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support based on Jayron's article quality concerns -- too much unsourced. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Praise be for some attention to article quality. Roussos was prolific and notable so a reasonable call for RD but I was shocked by how poor the article was. Glad to see some sense prevailing rather than the usual bandwagon of support. I'll happily support once the article is improved beyond the C-class we have right now with bags of unreferenced info. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvement. I also came here to nominate this. A very notable singer in the Middle East as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvement. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see that some article improvement is underway. Support as soon as the job is done. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A number of editors have now made improvements. The article has 34 refs. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Good work with the updates. --Tone 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 25Edit


[Posted] 2015 Mamasapano clash‎Edit

Article: 2015 Mamasapano clash‎ (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Bangsamoro peace process is halted following clashes during a Philippine National Police raid.
News source(s): AP BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A total of 54 people are killed in the incident and hundreds are displaced in the follow up.This puts an end to the Bangsamoro peace process and threatens an escalation of the conflict. --Catlemur (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support An incident with both many fatalities and significant consequences. Neljack (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Support - the following issues have since been addressed >>> I think that the article is unreasonably biased toward the police. From current information from reliable sources like BBC, I see a lack of evidence to call this an "ambush." It seems more like a case of mis-communication. I am adding an orange WP:POV tag to the article which will need to be worked through prior to posting. Mamyles (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • (In my opinion) An ambush is a surprise attack with the surprise element often coming from mis communication of the victims, I can't fathom the reasoning behind the POV tag.Should we also put POV tags on every article describing a victory as pyrrhic?--Catlemur (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's normal for an article to be sourced by more than one source, and include multiple points of view. Besides for a possible lack of opposing viewpoints and a POV title, the article is otherwise written quite well, and once it is expanded I will likely support posting to ITN. Mamyles (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a rather inscrutable rationale--help out we who are unfamiliar with the underlying story and why it should be posted. Words like "incident" and "displaced" are too vague to evaluate. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
In essence, 392 Philippine special operations police set out to arrest two terrorists and were attacked by a rebel group during the operation. The clash resulted in at least 54 dead, 49 of them police. This event is significant both because of the high death toll for a police operation, and that a peace treaty with the rebels was postponed/cancelled as a result of this incident. Mamyles (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Especially when neutrality is questioned, only having 2 references (from the same publisher) is insufficient. The article should have a wider variety of sources. SpencerT♦C 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I believe all of the issues have been taken care of already. –HTD 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 02:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Joe FranklinEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Joe Franklin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC News, USA Today, New York Times

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The NBC News link above describes him as "pioneering". Everymorning talk 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on article quality, seriously lacking in references. Not good enough to be considered "showcase" quality. Oh, and that lead..... that lead.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose From the article lead: "He is the pioneer of the TV Talk Show format and claimed to have interviewed over 400,000 guests during his 43 year television career, which may have been an exaggeration.[2]" The claim is both outrageous "the pioneer?" and admittedly exaggerated. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the world record inside the article for longest running talk show. Busy Moose (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Winter X Games XIXEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Winter X Games XIX (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Winter X Games Nineteen conclude with the United States leading the medal count with thirty-one medals.
News source(s): NBC Sports ESPN Newsday ABC News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: As far as I know, the X Games have never been featured in ITN. I believe they are notable enough to be posted to ITN. Today is the final day of the Winter X Games in Aspen. I did not include a blurb as the event is not finished yet and the medal count will change one more time. Andise1 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support this if the article had any actual prose. Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The criteria describe two main grounds for inclusion. The first is the quality of the updated content, which, as noted by Nergaal, is close to zero in this case. The second is the significance of the developments described. The fact that almost half the medal winners are redlinks is a fair indication of which way this one leans. Looking for extra information in the X_Games article doesn't help, as it reads like an advertisement for ESPN. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on article quality grounds. Article is a mess, FAR from updated sufficiently, not something I would be proud to put on the main page. I'm generally in favor of posting almost anything which meets quality standards. This isn't it. --Jayron32 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The X Games are basically an advertisement for ESPN regardless of how this article is written. Busy Moose (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD Toller CranstonEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Toller Cranston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC Globe and Mail NYTimes Fox Sports Der Spiegel (Germany) Le Figaro (France) New Straits Times (Malaysia)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of figure skating's brightest stars and most influential innovators. Was a living legend in the figure skating world, both for his innovative artistry on ice and for his later work. He never won the Olympics due to the compulsory figures components - which are no longer compulsory. He is considered one of the driving forces behind modern artistry in free skating. (Edited nomination to add core US and worldwide sources which equally acknowledge his importance.) Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to have been pretty influential. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not sure how he meets the top of the field requirement, nor do I agree with us posting items which have had maintenance tags since 2010. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Tags have been dealt with, and were tangential to his core career in any case. - Tenebris 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Tough one to call. On one hand, his career wasn't exactly overflowing with prestigious awards - but on the other hand, the article does lay claim to him being influential and something of a trend-setter. Eh.... --Adam in 成都市 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless I misread this, he was a bronze medalist at the winter olympics in the 70's? μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At best had one 9th and one bronze medal finish at the Winter Olympics throughout his career. SpencerT♦C 01:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not usual for the nominator to respond to comments and votes, but everyone seems to be overlooking that Cranston did repeatedly win world "best" medals for free skating in the World Figure Skating Championships. These were separate medals given out for the free skating component of the scores, which today makes up the entirety of the judging. At that time, the other major component was compulsory figures. Public and judging demand after Cranston's continual 3rds and 4ths, especially after winning the free skating component, was a major factor in why compulsory figures were removed from the modern Worlds and Olympics. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He doesn't appear to be an individual that was at the top of his field and there are two maintenance tags dated June 2010. APK whisper in my ear 05:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Dealt with. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not nearly notable enough. Doesn't seem to have been at the top of his field. Busy Moose (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
See earlier comment. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I took care of all the tags (which did not relate to his core career in any case); so I will try one more time. Toller Cranston was far more influential to his sport on a worldwide basis than Ernie Banks was to his. Modern figure skating changed in large part because of him. Consider that Toller Cranston was inducted into the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame (located in the US) in the company of various repeated Olympic and world gold medal winners -- in spite of never having won an Olympic gold medal himself. That was the value other figure skaters put on him.
Influential - a large part of the reason compulsory figures no longer exist as part of worldwide figure skating competition is because both the audience and the judges felt that Cranston deserved higher results than his repeated bronzes at world levels, but was held back by compulsory figures. World-class figure skaters today are no longer judged on the basis of compulsory figures, but that change did not happen until after Cranston retired from competitive figure skating. His wish to put an adult-level "theatre on ice" also made him one of the seminal figures in the gradual recognition that high caliber non-competitive figure skating performance could be hugely popular (and profitable). This legacy is visible in the existence of (eg) Stars on Ice. (Before that, non-competitive performances were much lower caliber and targeted a less knowledgeable audience, eg. Ice Capades.)
Oh, and Cranston was also awarded the Order of Canada, Canada's equivalent to the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Both this and the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame induction were already in the article when I first nominated it. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The Figure Skating Hall of Fame thing is a little misleading, after all several inductees (e.g. Herbert Clarke, Sheldon Galbraith, Josef Dědič, Janet Lynn, Maribel Vinson, Jutta Müller etc etc) didn't win Olympic gold medals. And when I looked at the Order of Canada, it said it had been awarded to over 6,000 individuals, while the Presidential Medal of Freedom was handed out about 11 times a year, are they really comparable? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Order of Canada is not the equivalent of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The Order has three ranks: from highest to lowest, these are Companions, Officers, and Members. Up to 15 Companions can be appointed each year, subject to a total maximum of 165; up to 64 Officers, and up to 136 Members (no limit on the total in the lower two classes). [3] On 26 December 2014 [4] 3 Companions, 13 Officers and 79 Members were appointed - and similar numbers are appointed in each group twice a year. Obama has awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom a mere 79 or 80 times since taking office, in comparison [5]. According to his article, Cranston was a Member of the Order of Canada - that is, the lowest grade. No comment on your other arguments, but your comparison to the Presidential Medal of Freedom is a bad one. BencherliteTalk 16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Your listing of people from a different era completely is genuinely misleading. Five of the six people you list are figure skating pioneers from the 1920s-40s, all of whom retired from competitive skating before 1950. The last, Janet Lynn, is still the youngest person ever to compete at the highest level for the US (age 11); to the point of landing a triple salchow jump at age 13 -- five US national titles and a World silver at her retirement. Incidentally, Lynn was another person whose competitive scores were lowered to non-gold levels by compulsory figures, although for her it was less obvious. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not misleading at all, it's purely factual. None of those that I listed won a gold medal, that was your claim to significance of his induction, wasn't it? In fact, I probably only found half or so of the inductees had won a gold. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. People are inducted into the Hall of Fame based on their contribution to the sport -- which is not limited to their competitive contribution. However, to compare accurately, you really should choose to compare people from the same era. (Look up how early Olympic competitors were chosen sometime. It is quite entertaining.) Two other people were inducted at the same time as Toller Cranston: Midori Ito and Jutta Müller. Midori Ito never won higher than silver, but she was the first woman to complete seven triple jumps in a free program -- consistently the same jump content as the men. Jutta Müller's competitive skating successes were limited to the national level, but she coached her students to three Olympic gold medals and ten world champion titles.
Yet you seem to be saying that neither of these people are "really" RD or even Hall-of-Fame material because they never actually won Olympic gold themselves. By that same standard, Ernie Banks should not be Hall-of-Fame or RD-notable, since he never won the World Series. - Tenebris 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As to the Order of Canada, you may have slightly misunderstood both the award and that ranking. Even at their very best, a sports figure in Canada -- any sports figure in Canada -- would never be awarded anything other than the Officer level of the order of Canada, no matter how exceptional they are. That is the maximum a sports figure can achieve, where achievement does not go outside the field of sports -- because the "Member" level specifically acknowledges regional contribution, "Officer" level specifically acknowledges talent on an international level, and the "Companion" specifically acknowledges the "humanity" of the contribution (must extend beyond a single professional field). For example, astronauts Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield both received the "Officer" level of the Order of Canada. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is equally intended to recognize truly exceptional people, but it has no similar ranking to acknowledge different types of exceptionality. Canada also does not have any additional award equivalent to the Congressional Gold Medal -- the Order of Canada is pretty much it at that level.
Probably not a good idea to compare actual numbers of people given the medal (even if # of people awarded the Congressional Gold Medal are added in), since that way lies a very slippery slope examining each country's assessment of its own citizens, or even whether one country does genuinely produce more internationally exceptional individuals per capita than another. - Tenebris 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It was you who made the initial comparison. I know nothing about either award yet it seems freely available in Canada compared to its US counterpart with which you equated it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I'm not confident that he meets the criteria of "very important figure in his field." He may have been the best in Canada for a string of years, but that falls short of "widely recognized" or "very important." Mamyles (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Except that he was the best in the world in figure skating artistic expression for many years running, and had *those* medals (the free skating medals at the World Championships) to prove it. He also had a long string of perfect 6.0s in artistic expression judging, both at the World Championships and at the Olympics. Athletes have been previously included in RD simply for being among the best in their own country, Ernie Banks being a direct example. While we don`t use precedents to decide RD priorities, we should at least not apply double standards. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you think holding a Bronze medal makes him the best in the world. I understand your point of view, that he is well respected in Canada and the sport, but I maintain my opinion that the bar for ITN:RD is not met here. Mamyles (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
He holds specific free skating world medals, given for the best in that area in the same competition, in addition to the bronze he earned which is based on three types of skating. This is also made clear in the article. Compared to, say, baseball, it would be like being the best pitcher in the world, but never once having won the World Series and only coming in third overall in all baseball skills averaged.

For those for whom it isn't clear, the respect for Toller Cranston's influence goes far, far beyond Canada. NYTimes calls him the "Nureyev of figure skating". Fox Sports calls him a "figure skating legend". I edited the nomination to include these and other international major media eulogies from Europe and even as far abroad as Malaysia (not a figure skating country!). So no, his reputation is not just about Canada. ... Although I can't help but notice that the same "local only" objection was not made for the RD for Ernie Banks, not even by one person. Again, could we please try not to have a double standard in how we judge nominations? - Tenebris

Is that the same Fox broadcasting network that used an expert to claim that Birmingham was a no-go zone for non-Muslims and where Muslim police beat non-Muslims?? Just checking. And is this the Banks who is widely regarded as one the best baseball players of all time, fourteen-time All-Star and member MLB all-century team? Not sure I caught that same feeling about Cranston. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Greek legislative election, 2015Edit

Articles: Coalition of the Radical Left (talk, history) and Greek legislative election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Exit polls indicate Alexis Tsipras' leftist SYRIZA party has won today's Greek legislative election by a large margin.
Alternative blurb: ​The Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) wins plurality/majority of seats in the parliamentary elections in Greece
Alternative blurb II: ​Leftist SYRIZA party wins Greek legislative election, needs partner for coalition government.
Alternative blurb III: ​Leftist SYRIZA party wins Greek legislative election, agrees to form coalition government with Independent Greeks.
News source(s): Ministry of Interior, BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Today's Greek elections have been a particularly hot news item throughout Europe. The blurb should be updated as soon as final results are available. --PanchoS (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose posting predictions. Obviously we can post the actual result once it is known. Formerip (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for actual results. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Should be posted as soon as official results come in. The current blurb reads like a sensationalist newspaper headline. Also, the margin is irrelevant. What is relevant is if SYRIZA gets more than 150 seats or not and that, largely, depends on how many parties pass the threshold. --Երևանցի talk 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, whatever the precise result is, it will still matter quite a lot. Formerip (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for later Post the actual results, not exit polls. Redverton (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for later: as soon as the actual, official results come through (if they haven't already) then this news should definitely be posted. I would advise tweaking the blurb somewhat; no need for "today's" or "large margin". Perhaps mention could be made of the fact that this is Greece's first leftist government in sixty years, although that is not essential by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Where do you get "Greece's first leftist government in sixty years" from? George Papandreou only left office in 2011. Mogism (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Papandreou's PASOK is center-left. SYRIZA is purely left-wing, even far-left. --Երևանցի talk 23:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this needs to be in the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that the preliminary results are out (97% reporting), we shouldn't wait longer but post at least the blurb. If there's a better photo I will post it here. --PanchoS (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but wait for initial counting (100% reporting) is complete, even if the results aren't expected to change from the final few %. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "99.8% reporting" for a few hours now. --PanchoS (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Samaras has conceded defeat, so I believe that is enough for it to be posted. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now, this is breaking news: Tspiras agrees on a coalition with the Independent Greeks. I'm wondering why there is still no post at all, so please now. --PanchoS (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted I went with a blurb that uses the full name of SYRIZA - if that's too long, feel free to cut it down to just the acronym. Smurrayinchester 13:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Zambian presidential election, 2015Edit

Articles: Edgar Lungu (talk, history) and Zambian presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Patriotic Front candidate Edgar Lungu is elected President of Zambia.
News source(s): ABC News

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

Nominator's comments: Any Zambian president is automatically news to everyone. George Ho (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - absolutely! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support- I agree. A nicely done article about an important election in an area that rarely gets mentioned in the Newsfeed.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a presidential election is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Presidential elections are ITNR, so no discussion is required as to the merits, simply to judge quality and decide on a blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The image's copyright status needs to be sorted. Alt blurb: "Edgar Lungu is elected president of Zambia. Ali Fazal (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to see some more updates in both articles before posting. Reactions etc. --Tone 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. But needs more updates Yogwi21talk 08:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment:: I have updated the references section of the election article. I believe it is now ready to be posted. Please do consider posting this. This is quite significant as the winner's electoral margin was just 27,757 votes. Ali Fazal (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not ready - there is currently no prose on the results/reaction in the election article. That would normally be expected before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the results section. How does it appear now? Ali Fazal (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. The update is fine now. --Tone 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 24Edit


[Added to Ongoing] Offensive on Mariupol (January 2015)Edit

Article: Offensive on Mariupol (January 2015) (talk, history)
Blurb: Rocket fire in Mariupol, Ukraine kills at least 30 people.
News source(s): Washington Post, CBC News, Fox News

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths, coverage around the world. Everymorning talk 13:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure that 30 deaths in a long conflict where thousands have died is 'significant'. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There is no way we can post this. We didn't post Donetsk airport, which was much more important strategically and symbolically (and resulted in hundreds of deaths). Shelling has been happening daily for months across the combat zone. Plenty more people have died in Kyivsky district of Donetsk from shelling than in this relatively minor incident in Mariupol. Put things in proportion, please. This is not a "significant number of deaths" in this conflict, where at least this amount of people is dying each day, at present. RGloucester 15:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that Mariupol (around 900 000 people) is less strategically important that ruins of Donetsk Airport. Also this was peaceful part of country since July. So the fighting is spreading. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is less important, because government forces have had no problem holding onto Mariupol, despite a DPR offensive in September, and a variety of other assaults. Donetsk airport was the last part of Donetsk that government forces held, and this present "offensive" would not be possible without the loss of Donetsk airport by government forces. As you may know, Donetsk airport had hugely symbolic value to Ukrainian forces, with the "cyborgs" and all. Fighting is spreading, but Mariupol is where it is spreading least, other than this one barrage of rockets. As I said, as far as shelling is concerned, Kyivsky and Kirovsky districts of Donetsk have seen much heavier shelling for months, but no one cares about them, apparently. Much heavier fighting is going on in Delbatseve, and parts of Luhansk Oblast. This particular event simply isn't significant in proportion. RGloucester 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Is there anything more wikipedia:pointy than a user who asks for himself to be blocked to oppose a nomination on a topic because his own nomination on the exact same topic hasn't been posted? RGloucester, your actions here are shameful. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Shameful? I believe it is shameful to strike at a person's weak points, for no apparent reason other than to have a bit of sport. That's shame, fellow, and it lies squarely on your own shoulders. I happen to be quite familiar with this topic area, and have written many of the articles we've got on the subject. It has nothing to do with whether "my nomination hasn't been posted". As I said, I have no strong opinion about whether that is posted or not. However, the idea that this should be posted, and not that, ignores the context of the war itself, and shows a lack of knowledge on the part of those proposing it. As the nominator cited "significant number of deaths" as his only reason for the nomination, it was quite clear that he is not aware that live are being lost at an insane rate in this war, and that underreporting and obfuscation mean that the situation is even worse than we know. As it stands, many more people are dying in Debaltseve (currently under assault) at this very moment than died in Mariupol. Donetsk airport, itself, was the most significant loss for Ukrainian forces since government forces retook much of the insurgent-controlled territory in the summer. Combined with the hundreds of deaths at that airport, the symbolic nature of the "cyborgs", its position as the last government position in Donetsk, and the huge amount of civilian deaths in Kyivsky and Kirovsky districts (caused by Ukrainian shelling of DPR forces who hide in apartment blocks), Donetsk airport could've been worth posting (comparable to the Battle of Ilovaisk). This, on the other hand, is a minor event in the context of this war. Shelling is everywhere, constantly, at the moment, whether in Debaltseve, or in Shchastya (convinently meaning "happiness"). No significant military operation has taken place in Mariupol, at yet, making this even more insignificant, and somewhat WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester 03:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Weak points? That's between you and your wellness provider. My point is clear and I won't further this with you in any way. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad, given that the sharpness of your cheddar is clear. At least I have an argument, whereas you've got very little. It isn't as if you supported posting this event, either. RGloucester 04:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - wait for confirmation. That the offensive really started. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sticky the assertion we can't post 30 deaths because we didn't post 12 is perhaps the silliest thing I have heard since Mr. 57 said he couldn't get a flight to Paris on time. In any case, we've got the two largest nations in Europe at war, but it's not worth posting? The piecemeal annihilation of the second biggest nation in europe by the first is not something one ignores becuase it happens slowly μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support sticky I agree with Medeis. The conflict is sufficient to post as ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support sticky as a fine idea and fine compromise. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sticky per Medeis. Although I didn't know Russia and Germany were at war.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sticky per Medeis. This is a big deal.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Added to Ongoing Stephen 00:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[pulled] Ebola ongoing reviewEdit

close to formally show pulled element without template is separate from open template. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to review the listing of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa under the ongoing section. The article is no longer getting as many updates as it was a few months back when it was listed; this is the extent of updates over the past week. -- Calidum 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, pull it, as no white Americans have caught it recently. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it is reasonable to pull. It is still a problem, yes, but stories breaking today [6] are implying that the case count is at its lowest, and while the continued treatment is threatened by some funding issues, it's not spreading like it was when this story was ongoing. If that tide significantly changes later, we can readd but I agree it can be removed from ongoing. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about proposing to pull it as well. Though still present, it's slowing down. Hopefully, in a couple of months, we can feature a blurb that the epidemic has ended. --Tone 20:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull, just heard on the news that the Liberian government says that there are only a few cases left there. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull. Whether "white Americans" have gotten it or not is irrelevant; this is not getting as much attention in the news as in the past, regardless of who is getting Ebola. As suggested above, if there is some notable way to mark the end of the outbreak, that might be notable enough to post. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done. --Jayron32 00:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Recent death: Arafat RahmanEdit

Consensus says no. BencherliteTalk 10:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Arafat Rahman Koko (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Arafat Rahman is the younger son of Former Bangladeshi Prime minister Khaleda Zia and Former President of Bangladesh Ziaur Rahman.
Sources: The Hindu, Prothom Alo, Business Standard, HONOLULUMagazineRahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Son of prominent politicians" isn't in WP:ITN/DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Truthfully I'm not sure he's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, let alone making the front page. -- Calidum 16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Calidum says, I'm not sure he merits an article either. The son of a notable person is not notable themselves. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Klay Thompson scores 37 in a quarterEdit

WP:SNOW--Jayron32 02:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Klay Thompson of the Golden State Warriors scores 37 points in a quarter, breaking a NBA regular season record set in 1962. -81.129.160.174 (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'd say there are more important records than this - e.g. most points in a game or a career. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Come on anon user, let's not be like cricket and post every "major" basketball record there is. –HTD 13:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL. Anyway, I would oppose this one. I would support a single game record, but this is just one quarter. -- Calidum 16:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • To put it in context, the most points in a game record will almost certainly never be broken, as no-one has got anywhere near it in 50 years. Points-in-a-quarter (and perhaps, at a push, points-in-a-half) are the only realistically breakable individual single-game achievements. 81.129.160.174 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The quarter-scoring record isn't even a "major" record. If someone ties or surpasses the 100 points set by Wilt Chamberlain, perhaps it could be considered. –HTD 02:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[posted] RD: Ernie BanksEdit

Article: Ernie Banks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Chicago Sun-Times CBS ESPN

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Hall of Fame baseball player affectionately known as Mr. Cub. Banks was a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. -- Calidum 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Notable since he's a very notable baseball figure and article is in good shape. Defiantly RD material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support iff Baseball Bugs supports. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article does a great job of detailing his life and career and why he was notable. SpencerT♦C 07:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A good article in both the Wikipedia and normal senses of the term. Neljack (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - A highly notable figure in his field, and the article is indisputably in fine shape. Let's post this to RD with pride. Jusdafax 10:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per TDKR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice article about someone clearly meeting the criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A baseball legend. Knocks DC2 out of the park. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have created a 'Death' subsection and added a quote from the Chicago mayor. Jusdafax 23:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks good. This should be ready to post. -- Calidum 23:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Done. --Jayron32 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose any Cubs on the main page. Particularly the 69 Cubs that blew it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The superiority of the 1969 Mets as against all comers may not be held against Mr. Banks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

January 23Edit


[Closed] Doomsday ClockEdit

no consensus to post. --Jayron32 04:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Doomsday Clock (talk, history)
Blurb: Doomsday Clock moves 2 minutes forward, leaving only 3 minutes from midnight
Alternative blurb: Doomsday Clock moves 2 minutes forward, leaving only 3 minutes from midnight due to the threat of global nuclear war and climate change
News source(s): The Guardian Independent Washington Post
Nominator's comments: A rare event, last happened three years before.  - The Herald (here I am) 12:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is getting significant coverage, and although it is just a symbolic act it is a notable and rare one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - really? If it does reach midnight, that *might* be big news. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Yes, a worldwide nuclear war would be big news, I think, if we were still alive to talk about posting it to Wikipedia- or a global climate disaster. That said, this clock is purely a judgement call; if it was the closest ever to midnight, then maybe it would be more notable(two minutes is the closest it has been). 331dot (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but this just seems like a bit of a parlour game and not even an interesting or meaningful one. A clock that spends half a century dancing about slightly before midnight is basically just a broken clock and if it was in my house, I'd have long since started ignoring it. Formerip (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be more logical and scientific. Is this a kind of joke or a nomination page. A lame argument for all those who wrote OPPOSE.. - The Herald (here I am) 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To what are you specifically referring? 331dot (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, seriously? This is nothing important. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you want to talk about science, I don't quite see the correlation between an arbitrarily-managed clock and the impending doom of Earth.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I fail to see how this is different than something like Time magazine's man of the year of Sports Illustrated's sportsman of the year. Both of those get a lot of attention and neither are posted here (and rightfully so). -- Calidum 16:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt I think something along these lines is better: The DM clock is set for the first time since 1988 at 3 mins from midnight. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Re-Opened I am reopening this, since it was only open from 7am-noon on the US East Coast and 4-9am on the west coast. The doomsday clock was a huge thing during the Cold War, with updates to it getting multi-minute segments in the nightly news. Those to young to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall may not remember the angst of the era. That the world seems to have returned to chaos not seen since the 70's, this seems a reasonable nomination. Count me as a support. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this nomination could be closed right at the last minute (or two). Is this just a wind up? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, what gives you the right to revert an admin closure?--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that I can edit this page, Walt? I explained my reasons. Admins' sole privilege here is posting an article. Non-admins can do anything else in good faith. PS, it won't bother me at all if isn't posted, but it was up for less than six hours, when most Americans who were even awake were just starting their commute or working day. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@WaltCip: No offense but, "what gives you the right to revert an admin closure?" *facepalm* admins are only needed for the posting like Medeis said. @Medeis: I don't blame you for re-opening this, but it doesn't look like it's done much good for you. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Me? It has nothing to do with me. I think the clock is leftist nonsense that was mostly publicized during Republican administrations, particularly the Reagan administration, to further the goal of unilateral disarmament, for which see also nuclear winter. That being said, I don't think we should be closing nominations because a lot of anti-corporate (!) British editors who have never heard of the topic oppose it before most Americans have even gotten home from work. I'll close this myself if need be once they start going to bed in California (where they have now just started dinner), no offense to Australia and New Zealand. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend you, I just meant, that while it was closed a little early, it was very unlikely to be supported enough to get on ITN. The reason I said "it doesn't look like it's done much good for you." is because you said "count me as a support". --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I just came here to close this, but see Jayron's done so--no offense on my part has been taken from any party. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a media device that is being used to get media attention. It is not so much news as a public service announcement. I don't think this would even qualify if Wikipedia existed when it was a new idea. Chillum 19:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose All that has really happened here is that someone has issued a press release and we shouldn't be in the business of churnalism. So far as climate change is concerned, the 2014 record which was suggested down below, would be a better entry. The Atomic Scientist clock also relates to the modernisation of nuclear weapons (and developments in the life sciences !?) but it's not clear that we have a new arms race or that upgrade programmes are increasing risk rather than lowering it. What article do we have which will explain the weapons issue to our readers? Nuclear holocaust is suggested in the nomination but the graph in the article does not seem at all alarming. Andrew D. (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We make Sydney hostage crisis totally news against our will. Doomsday announcements should never be in the Main Page, although corporate-owned media will spin this announcement as "such" without a second thought. Perhaps more aggressive opposition should prompt a re-closure on this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't read the article. The "clock" is maintained by the board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists including 18 Nobelists, and whose "contributors have included: Morton Grodzins, Hans Bethe, Anatoli Blagonravov, Max Born, Harrison Brown, Stuart Chase, Brock Chisholm, E.U. Condon, Albert Einstein, E.K. Fedorov, Bernard T. Feld, James Franck, Ralph E. Lapp, Richard S. Leghorn, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Lord Boyd Orr, Michael Polanyi, Louis Ridenour, Bertrand Russell, Nikolay Semyonov, Leó Szilárd, Edward Teller, A.V. Topchiev, Harold C. Urey, Paul Weiss, [and] James L. Tuck, among others." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
That's quite a list. You'd think by now that they'd have worked out between them how to fix that broken clock. Formerip (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that they're mostly scientists, while the clock is a geopolitical indicator. They are less qualified than most international relations experts. Moving the clock is entirely arbitrary guesswork. Mamyles (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Antiquated relic of the Cold War, seems meaningless. But thanks for bringing up memories of Watchmen. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Hakuhō ShōEdit

Article: Hakuhō Shō (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In sumo, yokozuna Hakuhō Shō wins his 33rd top division tournament championship, breaking the record held by Taihō Kōki since 1971.
Alternative blurb: Sumo wrestler Hakuhō Shō wins a record-breaking 33rd makuuchi championship.
News source(s): Wall St Journal

Japan Times

Yahoo News

Nominator's comments: Significant achievement in breaking a 44 year old record held by the legendary Taiho who was regarded as the greatest sumo wrestler of the postwar period. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - We regularly post sumo on ITN (including yokozuna promotions), so this is right in our wheelhouse - and it's a welcome change from the normal barrage of football and cricket.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 相撲でビッグニュース (Big news in sumo wrestling) --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip. Mamyles (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It's nice to have some variety in the sports news we post, and the record here is certainly suitable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I don't watch much sumo wrestling, but I should vote this as news for diversity's sake. George Ho (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Added altblurb with just the most essential facts. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - if some other "national sports" such as cricket etc is published this could and should be posted as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

January 22Edit


[Closed] RD: Wendell FordEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wendell H. Ford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Reuters

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: Was the Democratic Party Whip in the Senate for 8 years and governor of Kentucky from 1971 to 1974. After 1974 he was in the Senate for four terms. Article is a FA so no quality issues. Everymorning talk 00:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose State-level leadership and/or federal congressperson is not really the type of importance in the field we're looking for for RD without any other notable milestones in their career. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Does not seem to meet the RD criteria, as Masem suggests. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This just isn't important enough for RD, compared to other figures we've posted.--WaltCip (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Whips are just party officials, and state-level representation on its own doesn't seem sufficient. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Dissolution of current Yemini cabinetEdit

Articles: Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi (talk, history) and Khaled Bahah (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi (pictured), Prime Minister Khaled Bahah, and the Yemeni cabinet resign.
Alternative blurb: ​Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi (pictured), Prime Minister Khaled Bahah, and the Yemeni cabinet resign during the Shia insurgency.
News source(s): CNN Times of IndiaWPBFBBC

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: I don't know which is huge, the dissolution of Yemini government or the succession of Saudi Arabian king. The future of Yemen is grim at best. George Ho (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The blurb can't make no reference to the circumstances. Formerip (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Technical support, the blurb would ideally include the link to the unrest (since it's a bumping up of the current blurb). --Tone 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but agree the blurb should refer to the unrest. Neljack (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb. --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb per everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Updated - Jehochman Talk 03:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Abdullah of Saudi ArabiaEdit

Articles: Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (talk, history) and Salman of Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia dies, and is succeeded by his brother Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (pictured).
News source(s): BBC, CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Death of a sitting ruler + change of power MASEM (t) 23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – In an absolute monarchy, the death of the monarch is of extraordinary significance. Definitely worthy of a blurb. RGloucester 23:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Once article is updated. Miyagawa (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Blurb only. Effectively the death of a serving head of state, and I don't think his advanced age and ill health really detract from this --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb. Post asap--just get a minimal update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)-
  • Support. Death of a currently reigning head of state is notable. Current updates to the articles are sufficient. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Abdullah's article is ready, Salman's is just in progress (its being transitioned to a new name to reflect the change of power). Probably w/in a few minutes it might be ready. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per RGloucester. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The King is dead! Long live the King! Resolute 23:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb per User:Johnsemlak. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on blurb - Presumably, Salman was named successor a long time ago. Should it not read "... and is succeeded by his brother, Salman"? Resolute 23:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I've taken the liberty of amending the blurb in this way. 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is big. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Salman's article is not really expanded (lots of editing going on so it's hard to say) so I will just bold Abdullah's name for now. When the updates are there, we can also add the picture. --Tone 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support (edit conflict × 3) this is big news. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Photo assistance please - @David Levy: could you update the image and protect it at Commons? Jehochman Talk 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Updated with a photograph of King Abdullah. —David Levy 14:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't even think this one warrants discussion. King Abdullah was the leader of a G20 member state and a major economic power in the Middle East. Kurtis (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sure someone would go batshit crazy and cry admin abuse and make all sorts of reports if it had been posted without discussion though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course support, but it would be even better if the article on blogger Raif Badawi and the largely successful ai-campaign against human rights violations in Saudi-Arabia found a place there, too. The articles on Abdullah and his successor currently are widely uncritical. --PanchoS (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support You Western pig-dogs! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Leon BrittanEdit

Article: Leon Brittan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Former UK Home Secretary (one of the four Great Offices of State) during his tenure he was a very prominent figure in the miner's strike. Also a former vice president of the European Commission. I'm not certain whether he rises to RD level or not, but as we're not overflowing with nominations at the moment I think it's worth discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD: he was paid tribute to by the Prime Minister, David Cameron.[7] It Is Me Here t / c 18:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It would be more notable if the Prime Minister didn't pay tribute to a former Home Secretary from his own party. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not one of the greatest of his time. Embroiled in the Westland affair and is alleged to be involved in the cover up of historic sex offences by politicians in the 1980s. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's true, but the allegations don't decrease his notability for ITN purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If allegations count, there's another death below that should have long been posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. He sort of faded out of the cabinet halfway through the Thatcher era, but add on a decade as a European Commissioner and maybe we're just about across the line. The article has some possibly contentious stuff about organised paedophilia, though, and may need some eyes before posting. Formerip (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD - There is no doubt in my mind that this person deserves a mention at RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakest support. Lost the country a possible future Prime Minister, the only consolation being that he lost his job too. If only Tarzan could have swung higher.... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think he meets the criterion of having had a "significant contribution/impact on the country/region". Neljack (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, a truly notable British politician. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, a significant player during the Miner's Strike and the Thatcher government. Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I am not sure if it's in the ITN/RD policy, but we used to count importance in two different areas (British cabinet secretary, EC VP) as a plus in nominations. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Suppport Not much to say that hasn't been said already. I think he just about passes the grade for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 21Edit


[Closed] Microsoft HololensEdit

I believe this has been open long enough, and it looks that there is no consensus to post. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Windows Holographic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Microsoft announces Microsoft HoloLens, an augmented reality device that seamlessly projects 3D objects onto the real world.
News source(s): Wired (1) Wired (2) Engadget The Register Venture Beat
Nominator's comments: Along with the personal reason that this device blew my mind, I have no seen any article on it where it did not blow the minds of everyone who has used it. This device, or other like it, may very well change how we interact with computers. This appears to be a large step forward in augmented reality technology. Zell Faze (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In my nomination I mentioned that the device has, as far as I can tell, blown the minds of everyone who has used it so far within the press. I think the following quote from The Register illustrates this nicely: "Reporting on technology will make anyone a bit grizzled and cynical over time, but occasionally something comes along that just blows you away. HoloLens is the fourth such creation to make this hack say 'Holy f**k!' (in a good way) in the last two decades." Zell Faze (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as product announcement.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The word "seemless" should be removed. Am I allowed to modify someone else's blurb? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not prohibited, although for more than simple tweaks/corrections its often preferred to add an altblurb. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 128.214.53.18. The technology might or might not become significant which is why product launches are (almost?) never featured at ITN. If this were the launch of something that would definitely have a massive impact on every day life for millions of people I might consider it, but this is nowhere near that level. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simple product annoucement. We didn't post the announcement of the development of Google Glass either, and that didn't take off as it was thought it would at the time. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I would love to see this posted, 331dot makes a compelling argument comparing this to Google Glass which has not taken off. Still, I'm tempted to !vote support per WP:IAR. This really has the potential of being huge. AQFK (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Google glass analogy is apt. It's pretty cool, I want my hands on one, but this is not going to massively change computing until it's dirty cheap and not just seen as a toy. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wouldn't mind posting some product announcements, but I'm not sure this is truly significant enough. -- Calidum 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donetsk airportEdit

Closed, no consensus and stale. Stephen 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Second Battle of Donetsk Airport (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ukrainian forces withdraw from Donetsk International Airport after months of fighting with separatist insurgents.
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph, BBC, Kyiv Post, The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We've not posted anything on the whole Ukrainian situation for a while, and this defeat is a major blow to Ukrainian forces, who had been holding out at the airport for months. It had become the main battleground of the war in Donbass. Modify the blurb as appropriate. I wouldn't be opposed to a posting. RGloucester 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support commenting on the reescalation in Donetsk, in one form or another. As an alternative, maybe we could move Ukraine back to Ongoing? It Is Me Here t / c 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "ongoing" is appropriate. The conflict happens in bursts, so-to-speak. I only suggested this battle's conclusion for a blurb because of how much of a major blow it is to Ukrainian forces, symbolically and strategically. RGloucester 18:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - yes, major blow to Ukrainian forces, symbolically and strategically. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - strategical blow for Ukraine.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Simultaneously, there has been completed negotiations on a troop-draw-back line that seems to have been completed. That might be mixing up the stories, though. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a completely misleading statement. According to news reports, such as BBC report quoted above, Ukrainian forces did not withdraw from the airport, but only from the main terminal of the airport. Obviously, the withdrawal from only one terminal does not make big news. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The main terminal building was the last significant building they had been holding on to. They still hold the village of Pisky, on the outskirts of the airport, and a scattered few people remain in outbuildings. However, the sources say what they say. For example, the International Business Times says "Ukraine Army Retreats From Destroyed Donetsk Airport", the Kyiv Post article says "Kremlin-backed insurgents have taken over Donetsk Airport", The Guardian article says "Ukraine forces admit loss of Donetsk airport to rebels". I'll modify the blurb for you, though, to mention the terminal building. The BBC article says "The loss of the main terminal is a major blow to pro-Kiev forces and will send political shockwaves back to the capital". It definitely is "big news". RGloucester 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. This is now factually correct, except I am not sure how significant. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Someone changed blurb back, so this is now factually incorrect. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It isn't factually incorrect. New sources say that Ukrainian forces withdrew. I provided them below. These include The Daily Telegraph, Yahoo News, and The New York Times. RGloucester 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I am still unconvinced how important that was in the military, rather than psychological perspective. According to Ukrainian sources, Russian army and rebels still continue storming this airport and have significant losses.My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no difference between practical and symbolic importance. They have the same effect. Censor.net simply is not reliable for these events, as we've known since the start of the conflict. There is an information war going on, and both sides engage in propagandising. If you want to use Censor.net, we'd also have to use RT and the like. We stick to RS sources with distance, such as The New York Times. This article says "Chaotic Retreat Follows Ukrainians’ Withdrawal From Donetsk Airport". RGloucester 17:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This New York Times article (your link) openly uses Censor.net and Butusov (you criticize) as a source. But my point is different: this NYT article is probably already outdated; there is an ungoing military warfare in and around the airport with something being constantly taken and retaken by sides. My very best wishes (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not what RS say, and I'm sorry if you think that. If the Times uses something from such a source, that means they've taken the time to check it, and verify it. That's why they are called an "RS", because they have a reputation for fact-checking. As a secondary source, it is their job to so. However, the Times has not printed anything saying that the battle is still ongoing, or that the separatists have suffered heavy losses. In fact, no RS are printing such a statement. If no RS corroborate a Censor.net statement, we can assume it is unreliable. RGloucester 19:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I would support this if to replace wording "fighting with separatist insurgents" by fighting with Russian Army and separatist insurgents, because that is what actually happening. My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A step in an ongoing conflict, but not one that is particularly decisive in itself one way or another, especially because the control of the building is really more symbolic than strategic and apparently Ukrainian forces "remained in possession of the airport’s control tower and runway" according to the NY Times article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The control tower has been destroyed for weeks, so it is hard to remain "in control" of it. I suppose they are referring to the ruins. I wonder how one retains control of a runway, which is a vast open space. Regardless, The New York Times does not say that. It says that a Ukrainian NSDC spokesman said it. It is clear that this is important. According to the BBC, it is a "major blow", according to the The Guardian, the terminal building was a "hugely symbolic military prize". Symbolic gains are just as important as material gains. RGloucester 21:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose ongoing – Nothing of any real importance is ongoing. The only thing of any current significance was the airport battle. Otherwise, it has been mostly calm. RGloucester 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Umm... I've never been in either Russia or Ukraine before. Have you? The news media can makes us imply that the War is calm. Actually, many international reporters are too afraid to risk their own lives reporting this War. Same for Syrian Civil War and the 2nd Libyan Civil War, whose main combatants declared ceasefire. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been to Ukraine, but not Russia. Regardless, our coverage is based on what RS report, along with our own encyclopaedic principles. Fighting in Donetsk has been heavy, but everything else has been relatively normal. There are reports now of significant fighting in northern Luhansk Oblast, but that's a sparsely populated region. Nothing has really changed, yet, other than that Ukraine's "cyborgs" have been essentially eliminated after holding on for months. RGloucester 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's the first territorial change since the Minsk agreement standstill, and the battle has been in the news much and for long. Prefer blurb to ongoing sticky. Would skip "the main terminal building of " in the blurb, or at least say last building - current blurb sounds like govt might still control a significant part of the airport. Narayanese (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • New source – For anyone that wants more sources, here is a new article with the headline "Ukraine cedes airport on one of bloodiest days of war". It says "Ukrainian forces on Thursday ceded a long-disputed airport to Russian-backed rebels as an upsurge in clashes killed nearly 50 people and punctured Europe's latest push for peace in the nine-month war". I think the significance of this event is clear, despite a certain fellow's claim of a "minor issue". In another article, The Daily Telegraph says that the Ukrainian withdrawal from the airport was a "devastating victory over Ukrainian forces". RGloucester 04:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another twist in this rather long story. We should probably wait for some diplomatic breakthrough before posting about this again, instead of having every tactical detail.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That implies that there is going to be a "diplomatic breakthrough". There is no sign of one occurring. Fighting has ramped up across the combat zone, following the withdrawal. We've not had "every tactical detail". In fact, we've not posting any blurbs about this August, as far as I'm aware. RGloucester 14:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing It's curious why this isn't stickied. A member of G* ostracized for invading foreign countries seems worthy of ongoing, as it is indeed, ongoing. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Resignation of PEGIDA leader, Lutz BachmannEdit

No consensus to post, from the ITN perspective, protests themselves would be a better story. --Tone 15:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Lutz Bachmann (talk, history) and PEGIDA (talk, history)
Blurb: Lutz Bachmann, founder of PEGIDA, a German anti-Islamist organisation, resigns as its leader.
Alternative blurb: Lutz Bachmann, founder of PEGIDA, a German anti-Islamist organisation, resigns as its leader after controversy was sparked by a picture of himself posing as Adolf Hitler.

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Newly created article, and his resignation is news to the Germans, to Muslims, and to people elsewhere. George Ho (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose standing down from a Facebook group created in October is not significant. Stephen 02:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not convinced this is really of sufficient significance. PEGIDA, despite the attention it has got, does not enjoy the support of most Germans and has not achieved much in terms of effecting its political aims. Neljack (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support For this being newsworthy it is absolutely irrelevant whether Pegida does enjoy the support of most Germans or by a large minority. PEGIDA has definitely become newsworthy, it comes up in the evening news every other day, and Bachmann's Hitler selfie was on title pages worldwide. Dozens of news articles focus on Bachmann himself. We should however direct people to our article PEGIDA, which has become quite good, rather than the new one on Lutz Bachmann which we have no photo of. For objectivity, we should also mention the investigations by state prosecutors. I'd therefore propose as an alternative blurb:
    PEGIDA founder Lutz Bachmann resigns as leader of the German anti-Islamic movement following state investigations for incitement to popular hatred
    --PanchoS (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Um... I credit you as one of updaters, so there would be conflict of interest (COI). George Ho (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
My comments won't become completely worthless because of that, but anyway, may others decide. --PanchoS (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is generally regarded as a disqualifying COI here. Updaters frequently nominate articles or comment in support of a nomination. And editors who think a nomination is worthy of support often also help to update the article. It would be undesirable to discourage people from working on the article by treating it as a COI precluding them from voting on a nomination. Neljack (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree; being an updater does not and should not disqualify someone from commenting here. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't take it as an offense, but I think that your comment particularly highlights an existing general bias against less-institutionalized organizations: it shouldn't matter if something is a company on shares, a legal political party or a ad-hoc association if they otherwise receive the same notability. Neither should it matter whether an organization has a professional homepage (requiring a lot of money or specific skills Bachmann doesn't seem to have even though he's in the low-scale PR business) or a simple blog or a facebook page.
    But I won't contradict to the other aspect of your argument that there are certainly more important personalities than Bachmann which we didn't have in the news. So the outcome is fine for me, I just wanted to raise my observation on this. --PanchoS (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Congolese protestsEdit

Article: 2015 Congolese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Three days of protests against President Joseph Kabila, who wants to change the constitution, so he can stay in power longer, leave forty-two people dead.
Alternative blurb: ​Forty-two people are killed in protests against President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): Reuters BBC

Nominator's comments: It's a potential revolution  - Monopoly31121993Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I'd like to see the article expanded a bit more, but this does seem like an important event, and in a part of the world where we don't usually get such great news coverage (hence systematic bias). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as this is a significant development, even if we don't hear about this country often. I would prefer this be an Ongoing event, but it could be a blurb instead. Mamyles (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if this is posted, altburb is definitely the better option. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Done so. --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 24 hours after nominating this it seems like everyone supports it. Can I just add it to the page then?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The process is that nominations will be discussed until an administrator believes that consensus has been reached and the content is ready. Only admins can modify the main page. Though, if you believe that this is ready, you can add [Ready] in front of the nomination header. Mamyles (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support had 42 Russians been killed in protests when Putin changed the law to allow him to rule for life, we'd have posted it lickety split. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. Neljack (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality, it's junk, barely English, references are appalling, please tidy it up, it's certainly not something we want to "showcase" on our mainpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just created People's Palace (Kinshasa) to fix the Palais du Peuple redlink. I'll be back in about 3 hrs to see what else needs attention at that point. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • [ready] Support- There is no reason that after 48 hours an event which took the lives of 42 people should still not even been mentioned (and I agree that had this been in Russia [ie. white people] it probably would have been). Instead we have kept a week-old story about the Swiss Bank's decision on the new feed. Is that really more newsworthy than popular protests against a corrupt and authoritarian regime which have cost the lives of dozens of people? Can an admin please declare consensus and move this along? The only person to oppose this has called the references (which are overwhelmingly AFP, Bloomberg, Reuters and BBC) "appalling" which strikes of absurdity and stonewalling. I think a vote of 5-1 over 2 days should be deemed consensus for a news item.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"As nominator", you mean. That would be five to one excluding the nominator. --George Ho (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Monopoly, you miss the point. The article has a maintenance tag, two inline requests for quotations, ill-formatted references etc. I didn't ever mention that the quality of the sources were in doubt. I think you claiming that I'm being absurd and stonewalling this nomination is a bit too much. I'm just trying to uphold some levels of quality control around here while all the others just knee-jerk support without really giving a damn about what shape the article is in. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I concur with Monopoly. I question The Rambling Man's rationale here. I don't see how "junk" the whole nomination or the blurb is. Three people killed may be too little, but there have been protests, successful or not. Congo and Zaire became "Democratic Republic of Congo" and "Republic of Congo", but Congo suffers from authoritarian regimes already. Time for at least one news about any African country besides Ebola. George Ho (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps you mis-read, I said the article was junk, it may have been improved since I last looked. Let's hope so because the more junk we push to the main page, the less likely our readers are to read it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    If shown in Main Page, more readers will become aware of this page and will fix the article. That's how things are done to articles, right? --George Ho (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, and equally likely is that 99.9% of those reading the article aren't editors and will take one look and think, "what a load of junk they link to from the main page". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Not this 99% vs. 1% philosophy. Have you gotten this from Occupy Wall Street or Tea Party demonstrations? Also, I am sure that the most of "99%" you mentioned are capable of editing unless you want to discredit IPs as useless. --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    It seems you don't understand the readership of Wikipedia at all. But just address the article quality issues and we'll have full agreement that it's fit for the main page. Alternatively keep supporting articles which are of insufficient quality and slowly but surely degrade the quality of the main page. P.S. The main page is viewed over 300 million times a month. On the flip-side we have around 30,000 editors who make five or more edits a month. So no, not 99% vs 1% at all. Much worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    Isn't that ten million viewing times per day? Umm... the editors stats are misleading. When you said "five or more per month", that seems short. We don't know how many edit five or more per day. --George Ho (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    It more than adequately demonstrates the point. Most of our readers do not edit Wikipedia. So if you really care about the article, fix up the issues, improve the method of citation and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I respect that you're interested in improving the quality of the article but your argument here doesn't seem to have any basis in rules regarding what gets posted in the news feed. I have not found any information stating that non-FA,GA, [of good quality], etc. articles should be excluded from the main page. If it's the news then it's the news. Whether Wikiepdians have developed a great/good quality article or not is not part of the criteria for what news exists in the world. That said I think there is clearly consensus here.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed one of the key purposes: "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────── The Rambling Man, issues are resolved; will you change your vote? George Ho (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready I have copyedited the tagged section, which needed a handful of commas and re-phrasing. I've removed comment on any British reaction, since no news I could find in the last week mentions any, perhaps there will be comments in the French press or Chinese. In any case, the nomination is well supported, and the article's in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
If this is not yet ready, an admin should give a specific reason, so that any remaining problems can be addressed. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The altblurb seems neutral, is there any other problem? μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 19:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, I fixed most of the issues that I flagged up several days ago. A pity some of the supporters couldn't be bothered to address them. Or perhaps they just didn't see them or realise what constitutes a "quality article" any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    And I guess if this was fifteen killed, then the protests in Egypt which have already killed sixteen will be worth nominating? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US-Cuba embargoEdit

I think we all appreciate the suggestion (we are always looking for new voices here), but there is a consensus this won't be posted until the embargo is lifted. -- Calidum 05:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: United States embargo against Cuba (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Officials from the United States and Cuba meet in Havana to discuss lifting the embargo imposed 54 years ago between the two nations.
News source(s): BBC Havana Times

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This event should have serious effects on the international relations between the United States and Cuba. This could be the beginning of more positive interactions between the US and Cuba.  TCMemoire 20:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would prefer to wait until something happens diplomatically regarding the embargo, rather than announce a discussion. (Furthermore, it's Congress who would need to lift the embargo, and having mostly executive branch officials talk is unlikely to achieve results soon.) Mamyles (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait If the embargo is lifted as a result of this meeting, that would be an easy support for ITN posting. But planning to meeting is a bit too early. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose even the value of Pi is up for discussion before a legislative body. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Or the ozone photolysis catalyzing ability of chlorine or the opaqueness of carbon dioxide to mid-infrared? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The announcement of discussions is not significant. Congress voting to remove the embargo would be noteworthy, but given the GOP led current Congress that seems unlikely. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The original announcement was ITM worthy, but this is just some news about a meeting about something we already know about. Maybe if the meeting is concluded with substantive progress, that could be featured. Gamaliel (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the lifting would be the news. Discussions are just discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

January 20Edit


January 19Edit


[Posted] Yemen coup d'étatEdit

Article: 2014–15 Yemen unrest (talk, history)
Blurb: Houthi rebels have attacked the residence of the President of Yemen and swept into the presidential palace.
Alternative blurb: Houthi rebels attack and occupy the residence of the President of Yemen.
News source(s): Today) (Al Jazeera)

 Olegwiki (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. The Guardian is reporting that the rebels are in control of the capital, Sanaa. It's an obviously postable story, but think we should wait for just a little of the dust to settle before deciding what blurb to use. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional support with additional confirmation, would like to see more affirmation that this is true and the coup has bee completed. The article update is there but again, would like a bit more on affirmation. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I almost nominated this myself; occupying a presidential residence is notable. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment according to the article, this action has been happening since August last year. Is this specific event more newsworthy than all the other actions? Is this more inclined to an "Ongoing" listing? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose A coup is taking political power, rather than just taking one building and making the occupants flee. The president was (supposedly) allowed to leave. Unless there is an actual overthrow of power, where the president loses political control of the bureaucracy, this news is just one more battle loss for Yemen. This is still developing, and the condition of the president is yet definitive. Mamyles (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That still seems like a pretty big deal. If someone took over the White House or Downing Street, I'm pretty certain it would be a no-brainer to post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the IP user; the seizure of any presidential residence is notable on its own, regardless of the success of a coup attempt. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
To put this in context, the city has effectively been an active war zone for a year. That rebels took control of a government building is not surprising, and has only symbolic significance beyond that Yemen lost another battle. What is significant is that the rebels let the president go free, but I guess they had to or the country would have lost all of its funding from western governments. Mamyles (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support -occupying a presidential residence is notable indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support — This is a major development in the Houthi rebellion, and will surely serve as a watershed for future developments in Yemen. Kurtis (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Major story, international implications. Jusdafax 09:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but why that tense structure? Would "Houthi rebels attack and occupy the residence of the President of Yemen" be more neutral and concise? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Added "altblurb" for you. --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose squatting is not a coup d'etat. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If a group seized control of The White House, or 10 Downing Street, that wouldn't be noteworthy? 331dot (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hard to say, because the last time it happened was a year before Wikipedia started. Formerip (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You work with what you have, 331. Today's news confirms the resignation of the prior government--that's a lot better justification for this nomination than the occupation of one building. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about posting this, but the target article doesn't seem to have enough meat, and events are still unfolding rapidly. the latest is that there's been some sort of deal and the rebels are withdrawing. I think we need to wait for the dust to settle. We are not the breaking news. Jehochman Talk 22:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that if they have pulled back or otherwise left the residence that we might want to rethink posting(as well as the quality issues). 331dot (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot and others. Certainly a major story.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, there is no need for waiting anymore. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is Yemen, which we're discussing. A rebel coup and occupation into the presidential palace are huge. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting, the altblurb. --Tone 15:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Yemeni government has reportedly now offered the rebels its resignation, so we should be standing by to possibly replace the blurb. Formerip (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • [8] Definitely support an update blurb on this. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I support an update with news of the president's resignation. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The president and cabinet have resigned [9] so we might want to change the blurb. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Death of Alberto NismanEdit

Articles: AMIA bombing (talk, history) and Alberto Nisman (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who had accused President Cristina Kirchner of covering up Iranian links to the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center, is found dead at his home.
Alternative blurb: ​Argentine federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman is found shot dead a week after accusing President Cristina Kirchner of covering up Iranian links to the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center.
Alternative blurb II: ​Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman is found shot dead in his apartment a shortly before his testimony on the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center.
News source(s): BBC, The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian

Both articles updated

 Cambalachero (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Wait. I think that, as a blurb story, this depends on whether there are good indications that someone else was involved in his death. It is too soon to say that. Also don't think we should name Kirchner in the blurb - she's not the only person who may have had a motive to off him. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nisman predicted that he would be murdered for investigating the case. I have been getting denial of service error attempting to read the story earlier today, it seems to have drawn quite some interest. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's all in the blurb ... "who had accused..." no real story unless there's a subversive link which will need robust evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This death is in the news because of the timing of the events. Nisman accuses Cristina Kirchner and others, he is called to the Congress to expand his report... and he's found dead, the very day he had to be at the Congress. It's hard to think that it's just a big coincidence. Cambalachero (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Still oppose. We don't post conspiracy theories. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Altblurb specifying he was a federal prosecutor, and found shot dead, per BBC source. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the BBC is reporting that no other person is thought to have been involved in his death. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the BBC reports that the prosecutor is waiting for the results of further tests "in order to rule out any other hypothesis". It's good that she's clear about what the purpose of the tests is... Formerip (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Medeis.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is an international story. Israel will interfere, understandably. + Massive demonstration after his dead. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM and Alex. Neljack (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Would you please ellaborate a little bit more? It's quite easy to rely on other's comments...--Jetstreamer Talk 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jetstreamer: Sure. The "who had accused" doesn't sound right in the blurb, and the blurb seems to suggest that he was murdered, but we don't know if that is true yet. Wikipedia is not Globe. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is becoming a national scandal that has international coverage.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Until foul play is identified as the cause of death, this reads like a conspiracy theory, and we definitely should wait until something more affirmed is given. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Switch to Oppose [10] Ruled there was no outside influence here. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. I think this could be notable enough for ITN, but as Masem said we need some facts here. 331dot (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any blurb that hints at unverified conspiracy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NYT: Puzzling Death of a Prosecutor Grips Argentina Daily Beast: Did Iran Murder Argentina’s Crusading Prosecutor Alberto Nisman? No suicide note, no confirmation of a headwound, no one heard the shot, the ten federal police guards assigned to guard his door were called away. This is leading news worldwide. The choice of wording on the blurb is a minor matter, make it how ever neutral possible, but the story should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's still reads like a conspiracy theory; if we treated this like a recent death, the person's "importance" is rather low (not a leader in any field) and while the death is interesting, not sufficient to post. Us posting this this early would be completely improper. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Of course it reads like a conspiracy theory, but the circumstances are very suspicious--no note, no indication of he might have killed himself, his guard disappear, he was about to give a summary report on a 20-investigation. None of that matters for our blurb. Saying "Argentine federal prosecutor found dead night before releasing 20 year report on attacks that killed 85" is not anything anyone denies. All we need to do is realize this is a huge story even if it was suicide, and it is getting immense worldwide attention. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually it does not meter whether it was suicide or how exactly he died. It is already an international scandal like Alexander Litvinenko. Remember he was investigated murder of 85 people with international links. --Jenda H. (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Mentioning the imminent release of the report in connection to the death/suicide/whatever it turns out to be is implicitly creating original research, or repeating wild speculation from the press. It's a newspaper-worthy eyecatching/reader-drawing headline, but it is far from encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 05:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is not for Wikipedia to say that this is suspicious or to act as a tabloid-headline generator/chaser. (There's an old rule of thumb which says that when headlines have question marks in them, such as "Did Iran Murder Argentina’s Crusading Prosecutor Alberto Nisman?", the answer to the question is "no", otherwise it wouldn't be phrased as a question.) He wouldn't fit the bill for RD and, absent a murder, his death is not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant a blurb. BencherliteTalk 09:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't usually vote here or know much about this particular story, but this reads like media speculation. I wouldn't support posting unless there's some official verification that the above parties were involved in his death. Otherwise this is a tabloid non-story. Condolences on his death. Fuebaey (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that this shouldn't be posted without something further happening, like the police treating it as murder or significant public protests. But, to those editors who seem to think you need to be a tabloid hack or David Icke to think the death of someone who had predicted their own murder hours before they were due to outline a criminal case against the president might be suspicious: is anyone interested in buying a CD signed by Elvis Presley? Formerip (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Altblurb What about: Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman was fond shot dead in his apartment a shortly before his testimony on the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center.? No speculation in blurb. By the way. Argentine president say that she dosen't believe it was suicide. Also there is any gunshot residue on Mr Nisman's hands, according to police.BBC --Jenda H. (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, Argentina's President now says it was not a suicide. Abductive (reasoning) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Er, from [11] , "Today, I do not have proof, but I do not have any doubt...". That's not confirmation at all. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a major story getting widespread international coverage (at least it's staying near the top of my google news results, and I'm certainly not from Argentina).--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While suspicious, ultimately not noteworthy enough; per TRM and Fuebaey. SpencerT♦C 00:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Kirchner the Argentine president herself has called this a murder: "Argentine President Cristina Kirchner said Thursday she believes that a prosecutor who died under suspicious circumstances was murdered in a plot to implicate her government in a cover-up of a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center." Whatever the facts, this story and the reaction to it is notable enough for posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • She has no evidence to support it was a murder (per my above link), she's making a supposition. We can't act like it is a murder because of that. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 18Edit


[Closed] AB de VilliersEdit

Not going to get consensus and the quality of the discussion is frankly appalling. 331dot and The Rambling Man stand out as needing to raise their game. Thryduulf (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: AB de Villiers (talk, history)
Blurb: AB de Villiers (pictured) makes the fastest century in ODI history, reaching 100 off just 31 balls against the West Indies.
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, South African AB de Villiers (pictured) makes the fastest One Day International century in history.
News source(s): BBC News ESPN
Nominator's comments: A very important item and a huge record in the field of cricket.  - The Herald (here I am) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While impressive, I don't think that we should be posting technical records like this. If we did, there would be a new sports record here every day. Mamyles (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not an everyday record. It takes years to break one and is considered as one of the most important one.  - The Herald (here I am) 17:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per precedent here and here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Which, of course, is nonsense as one nomination is still open (and is based in history on the other successful sports record posted, such as the century of centuries posted in April last year). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot about the Brit bias here. Clearly we should post this post haste. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot you were trying to make a point and failed, massively. Robertson is Australian. Do try harder, or at least do some research before making yourself look so .... unprepared. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, come on he didn't know you were going to argue semantics. And if I were a Brit I would be much more interested in this despite not being Australian, Brits have about as much population as Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians and Irish combined so it's slightly lazy shorthand nothing to berate him about and he might've even been thinking the people supporting this are disproportionately British because of the time zone. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't yet know enough about this know if this is significant, but ITN is very skeptical of sports records, as Muboshgu showed. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't even know what sport this was until I clicked on the bolded link. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Ironically, all Muboshgu "showed" was that he didn't do any research and selectively ignored the fact that one of his two "examples" was still open with support. Brilliant work, the pair of you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The nomination clearly takes for granted that everyone knows cricket. That iis not the case. Clearly snooker and cricket are more important than gridiron football, so your inconsistencies are okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Indeed they are, and they span the globe rather than the parochial yet charming grid iron! There's no inconsistency, yet you clearly failed when you made your previous statement, but that's okay. Better luck next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
              • OMG, I think cricket is charming, too! Despite knowing alot about it by American standards. It's just kind of comical and quaint, I wonder how you take it seriously, with batsmen running back and forth for 2 instead of circumnavigating for 1 which makes them look stupid and really athletic fast bowlers hurling the ball like an idiot and making funny faces like they're having a bowel movement. I wouldn't mind to hear the why gridiron is bollocks paragraph but remember the US takes it as seriously as cricket. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • The funny face is of course because you have to run like 25 miles per hour before you even hurl the ball, which would be awesome if you could straighten your elbow (but the batsmen might need gridiron-like padding, lol). It would really help with the way too easy scoring and unnatural motion, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
            • So because college football is American, it doesn't get posted. I see. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
              • It doesn't get posted because it doesn't have much of any global importance and it doesn't get consistent support. But what are you complaining about none of the other sports get any support here either, expect for rock climbing I guess, so it's all fine isn't it? SeraV (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                • There is no requirement of "global importance"- and single-country objections are not valid(as stated on this page). 331dot (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • Yes yes, you keep telling yourself that. Oddly that is only ever argument when it comes to american stuff in these pages, rest can be safely ignored because they aren't important or interesting enough for americans, as you can see right here on this nomination. SeraV (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                    • I'm not telling myself or you anything; it's on this page. I support many nominations from other countries than mine. Please don't generalize. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                      • Well you make it so very easy with your constant whining about anti-americanism in here. It's not like most of the stuff we post in here comes from the US or anything. SeraV (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                        • I'm not "whining" so I'm not sure why you felt the need to be negative. I don't want there to be anti-Americanism or pro-Americanism. The answer to systemic bias is not to turn it around. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                          • Fine but the default state here is pro-american bias, and it is not really helpfull that if some american nomination fails people start instantly screaming about anti-americanism here. It is just annoying frankly and current reality and what you do. SeraV (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
                            • When I see someone here try to explain why their rationale for posting cricket items doesn't apply to college football despite similarities between the two, and is totally unwilling to see the other side(and denigrates it) I'm not sure what else I am supposed to think. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Well now you just aren't assuming good faith and starting to generalize, hardly everyone denigrated other side. How do you explain total lack of supports here if these nominations are so similar in your mind? SeraV (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
              • I was referring to the overall subject matter, not these specific issues, which are different (championship game vs. record in the sport). I think you would agree that this discussion should not be tied up between the two of us in this side discussion; if you wish to continue, please use my talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support easily as significant as a couple of blokes taking two weeks to climb a 1,000 metre tall rock, falling off numerous times, and being supported by a cast of thousands. This smashes the record. Alt blurb added for those who didn't even get which sport was being discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If it was so damn easy it would've been done before, possibly from the same guy who failed 4 times before. It is so hard that just passing every foot of rock without hammering something in and holding onto it is like a world record. All that stuff only adds to the achievement not detracts from it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More of a factoid, ideal for DYK as opposed to In The News. We also did not post Lionel Messi's world record for most goals in a calendar year; therefore, per precedence, this cannot be posted. -- Calidum 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "per precedence, this cannot be posted" is pure nonsense. While precedent can suggest something is more or less likely to be posted, it does not control and cannot prevent (or mandate) something being posted if there is consensus based on the merits of each item. In this case, I don't think a very different type of record in a very different sport is even relevant precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, to attempt to compare a season-long scoring record in a specific league with a fundamental cricketing world record just demonstrates the lack of understanding some individuals have here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Perhaps in a similar fashion to how some have a fundamental misunderstanding of college American football...? *Cough* not pointing any figures mind you.--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I doubt it. We all fundamentally understand that there's a thing called "college football" but most, if not all people outside the US couldn't give a monkeys about it. It's fine if it feeds professional sport institutions with good players etc, but otherwise it's just notable for the popularity, like wrestling or watching disasters take place. What we have here is in no way comparable to anything related to college football. This is cricket, which is of interest to English, Australian, South African, Australian, Indian, Sri Lankan, Pakistani people.... etc etc in other words well over a billion or so people know about this sport and some of them care about it. We'll never ever agree, but cricket is far more universal than American football will ever be. The quicker you guys understand that (and I don't expect you to ever understand cricket, far too many laws) the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I understand cricket. But when I first read about it in 2006 I used it for amusement to see how many percent of cricket articles I could read in short random passages while still having zero clue what they're talking about. And for the funny or 19th century sounding names. I also did this for rugby, bridge (card game) and programming articles. I read them in equal quantities so that I could entertain myself with the contest of which would be like reading a foreign language last. Bridge won cause the 4 main articles weren't read to make the game sporting. I still don't get what law prevents the batsman from being continually in danger from a fielder breaking his wicket with the ball/ball arm even though he made his ground. (though I haven't read them all). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'd probably support this if it were a record for cricket or international cricket rather than just ODI. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a record for cricket, it's a record for international cricket.... Wow, worst oppose I've seen ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Erm. No. Google it. Formerip (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I don't need to "google it". It's a world record, it's a cricket record, it's a one day international record, you probably need to re-read what you wrote and then apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
From the BBC article linked on this very page: "Chris Gayle's 100 from 30 balls in the Indian Premier League in April 2013 is the fastest century in cricket history." Worst reply to an oppose ever. -- Calidum 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
However, it is correct to say that it is a record for all international cricket. Perhaps surprisingly, the T20I record is way back at 45 balls, while the test record is 56 balls. Neljack (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops Calidum and FormerIP! Best to not comment if you're bot clear what you're commenting on! To help, the IPL isn't an international tournament, even though it contains international players. If you need any further info, don't hesitate to ask! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
We get it, none of us know what we are talking about. Why not just ignore us and post this, then? 331dot (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not clear on whether a record in IPL counts as a cricket record or not. Can help with that, RM?
I guess the thing about international vs domestic records is one of those things where it's up to me to think about whether or not I want to take it into account and re-assess my vote. That's the sort of thing I will often do when I'm feeling well-disposed towards another editor. Formerip (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm a big cricket fan, but I don't think this is really one of the most important records. I'd say the highest ODI score by a batsman, which we (correctly, in my view) declined to post when it was broken in November,[12] is more significant. And test cricket remains the most prestigious form of the game. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Speed to a particular score has no particular connotation in cricket; this is one for the stats specialists only. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2015 Potiskum suicide car bombingEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Potiskum suicide car bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: A suicide bombing in northeastern Nigeria kills at least four people and injures thirty-five others.
News source(s): Associated Press, Reuters
Nominator's comments: This seems to have just happened hours ago. Possibly the work of Boko Haram as per the Reuters link. Everymorning talk 16:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It clearly can't be posted as it is. It's a super stub; only one sentence. 110 characters of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose but not because it's a stub (which can always be improved) but because it's not that significant in the scheme of things happening over in Nigeria. Sadly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the suicide bombing carried out by ten year old girl last week wasn't posted, how can this one be posted? Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not that significant per TRM. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Papal visit draws 6 million peopleEdit

Article: Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Six million people gather for a mass on the final day of Pope Francis' (pictured) visit to the Phillippines, the largest papal gathering in history.
News source(s): NBC News CNN BBC Times of India Sydney Morning Herald

Nominator's comments: I think most any gathering of 6 million people, being covered in the news, should at least be discussed. Vatican says it is largest papal gathering in history. Article is not in too bad shape, I think. Some updating, not sure if it's enough. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • support - interesting record. seems notable enough for inclusion as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • They can't have all seen the Pope with their eyes at one time, could they? That would be ~10% of the population and might be a homo sapiens crowd size record (for any reason). Someone once calculated that if the species (~1,000 times this gathering) teleported to south New England unprepared a large percentage of the crowd would die. (they would starve before reaching food or water) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's clear just from the pictures that an enormous number of people attended this mass. However, estimates given immediately after an event of this kind are always subject to considerable unreliability, so I don't think we can say that there were six million people there, only that this has been reported. Formerip (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if this can be verified to have been the largest crowd ever, that might stand on its own. But I would be leery of posting large gatherings. For example, Francis is set to visit Philadelphia in September, with an expected attendance of 2 million. This is already in the news, due to the lack of rentals available. (People are renting out their own residences as far away as the Jersey shore, 90 minutes away, for the event.) Will we be nominating every large crowd Francis gathers? μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think every large papal crowd should be nominated, but this one is being called the largest ever, and it doesn't seem likely it will be repeated soon. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If we give each person 1.5 square feet of space which is just stuffed (I barely cram into 12 x 16, 17 inches of floor with my arms in front) then that's 9 million square feet of people, or a circle of people 3,385 feet across. Does it look like the crowd is .6 miles wide? (I haven't seen pictures). I would've done a circle cause the bread and Francis's head would be invisible if their color resembles the background — even to world record eyesight. 20/20 vision would see 15 centimeter black bread over white clerical shirts as a point. That is the nosebleed view to end all nosebleed views. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Calm down! Calm down! I'm sure no-one wants a nosebleed. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The previous largest papal gathering was at the same site in 1995 according to List of largest peaceful gatherings in history; if it's been done before, it seems likely they could again. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "Over 6 to 7 million" sounds an odd number to be. Or maybe it's even. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It says it's for a single event and a lot of those 6+ million ones don't give the day. Did all of them really beat the papal crowd at any moment or did one or more of them you know go on for days or weeks like the Olympics, never beating the crowd at any one moment? That would seem to be more like the record for movement of people through a place inside a month, and about comparable to what the metro area with the busiest airport system does all the time in 2 months, not even counting road and rail travelers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the analysis above (that it is practically impossible from the visual evidence to be 6M simultaneous); I believe that this Pope will make several historic firsts in relationship to the Church and the world at large but setting attendee records doesn't seem like ground breaking. --MASEM (t) 06:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So you know the dark crater about a 20/20 stroke width under the ears of the rabbit shape on the Moon? That's about as easy to find as the Pope's head in a Mass of 6 million. Bring binoculars if you want to see the Pope's head. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial and has a big "so what?" factor about it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Trivial" is a poor argument; everything is "trivial" to someone. It is notable enough and got enough coverage to get a decent article about it. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest the event was not seen a "trivial" to the 6+ million people who attended. Nor to all the editors of all the media outlets across the world who reported it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

January 17Edit


[Closed] 2015 Yellowstone River oil spillEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Yellowstone River (talk, history)
Blurb: ​According to state officials, up to 50,000 US gallons (190,000 l; 42,000 imp gal) of oil is spilt into the Yellowstone River near Glendive, Montana.
Alternative blurb: ​The Yellowstone River suffers another oil spill near Glendive, Montana, since 2011.
Alternative blurb II: ​According to state officials, up to 50,000 US gallons of oil is spilt into the Yellowstone River near Glendive, Montana.
News source(s): CBS News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Although oil spills are not that shocking, the incident should be featured on the Main Page. George Ho (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a thumbnail sketch gives almost 200 cubic meters. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Added altblurb for you. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While locally significant, this doesn't particularly stand out on a national or international scale. Though, it will undoubtedly have an impact in Keystone Pipeline negotiations. Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Mamyles; seems to be largely a local issue. If it expands in scale we can revisit it. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well... what about tourism and water supplies? Nature enthusiasts would be devastated by another oil spill. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis, Mamyles, 331dot: I added "benzene" part. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I added the 200 cubic meter (over)estimate to give a visually comprehensible idea. That's 5x5x8 meters, or about 08% of the size of an olympic swimming pool in a river over 600 miles long. We don't have any reports that this will effect the park or the environment long term, and the prior spill was apparently cleaned up, as will be this one. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Faten HamamaEdit

Article: Faten Hamama (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety BBC ABC (Australia) The Malay Mail Fox News Latino Radio France Internationale Deutsche Welle La Libre (Belgium)

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 film icon in the region, who was nicknamed the "Lady of the Arabic Screen". This is major news in Egyptian and Middle Eastern cinema. Hamama was the wife of Michel Chalhoub (who went on to become Omar Sharif after the wedding). She appeared in almost a hundred films, some directed by Youssef Chahine, and often attempted to highlight women's issues in the region, which makes her death important news for Arab feminism as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • support - seems notable enough and with a career beyond the regular. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 in her field. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Awards/honors suggest DC2, article is in good shape, also not from an English speaking country so this fights systematic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it appears that she was notable and won numerous awards. But in our article, every single award is cited to her own website. This isn't good enough. It's also worth noting that not one single award has its own article on Wikipedia, are any of these awards actually notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • On the sourcing I agree with you, but the reason the awards don't have articles is just inevitable systemic bias because this is an English encyclopedia. And support. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be arbitrarily promoting articles to the main page because no-one can be bothered to do proper sourcing. Who's to say those awards are either real or notable? There are some amongst us here who would agree that more work should and can be done in the native language that would help. DO IT! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Very good, now all I'd ask is that the redlinked movies are referenced, and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. I've removed two works that couldn't be adequately sourced (the section's name is "Selected filmography" anyways) and the rest is now referenced with Arabic sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, aware it's "selected" but being an encyclopaedia we normally provide objective rationales to which items are "selected". I have no major beef with the article, but we really shouldn't be hand-picking items in the filmography just because no-one can be bothered to source or write articles about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Frankly, the film that was eliminated from the list appeared to be non-existent. I've managed, however, to find this source (Saudi newspaper Al Riyadh) for the other TV show that was removed. That said, I didn't restore it yet, because it is still unclear whether the show was actually filmed or not. An editor who included this work to the list in December 2006 added the qualifier "TBA" next to it, but this hasn't changed since then. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but I suggest that those who want to Fight the Bias also contribute to the sourcing, if they can read Arabic. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready the article has bee updated by 7,000 bytes, every paragraph has at least one source, or works are at least linked to their own articles, last two CN tags taken care of. Quite a remarkable subject. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the difficulties with the red linked articles is that they aren't necessarily red links, just the pipe is misspelt, which was the case with La Tutf'e al-Shams which looked like a redlink due to the inconsistent capitalization of Al-. I considered hiding the redlinks, but this is not just difficult to do without distorting the chart format, it also hides articles that could use finding or creating. Given the items are at least cited, there's no need to delete the immediately. And the hope is that an RD listing will draw helpful attention. I can say that the Mozambique funeral beer poisoning article immediately increased upon publication and is now about three times as good as it was when it was listed, mostly due to the attention of new users. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually wanted to convert this chart to one or two paragraphs like I did with the awards section. But in order to do so, I must first have a source that highlights her most notable works, so that it doesn't look like I'm arbitrarily deciding what to keep/remove from the summary. Some time ago, the article was surprisingly a GA, despite all the issues it had. I didn't check the reassessment yet, but I plan on bringing it back to that status very soon, if no one gets there first. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The proper place to discuss that now would be the article itself. The standalone filmography article is useless in comparison as almost totally unsourced, and the existing filmography section could probably just be pasted over it. For a selected woks section simply limited to the blue links, and those that can be found like I found the [[La Tutf'e al-Shams article when searching for the redlink, La Tutf'e Al-Shams Sort of a crowd-sourced decision as to what is notable, which is all imdb and rotten tomatoes really are.
I am of quite limited help myself, because although I can muck it through anything in a Latin script (I've sourced articles in Hungarian and Vietnamese, which I don't speak, but can parse with google translate) I simply don't have any mastery of the alphabet. In any case, I think the outcome of this nomination has for RD has been quite well handled. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Chunnel closureEdit

Nothing really here to note. No support, the tunnel was closed for a bit, trains were reversed, subsequent services were delayed, just like leaves on the line really. Nothing long-term, not really newsworthy for our global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Channel tunnel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Channel Tunnel is closed as a result of a fire on board a train
News source(s): BBC, CNN, ABC (Australia), Times of India
Nominator's comments: Complete suspension of an international train service, causing a great deal of disruption in the UK and France. There have been fires in the Chunnel before, resulting in long-term closure for repairs (though it doesn't appear to be known at this stage whether that will be the case here). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disruption, but not life-threatening (at least, beyond the fire), and the Chunnel will still be there after the matter. Not really ITN worthy. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Services are set to resume.[13] Neljack (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On this occasion the fire appears to have caused only one day's direct disruption, and with no apparent deaths or injuries it isn't ITN level. Even without deaths or injuries I'd be tempted to support if there was damage sufficient for multiple months disruption as a result, but fortunately this hasn't happened on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If Europe had ground to halt, I might have supported. But it turns out they can just about manage without us, for a few hours at least. Formerip (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2015 African Cup of NationsEdit

No consensus for ongoing, we will post the winner, as always. --Tone 20:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 African Cup of Nations (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
  • Ongoing propasal - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even though we don't have set rules for adding sports to ongoing, I would prefer we limit it to only global competition, such as the Olympics. -- Calidum 15:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No indication of widespread coverage, especially if not a global competition per Calidum. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • could you give a rationale explaining why this should be stickied, Eugen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
Because it's a major competition with much international coverage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide some links to this international coverage? 331dot (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You are asking for an ongoing link. That implies tha each update would be close to being worthy of posting on its own, but we don't want to have 5 separate blurbs at once. Is this African Cup so important that it would have more than one blurb, rather than just the results of the final match? Some sort of explanation along those lines was what I was asking for. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the absence of a "current major sporting events" ticker[1], which Ongoing definitely isn't, I see no justification for this. Competitions like the (soccer) World Cup are far more significant and get far more coverage, but unless something exceptional happens we only post the result of the final. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    [1] I'm not proposing we should have one, and I don't know if I'd support someone else's proposal for one. If we did have one though, this is the sort of event I'd consider for it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it's a major tournament in African football terms, and will be hugely watched, mainly in that continent. It's seen, at least in Europe, as an inconvenience as so many Premier League players disappear for a month and often come back injured. I would advise that we wait for the final and post that as a main ITN item, and not this ongoing proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis, which is really the only argument against that is necessary in this discussion. Since we wouldn't post incremental updates to this event, we won't post it to ongoing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

January 16Edit


Tonga island creationEdit

Article: Tonga (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Volcanic eruption creates a 1 km island near Nuku'alofa, Tonga.
Alternative blurb: ​A new island of 1 km diameter is created near Nuku'alofa, Tonga due to a volcanic eruption.
News source(s): Discovery News ABC Net

Nominator's comments: An important event which created such a huge island. Such phenomenon are rarer still.  - The Herald (here I am) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - A source more reliable than Daily Mail would probably be more appreciated.--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. One with a more recent publication date too. It's useful that the article is already updated, though. Formerip (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is an event that took place in November 2013, and is already covered in the Nishinoshima article. There has been no new island created since then. Michitaro (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
CTV Irish Examiner and ZeeNews also has it.. - The Herald (here I am) 15:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The articles you cite are referring to the new island in Tonga, not in Nishinoshima in Japan. I repeat, there is no new island at Nishinoshima. Michitaro (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
But this isn't in new item. It was widely reported last year..... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OOPS..Sorry.. Can I have some time so as to update it??  - The Herald (here I am) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Rambling Man, these huge aren't created usually.  - The Herald (here I am) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not in the news. It's an old story. By all means update the article, but until you can provide us with evidence that this is in the news now about something that isn't stale, ITN isn't the place for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The problem is the insufficient update. But the Discovery News article stating the 1km island was created (and erruptions are apparently ongoing) is dated the 17th, not today. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The news was added to the January 16th, so I moved this nomination accordingly. George Ho (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reason the news media are not so interested in this island is that is just (and I mean just) offshore of an existing island. It is not interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure how one can say this is not interesting, interest is a subjective matter. I am curious if this has been covered with any scientific papers?

[Closed] Shin Dong-hyuk recants parts of his storyEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Shin Dong-hyuk (talk, history)
Blurb: Shin Dong-hyuk, who escaped from North Korea, admits that parts of his life story as described in the book Escape from Camp 14 were inaccurate.
News source(s): New York Times, CBS News, CNN, Time
Nominator's comments: Dong-hyuk was described by Time magazine in the link above as "one of the most high-profile survivors of North Korea’s political prisons". Also, according to the New York Daily News, he is "The only known North Korean prison camp escapee". Everymorning talk 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not really seeing the significance here, after reading I'm like "So...?" --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not getting it either. So he said stuff happened which didn't? Or he lied about the whole thing? Or what? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Record warmth in 2014Edit

Article: Instrumental temperature record (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The US's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA announce that 2014 was the hottest year on record.
Alternative blurb: ​The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA announce that 2014 was the hottest year on record.
Alternative blurb II: ​A NASA report estimates that, with a 0.1C margin of error, worldwide temperatures in 2014 rose 0.02C over 2010, indicating a 38% chance 2014 was the warmest year since 1880.
Alternative blurb III: ​A NASA report estimates that, with a 0.1 °C margin of error, worldwide temperatures in 2014 rose 0.02 °C over 2010, indicating a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year on record (1880-present).
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No this doesn't happen every year. 1998 was one and I'm guessing 2007 cause of the record sea ice and maybe others but this is one of the most important topics of our century. -- Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. The progression of previous all-time hottest years in the current NOAA and NASA time series are 1998, 2005, 2010. The new average is variously 0.02 C (NASA), 0.04 C (NOAA), 0.05 C (JMA), 0.01 C (Berkeley Earth) warmer than the previous warmest year depending on your choice of reporting agency (with two more research groups yet to report 2014). All of the groups have a reported uncertainty of at least +/- 0.05 C (95% confidence), meaning there will always be a bit of ambiguity about whether this is a true record. (That's true of most record years, as the slow evolution of the climate only very rarely sets a new record by more than our uncertainty in such measurements.) So far, there has been no update at either suggested target article. Dragons flight (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    We could wait for the others to report before judging/analysing, or will it be old news by then? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    The January to November time series for the other two groups suggests that each of these may have 2014 end up being slightly cooler than their previous warmest year (by a few hundredths of a degree C). If they keep to previous patterns, HadCRU will probably release their values middle to end of next week. I can't guess when the CW group will be ready. Dragons flight (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know what those names are, might it be better to post now or never? Also, here is the reason why their 11-month year is colder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    The HadCRU collaboration involves the United Kingdom's leading climate research group (sort of UK's NOAA, at least when it comes to climate). CW refers to smaller independent collaboration. Also, the possibility that they may have a colder year has nothing to do with ENSO. The 11-month average for HadCRU is colder than the corresponding 11-month average of the other groups, including Berkeley, making a miss somewhat likely. CW on the other hand previously estimated a relatively warmer 2010, making it unlikely that they will set a new record even if they finish 2014 at the same temperature as the other groups. But then we are talking about tiny differences of a few hundredths of a degree C, which shouldn't really be considered significant to begin with. Dragons flight (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    So, what are those numbers if all the non-satellite data is removed? Satellites are the only temperature measuring tool that samples everywhere so since we're comparing this to a year in the satellite record this would improve the authoritativeness I think. Maybe change the blurb to "over an XX% chance of being the warmest" if need be? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Of the ones mentioned above, only NASA and CW use satellite data, and then only over regions poorly sampled by other methods. The others groups rely strictly on ground (or sea) level observations. Of the two major satellite groups, UAH and RSS, they are placing 2014 as either the 3rd or 6th warmest year respectively. Neither major satellite group thinks 2014 was the hottest year. The satellite-to-land comparison comes with some big caveats though. Satellite accuracy tends to degrade and drift with satellite age, which requires one to estimate and apply a large bias correction. In addition, satellites don't really measure the surface. The current technology measures something analogous to the average temperature of the lowest 5 to 10 km of the atmosphere. Some of the difference between satellite estimates and surface observations is presumably due to actual differences between surface temperature patterns and temperature patterns at a few km of altitude in atmosphere. Despite the coverage issues, I would tend to regard surface observations as much more authoritative for long-term changes in surface temperature patterns than the satellite-only temperature estimates. Dragons flight (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Out of curiosity after which report would you support posting this if the 2 sigma value happened to be 0.01 Celsius over for all four? Would you wait many days for the other two and how would you word it if you didn't? I know little about statistics. Is there a way to rigorously say that this is the most probable value with all the information we have, this is it's meta-standard deviation that follows from basic (undergraduate) math and the studies' SDs? Then you can make a probability of this beating 2010. Though maybe only if you accept the studies as equally good. If you have to weigh them or even discard any in an attempt to get the most accurate value that would seem to introduce non-rigorous human hunches. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    P.S. I changed the section header to something more clear. The previous title was "The latest advancement in the technology of planetary HVAC". Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that was a slight at the "warmer is good" way to deny. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think I'd have put your header if I'd thought of it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral Not that I'm denying global warming exists, but the average temperature for a single year does not necessary prove anything since there are random fluctuations that will affect that; as the global warming reports point out, it is the trend over many years that's the key to prove of global warming. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • True, though a frequent parade (by historical standards) of new hottest years is a sign of the median rising. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • That's why I think it's more newsworthy if it was the longest recorded streak of increasing temperatures, or highest over a much larger period. From a good science point, this is bordering on sensationalism news - an important data point that needs more context to understand better. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • As best as we can tell there is a trend of record years coming at an increasingly rapid pace (7 years, 5, and then 4) despite the fact that 1998 was a record El Niño (New York had only an inch of snow till winter was almost over, 26 inches is normal). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • And it's the highest in 135 years, before that was the Maunder Minimum (responsible for all the snowy European Christmas songs) so it's unlikely that a warmer year has happened for at least centuries. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A notable record that is getting plenty of media coverage. Nobody is suggesting that this - as opposed to all the scientific studies and reports - is what proves global warming, but still having the warmest year ever recorded is something that is likely to be of interest to readers. Neljack (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The earth has been far hotter in the past — see Geologic temperature record for details. Presenting the supposed record with proper context and qualification seems too complex to do in a simple headline. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think that could be done quite simply by replacing "on record" (it is true that some temperature data going back millennia is technically "on record") with "since records began". Formerip (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And the last time the climate was significantly warmer horses were smaller and there were all these saber-tooth and giant animals. If your species survived the end of the Ice Age then this: Holocene is normal. Now there's even a talk of the present geological epoch ending by us causing the Anthropocene. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The story is based on a single press-release from NASA. Their headline is "NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record". What they seem to mean by "modern record" is "since 1880" and that doesn't seem to be a big deal in either historical or geological terms. The claim is based on two different datasets maintained by two different organisations - GISS and NOAA - but we don't seem to have articles about those particular datasets. Pointing readers to very general articles such as anthropogenic climate change or instrumental temperature record isn't good enough because they are full of detail about other temperature records such as HadCRUT and Central England temperature and the reader will then have difficulty figuring out what has actually happened. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a very notable record of global importance.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose main blurb certainly not the hottest year ever. Also, the Earth's temperature has been fluctuating for a long time, just look at the 1970s "global cooling". P.S. Support alt blurb III, wording isn't misleading like the main one. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That article says in the second sentence that global cooling had little support in the scientific community. You seem nice, you don't have to believe the lies spread by disagreeable to psychopathic people (like oil CEOs) who'd let the world suffer just to stay filthy rich. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Then there's the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, and even true Ice ages. I'm no "climate change denier", but where I'm from, our winters have been rough (cold and snowy) in the last couple years. Last year, we tied a record low of 2 degrees. Anyway, I don't know what your trying to get at with that last sentence? --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sagittarian Milky Way: "What caused the temperature to rise since the 1970s?", um, are you trying to tell me that people new what caused the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as it was happening? I don't think so. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I somehow forgot about your ping but of course they didn't know. We have uninterrupted sunspot records going back centuries (Galileo was the first European to know sunspots existed around 1609). See the Maunder Minimum, very well established, actually read Little Ice Age, records of volcanos erupting, all very reasonable. It is obvious that if dim sunlight (Maunder Minimum) and below average temperatures (by pre-CO2 historical standards (3000 BC-1800s)) happened then strong sunlight (a hyperactive Sun) has to happen sometime, too. Hence, the Medieval Warm Period is totally reasonable to happen without extra carbon dioxide. But did you know that if we outlawed fire right now the temperature rise would still eventually double? Now *that* makes the Medieval Warm Period look like an extremely gently rolling and low hill:
     
    This chart was made ten years before. We are well off the scale by now (almost 0.7 °C). Does it look like you want to be several chart heights off the scale? The rise is too steep to show on this graph and that's half as steep as it should be because of how long it takes for a planet to warm up. Does that look like random variation to you?
    There's no way we're getting out of this with anything less than 200 something percent of today's temperature rise, much less if we do nothing for another half-century or two. 5°C in 85 years is possible if we do that, as hot as a prehistoric Ice Age is cold. Pleaaase just read that comic, it's only one frame. Also this is relevant to you: [14] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose sensationalist headline based on a very small dataset. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Important milestone. Note it says "on record", not ever. TFD (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support we certainly post much less important records often enough. And yeah to those few opposes blurb says on record, not ever. 84.248.158.8 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) this was me, sorry wasn't logged in. SeraV (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the very small data set alludes to "on record", doesn't it? One is reminded of all the hype about the Ozone Hole (!) which was reported as if it were some dire new development. The secret being of course, that the actual development was the launch of a satellite capable of detecting the Ozone Hole (!) which, as far as we know, may have existed for millions of years before we decided to look at it. Or, to give a simpler analogy, why do babies giggle endlessly at the game of peekaboo? If we had a set methodology, with the same measurements by the same instruments, worldwide, without reliance on models and assumptions, then this would be something to write home about. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense but for the love of crap, you sound brainwashed. The ozone hole increased until the 2000s and then decreased, just in line with what would happen if we stopped using century residence time CFCs in the 80s and early 90s. Also there was at least one ground based (spectroscopic?) ozone measurement from 1959 or so. It was fairly mild then and adequate to block ultraviolet so no one noticed. I think there may have been a lower resolution 1970s satellite and it took the decline by the mid-80s to get them worried. Please read the article before making up your mind about things like this, you sound like a creationist in that comment, really. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sagittarian Milky Way: Can we stick to discussing the blurb, and keep from using words like "brainwashed"? But that's nothing next to the statement "you sound like a creationist in that comment, really.", which IMO is a personal attack, making creationists out to be idiots (I'm a Christian, not that it matters here), and I don't know why our religions have anything to do with this, Medeis could be an atheist, Christian, or whatever, it doesn't have a thing to do with this blurbs suitability for ITN. I knew nothing good could come out of this nom. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I only made that comment because I don't think s/he believes creationists and that s/he would see similar arguing style to his denialism/ultrasceptiscism from the outside and might even be led to realize that they're pretty similar. Medeis knows a lot about biology, has shown a good ability to think about it on WP:Reference Desk/Science and doesn't even believe in free will (as opposed to the brain basically being like a machine where billiard balls come in from the world through your senses and billiard balls go out to tap switches that run your body, is how I'd describe determinism to a non-science person) even though a quantum mind is so much more appealing and not scientifically ruled out so Medeis might not even be religious much less creationist. Anyway if Genesis 1-3 happened the Fall of Man gave us this crappy timeline with all the death and sin and corrupted Bibles cause that thing is terrible. All the genocide and marrying your rapist and slavery. The Big Bang happened in this timeline and there is overwhelming evidence for it so that is why people that like science generally think creationism is stupid. If they didn't have the arguing style that they do but instead vehemently believed that the Fall of Man gave us this terrible timeline with the unfulfilling evolution and mortality and corrupted Bibles and so that it is not infallible anymore then they wouldn't object so much. That makes much more sense but they say that it really happened in this universe. I used to believe the Bible and the just the NT and then just the Gospels until without thinking about them much until in 2012 I thought this used to be blasphemous but there's no way this man is God, He was a very good man for His time but He's just not holy enough. I can tell that this Man only seemed like God in a much more horrible world than now but He is not the ultimate man. So I'm not an atheist or anything. There is a God, but bi Scripture. Anyway I'm wondering how a smart user could believe so much about science except when it comes to "doubling the carbon dioxide (it could happen) is bad" and "CFCs are bad". And how Medeis got to be so conservative when s/he's from the East Coast and LGBTQ. I think I'm more wondering what's the reason s/he doesn't believe global warming. Have you ever put a thermometer in a vial of carbon dioxide? And left it in the sun? By what magic is this not going to happen in the atmosphere? Some homeostasis system that'll work this time but can't stop all the ice ages and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and Cretaceous hothouse and the 20 feet higher sea level 100,000 years ago and no one that's a climate scientist thinks will happen? Medeis is scientific, I just don't get it. I'll try to be more civil. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And I like Genesis 1-3, but this universe obeys physical laws and that did not happen in it. You kind of have to be a science person to "get" the creationist "putdown". You know some first-worlders still believe the world is flat, now that is dumb. "Flat-Earther" had a similar meaning several hundred years ago. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Your ranting is hardly relevant, point of this blurb is that last year was found to be warmest year on modern record, just in case you missed that. That is interesting enough record to post this, your personal dislike for it doesn't make it any less important nor does it make it untrue. SeraV (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, this NASA press release is about our record keeping, not about reality, in just the same way peekaboo is about a baby not realizing that you don't cease to exist when it can't see you. My pointing out that this "in 135 years" statistic isn't even objective, since it's based on models and assumptions, not consistent worldwide readings by calibrated devices, is hardly ranting. And I have no idea what you mean by my "personal dislike" or where it's evinced. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
And I repeat hottest year in 135 years in interesting enough in itself. And your nonsense is really starting to irk me. I think it quite clear from your irrevelant comparisons (peekaboo, really?) and general annoyance that you have your own agenda here. SeraV (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@SeraV: "And your nonsense is really starting to irk me. I think it quite clear from your irrevelant comparisons (peekaboo, really?) and general annoyance that you have your own agenda here." I don't think that was called for. I think Medeis is right, it's about the record keeping, not about reality, and his peekaboo example was silly, but it explains it well. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course you do, and I think he is wrong. Reality is that as long as we have been keeping records last year was hottest year "on record". Not many is contesting that here, and that is what the blurb is about. SeraV (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's only down to every 4 years now but yes, it's very frequent. No intelligent unbiased person who's studied this (in a "fan of sports"-like way not a get a PhD in it way) would think a year before true global measuring (and after 1879) has a realistic chance of beating 2014. They might even say that's almost impossible and I wouldn't argue with them. They would know how cold the 19th century and Little Ice Age was and say that the last warm period even close to the post-70s one is the Medieval Warm Period and that that could've been caused by an active Sun (given that we've had a Maunder Minimum and there were huge Medieval sunspots). Trying to obfuscate when this is obvious is not useful. There's no need to play Devil's advocate or show how sceptical and scientific you are on the tiny chance that all the climatologists are wrong. So if Medeis isn't doing this he must want global warming to not be real God knows why despite the 40% extra carbon dioxide and being a biology PhD (I think, or at least he likes science and has a high knowledge of it). Since Venus has a ton of CO² and is 850 degrees hotter than reflectivity predicts, and 400 degrees over a planet with 4 times the sunlight, it's up to the deniers to tell us why it's okay to dump 50 or 100% extra carbon into everyone's air. That's what the deniers want right? Use the fossil fuel reserves till 2100. It's not on the climatologists if they want to pollute everyone's property it's on the deniers to say by what mechanism the Earth will not warm when the greenhouse effect increases. This is paradoxical so it must be a homeostatic mechanism that a legion of climate scientists somehow haven't thought of or disproved. If there was some grand conspiracy more would speak out, scientists don't like falsehood. That is why I said these myths are started by disagreeable (at least) to psychopathic people because it is well known that the fossil fuel industry intentionally manufactures controversy and doubt to keep the con on for as long as possible just like the cigarette industry did. This is exactly what happened before they were found out and forced to pay tens of billions of dollars for it. If anyone went to jail (I don't know) they didn't fear it at the time because psychopaths have almost no fear, high pain tolerance and it would be impossible to punish them (short of literal 16 hour a day torture until death by old age, put a chip in their brain that would do that and increase it if the AI detects suffering and they would stop breaking laws). Though the simpler ones like "the sun is brighter" and "it's volcanos" are probably also started many times independently by people with a knee-jerk reaction to anything that sounds environmentalist. So they don't bother to look up that volcanos actually lower temperatures and the last solar cycle was weak. (2010 was the hottest on record with sunspot average that didn't breach 30, lol. It was near a very weak minimum.) It shouldn't be up to the most reckless and/or selfish and/or cold (both meanings, lol) to tell everyone how much carbon we can have. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
How about those people's property rights? Those people that don't want more acid rain and water and hotter summers and stronger lake effect snow and less rain on their land? There is no such thing as libertarianism, because the atmosphere is not big enough. You're free to burn as much carbon as you want as long as you send it into space or something, though. And don't cause a space junk chain reaction! And seal it so it doesn't come back! And put it thousands of kilometers high so that it doesn't re-enter! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I've delayed voting a bit to see what the oppose votes were like. But, basically, we have "if it can't be proven that it's the hottest year since the Big Bang, then I'm not interested" and "even though an entire academic field thinks historical weather data is meaningful, it isn't". I suppose there is the question of when to post, given that there will be other studies published in the near future, but I can't see how anything other than the first one to call it makes sense - after that, it's old news revisited. I get that some people have eccentric views on climate change and some other people get irritated by that, but I don't see how any of that is very relevant here. The flow chart for whether this should be posted basically consists of "As a news topic, is the weather something that matters to everyday life and interests people?" and "Within the topic of weather, is temperature at all important?". Formerip (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NASA climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right . μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's just a fancy way of saying this is somewhat over 50% chance of being over 2010 which itself is within the margin of error of 2005. It is still the best candidate for hottest year since 1880. And the recordholder of record, like the winner of the 2003 championship in college football. Should we have not posted that? Did you inherit a ton of Exxon stock in 2009 or something? That's got to make many people convince themselves that 42%+ more CO2 will find a way to not raise the temperature. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Even a non-science person who knows nothing about this subject and has common sense could figure this out: more than two error bands overlapped. This is kind of like creationists. Ooh, look at this! Confirmation! Thinking stopped! I don't have to be sceptical anymore! Anti-denialists: Hey, what, you've got evidence, there must be something wrong, I will not stop until I find out something wrong with it, consequential or not. The Earth is not warming/old. (defensiveness, knee-jerking ease of resolving that, being chicken to have a genuine & complete look at the evidence to see which side is really right)
    • And you're not even thinking you're defending the Word of God (in which case this would be good argumentation — if the Bible really was infalliable). What I'm really wondering is why you don't think global warming is real. Are you afraid of paying carbon taxes? It is a fairly small price to get off fossil fuels, less than the cost of not doing so. And you've already experienced extra economic gains from not switching earlier. It will only get costlier to switch the longer we wait to start due to having to do it faster, and the damage that's unavoidable will balloon. Also, I agree that it may have been rational to not start to switch until the end of the manufacturing-based economy, but to vigorously develop renewable energy after that. Then they would be mature technologies by now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • SMW, I find your wall of text above almost impossible to parse, I see something about belief in God, and your odd attempt to make this about me personally. It's about the facts on one level and on a report by a single US gorvernmt agency on another, and has nothing to do with my preference for warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters.
I assume you are familiar with the three sigma rule for confidence in the physical sciences? In most cases, a likelihood within 3 standard deviation--a likelihood of 99.7% is taken as certainty. In the humanities, that's lowered to a two-standard deviation, 95% likelihood for claims of significance. Even at one standard deviation you're still looking at a 68% likelihood.
In this press release, the certainty is 38%, not above 50%, not 68%, not the humanities' level of 95%, and not hard science's 99.7 percent standard. And the predicted increase over 2010 (The last warmest year) is 0.02•C, while the margin of error is a whopping 0.1•C, five times that amount. From the above linked source:

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

Given all this, we are left with an accurate blurb saying something like "NASA researcher's press release suggests 2014 is 38% likely to by one fiftieth of a degree warmer than 2010, with a tenth of a percent margin of error, 5 times greater than the number being "measured". μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to the blurb but your ultrascepticism of anthropogenic ozone holes seems to be a mental block against any evidence for it. Don't you think some chemist would speak out in 3 decades if full-strength short-wave UV didn't break down CFCs like it does to any other molecule, or if chlorine doesn't catalyze breakup of ozone which could be tested in any container, or if everyone made the same 4-function calculator errors calculating the quantity required? Or that they measured thick Antarctic ozone by balloon or spectroscope or something around International Geophysical Year (1957-58)? Creationists think they're defending the Word of God. What's your excuse? Not skimming the article before making up your mind on something that affects your worldview? I'm trying to show how that is kind of like creationists. They "know" that they're right, they don't need to test it. What's this? Something inconsequential like the name of the Holocene optimum or obsession with specific winter(s) and days that don't invalidate the core evidence? — Critical thinking stopped! I knew I was right! <post link>. Surprising for someone like that's so scientific (no irony intended). The records are just symbolic milestones, they don't have to be held up to the same standards as more important evidence. We could just write "NASA announces that the most likely value for 2014's average temperature beats the next highest on record by 0.04 °F (0.02 °C).". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
About the Holocene optimum name fascination/weather obsession, the level of evidence on warming denial sites like Watts Up With That is often just that. It means they have nothing better to post. The ones that sound scientific (non-peer reviewed of course) cannot possibly be made honestly, they know what they're doing, kind of like those false mathematical proofs of 1+1=1 or something like that. People would study how to sound sciency real hard for enough money, for one possible mechanism (of their existence). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there are a lot of possible weather records, and you can make even more news by interviewing bookmakers, it's true. But the hottest year ever recorded globally isn't really just a random record from the pack. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 
Does this *look* like we haven't been recording long enough? (the dip is from sun-blocking air pollution)
And the people who say "It's cold! Global warming's fake!" are like a Vegas crap shooter that says "Every gambler in the city is ahead since they were born! The house edge isn't real!" every time he wins his throw(s). See global weirding for why global warming makes extreme hot weather *and* extreme cold. (Though at least a bit more of the former). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk)
  • Support. Major scientific news. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be posted now, with 6 supports and 3 opposes, consensus is there. Or if not then this discussion should be closed, since it has degenerated into a horrible ranting on all sides. SeraV (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait, I thought you didn't have to say you Support to support when you nominated? Shouldn't I be the 7th support? Also I remember that at least one oppose is something like "This is not the hottest year ever", which is ludicrous since the world was molten lava 4.5 billion years ago. That would certainly be notable but is that the bar? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Nelljack and other supports. Global significance, obviously, and widely in the news. Jusdafax 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not Ready until there's an accurate blurb, something like, with a margin of error five times the size of the estimated .02C estimated rise over 2010,ref the last record holder, a NASA scientist estimates there's a 38% chanceref 2014 was the warmest year since 1880. Reporting this in absolute terms, with words like "hottest", is hardly neutral and informative. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Nasa says last year was hottest on record still, daily mail says 38% change, why exactly would we believe daily mail over Nasa? Seriously stop messing around with this nomination, you are obliviously not neutral about this. SeraV (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Accurate blurb available. Also, most readers can divide 0.1 by 0.02, pointing that it is kind of POV as it doesn't cast doubt on even the less rigorous evidence for CO2 causes global warming, like that freaking chart. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, is tabloid rubbish. Also you made a 0.02C sandwich out of estimated bread, did you notice that? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
And it should be like 0.02 °C as that is the proper way to write Celsius. Since the real previous warmer year was very likely either Medieval, tens of centuries ago, or roughly 1,000 centuries ago pointing out that the 1880 is because of insufficient data is important. Thus altblurb III. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Neither nominated article is ready. I don't see any mention of 2014 being the hottest year on record in the highlighted Global warming or Instrumental temperature record articles. The blurb's statement must be included in the article. It is certainly notable enough to be. Additionally, Anthropogenic climate change is simply a redirect to Global warming so I've changed the blurbs' link. Mamyles (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It does look pretty hairy to add it in, more suited for someone who's added references in cluttered "reference + extra complex science paper template soup" articles before or one of our more Aspergic minds that find programming code readable. It would take me much longer. Should I defer to another editor? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not confident that Global warming is the best article to add this in. It takes a very high-level overview of the subject, and would probably not benefit from such a specific fragment as that 2014 is the warmest year on record. I recommend putting it into Instrumental temperature record and making that the blurb's featured article. Mamyles (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
        • While it would be a good idea get people reading the main article, I just saw the nice hottest years list on Instrumental temperature record and would have to agree with you. Plus, much easier to update, lol. The references are NOAA not NASA, though. Who was it that broke the story? Or is more authoritative? I would guess NOAA cause they have a climate data center, the official US weather bureau and weather satellites and NASA is just a space agency, but what do I know? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I updated Instrumental temperature record. Whether more prose is needed, I don't know. There's not much to say without going into more detail on one single year than that section gives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll withdraw my altblurb 2 in favor of altblurb 3 as better formated. Also, the target article is not updated as of yet. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting this record year with Instrumental temperature record as the target article. I believe Sagittarian's updates to that article are sufficient. I've taken the initiative to change the blurbs' target article, and re-mark this as [Ready]. I prefer Alternative Blurb 1. Mamyles (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile I don't get the impression that this is really "in the news". All that seemed to happen was that NASA put out a press-release and this was repeated by various media in the usual lazy way of modern churnalism. The story doesn't seem to have persisted though. For example, if you look on the BBC web site, the story isn't in their sections for World News or even Science & Environment. As the margin of the supposed record is smaller than the error bar, and the mean temperature is much the same as other recent years, the figures seem to indicate, not that we have some novel new spike, but that the temperature trend has plateaued, as described in global warming hiatus. How about about we add this new datapoint to the graph of NASA GISS temps to see if it looks any different. Andrew D. (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That article says that this is very unlikely to be repeated after 2030 even if a very strong volcanic eruption happens then. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and removed the ready tag. We need more of a prose update than this. -- Calidum 02:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Is it better now? I could add even more about the year in question but the section is called Warmest years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 Malawi floodEdit

Article: 2015 Malawi flood (talk, history)
Blurb: Floods in Malawi kill at least 176 people.
News source(s): ABC News, BBC News

Nominator's comments: Very large number of deaths. Confusingly, there were stories about floods in Malawi a few days ago that gave the death toll as about 48, presumably those are the same floods that are the subject of this article. [15] --Everymorning talk 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support subject to expansion, in light of the death toll. I note that the article and the BBC News report refer to at least 170 deaths (the ABC News article from the AP refers to 176), so perhaps the blurb should be changed to reflect that. Neljack (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support definitely for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is dreadful. Before supporting, others should become familiar with what is required, as a minimum, to see a new item at ITN. Please stop supporting items that are woefully inadequate. At the very least note that you support the significance of the item yet oppose the quality of the article. If you don't feel able to assess the quality of the article, you should only comment on the significance and indicate that you are unable to comment on the suitability of the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article is in horrible shape, it doesn't matter about anything else. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment that is an example of systemic bias. See 331dot? --Jenda H. (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, but an article in poor shape should not be posted on systemic bias grounds. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvement. A notable disaster, but article needs to be in decent shape. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] SCOTUS to hear same sex marriage casesEdit

close given total lack of support; the decision, when it comes, can be nominated, of course. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Same-sex marriage in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of the United States accepts to hear arguments on four cases relating to same-sex marriages.
News source(s): USA Today, CNN, NYTimes, BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know normal ITN practice is to report on the result of a case, but SCOTUS and same sex marriage has been the elephant in the room for US politics for years, and now that they've actually gone to accept the case(s) that will decide the legality of the marriages across the entire US, is big news, and as the CNN linked article above reports, the fact they will hear it could affect the way the 2016 presidential campaign is run. (The ruling is not expected until June). It should be noted that SCOTUS has had some previous cases but limited to federal gov't recognition and to a specific state law. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not even a ruling yet, and there better not be an artice on this yet either. Abductive (reasoning) 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and oppose if/when it becomes a ruling. Because we have developed a bit of a bias problem in terms of always rejecting stories to do with gay marriage (on the grounds that it's, apparently, no longer a big deal), except when they happen in the US, where our approach is to post absolutely anything and everything related to gay marriage. It's just not on. Formerip (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FormerIP. US bias on gay marriage news is a problem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't see how the decision to hear a case is sufficiently important for ITN. Neljack (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this news, but support if the court decides in favor of gay marriage. If it becomes legal, the US will become the largest country where it is recognized. DHN (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the eventual ruling might be worthy of a post (will need to evaluated when this future event occurs), SCOTUS granting cert for a case is below the threshold. --Allen3 talk 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting this; we should wait until the ruling comes down, if even then. 331dot (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Beagle 2 found on MarsEdit

Article: Beagle 2 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Lost British probe Beagle 2 has been found landed intact on the Mars surface.
News source(s): BBC News

Nominator's comments: It has been found that the landing of Beagle 2 was successful, although the probe did not deploy properly afterwards. It is a major achievement in the history of British and European astronautics. Beagle landed just 5km from the centre of its targeted touchdown zone. Hektor (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)--

  • Support with article updates (it's got some, could use a bit of touchup - including what tense to use to describe the probe since it still exists obviously...) --MASEM (t) 16:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose seems a little misleading to say "it's been found", as far as I could tell some half a dozen pixels in some "high resolution" images depicted what they believe to be Beagle 2. I'm not suggesting that the story is fake, but I'm just questioning the real significance of finding the probe which isn't doing much. It'd be the same (for me) if something took a picture of the footprints on the Moon (should they still be there), in other words, what's the actual story? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Part of the story is that while they are basing images on pixels, they are pretty confident given the location (which they knew they were aiming for) and can recognize that the probe is technically intact on the surface - it made its landing but it did not deploy the solar panels. So we know its fate - that it successfully landed but did not complete deployment correctly. I'm sure that with further passes of the observer - now they know where to focus, they will get better images for future study. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm sure you're right, but it's analogous to finding an Air Asia fuselage... (which I've been told isn't newsworthy) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If they found it only 12 years later after it disappeared, it might just be newsworthy. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It was kind of a unique mission and a famous failure, and it's interesting that they have found it, so I wouldn't really object to this going up. "Found" isn't really misleading at all. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the thing that's been located is the robot. If one moment you don't know where something is and the next moment you do, that means you have found it. Formerip (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. What's the big deal? A dog is not just for Christmas, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This story fails the ITN criterion that it have lasting impact (or should I say import?). The discovery does not explain the failure, and is but a historical footnote. Abductive (reasoning) 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not that it invalidates your vote, but it seems that the discovery does explain the failure, because they've been able to identify that the robot landed safely but its solar panels didn't deploy properly. Formerip (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Really? WHY didn't the solar panels deploy properly? Abductive (reasoning) 00:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Mechanical failure. I suppose now you're going to ask me why there was a mechanical failure, so let's cut to the chase and admit that there is never such a thing as a complete explanation. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive and TRM. Neljack (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. For 12 years it had been assumed that the probe crashed on Mars. However, all this time later it has been found that this long-held theory was incorrect and the probe landed safely but a minor mechanical failure prevented it completely setting its self up. This is a significant update to a significant event in the history of Mars exploration. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree it's a surprise, but the article just says: "Beagle 2 may have crashed on to the planet or even possibly landed successfully" i.e. no one knows if there was "a minor mechanical failure" or anything else - all we have is an image. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - seems notable enough. and has been covered ever since.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The story has strong international interest and solves a long-term mystery. Widely in the news. Also now becomes the first European soft landing on Mars, though 2 solar panels did not deploy. Let's post it. Jusdafax 08:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - an interesting bit of history and still a relatively significant discovery. How many others have landed on Mars? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 15Edit


[Closed] RD: Kim FowleyEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Kim Fowley (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, Billboard, Los Angeles Times

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Known for helping form well-known punk rock band the Runaways. Described in the CNN link above as "legendary". --Everymorning talk 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing any notable awards, but I am seeing a lot of unreferenced stuff in the article, his "solo works" list is mainly unlinked and unsourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2015 Belgian police raidsEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 anti-terrorism operations in Belgium (talk, history)
Blurb: Multiple anti-terrorist police raids are in progress across Belgium. Two people are reported dead.
Alternative blurb: ​Two people are reportedly killed during Belgium's crackdowns on terrorism.
News source(s): BBCCBC NewsTelegraphDaily MirrorLe Soir
 --Impsswoon (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Too much rumor at this point what this is about or significance. If related to the Charlie Hebdo shootings, might be interesting, but if this is, say, like a drug bust, eh... --MASEM (t) 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    This CNN article says the targets were a terror cell affiliated with ISIS but not connected to the Charlie Hedbo events. Dragons flight (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Even considering that, I'm not convinced of a story here; the US engages in similar raids and we generally don't note those stories. It seems to be more a story in regards to some of the visiblity the action got. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is an important story. And unusual in this country.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing to report yet. Things may change but no, not yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there are further significant developments. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when this becomes clear. There are apparently 12 separate raids being conducted across the country. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • They have apparently been identified as terrorist sleeper cells.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As they are not two arseholes, idiots, and "obviously American" people climbing a fucking rock or recycling their sandals. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you just want to swear, insult, and make a point or do you have an actual reason for supporting this item? 331dot (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd explain it to you, but it'll take me some time to dumb it down. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Instead of using personal attacks against me why not just engage in a constructive discussion about the merits of this item? 331dot (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There, there. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Lugnuts' excellently written rationale.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The blurb needs to be updated to reflect the current state of events. It appears that there have been numerous raids across Europe. The item probably needs to be broader. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • If it was a larger effort across Europe as a major anti-terrorist sting, I'd support this, but yes, we need that reflected. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know about the rest of Europe but there are "anti-terrorist raids" frequently in the UK. Perhaps we just don't make a massive fuss about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That's why for me, if this was a multi-country coordinated effort to raid several cells at the same time across Europe, that's newsworthy, since that requires multi-agency cooperation and timing. But I'm not yet seeing that confirmed as such. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • But this is called "Belgian police raids"? Reiterate Oppose. Clearly getting mixed messages and there seems to be nothing significant here beyond regular police work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, article is not informative compared to the real news media, and is not written encyclopedically, yet. Abductive (reasoning) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indeed. This news I would like to know about. Hafspajen (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Swiss FrancEdit

Article: Swiss Franc (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Swiss Franc (coin pictured) jumps in value by 30% in less than an hour, after the Swiss National Bank ends its cap against the Euro
Alternative blurb: ​After the Swiss National Bank ends its cap against the Euro, the Swiss Franc (coin pictured) gains more than 15% against it.
News source(s): BBC Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major financial news. This announcement was not expected and has lead to a huge spike in the value of the Swiss Franc. The Guardian source above describes the results as 'Currency and stock markets were thrown into turmoil'. --Modest Genius talk 14:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - this is very important.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Anybody outside Switzerland who owes a debt in Swiss Francs is having a very, very bad day, as are those in Switzerland who rely on tourists for business. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Pretty much unprecedented from what I'm reading. Markets don't like surprises and so regulatory authorities generally try to avoid them - except in this case they didn't. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. 30%? But compared to what - all other currencies? Was this a fiscal accident just waiting to happen, or a rich country getting its just desserts? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I see what you did there. In all seriousness, the currently had been held artificially low for three years (it should have been rising in relation to the steadily devaluing euro), so the rise was instantaneous relative to all other currencies. Thus, the fact that the currency rose is not surprising. Additionally, that the Swiss government did this with no warning is also not surprising, given that with advanced warning the government would lose (even more) billions from speculators. Mamyles (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. But won't the markets just return everything to an even keel quite quickly? Or does this signal that something has fundamentally and structurally changed in the economy of Switzerland or Europe or beyond? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. IBT says the peak was "nearly 40% against the euro".
Trading at the end of the day shows the value of the Euro in Swiss Francs dropped by about 17% at the end of trading. If you read the first source for the target article it explains that Switzerland has also dropped its interest rate from negative .25% to negative .75%, meaning depositors will nominally lose money (pay interest) but in a more stable and highly valuable account. Basically the Swiss National Bank had been propping up the Euro. This means debt owed to Switzerland will become more onerous, Swiss accounts just jumped up 17% in value compared to the Euro (30% was a high during the day, not the ending value), and Swiss exports will become more expensive (this just means the exporters will drop their prices or loose market share) and it is a sign that the Euro will probably begin inflationary quantitative easing to stimulate the economy, with the risk of creating or exacerbating a bubble. Basically, it means Switzerland has recognized reality, and the EU will have to do so next. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that's all true. But The Economist is just saying "The effect of such a big currency move may be significant..." But that's as far as it goes. No real prediction of dire economic consequences. As with any change in currency valuation, there will be winners and losers. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Your questions are a bit tangential, but could be relevant to determine the significance. Basically, this is the result of the market keeping "an even keel." The Swiss franc has been getting weaker in step with the euro not because demand for it dropped, but because the Swiss monetary authorities wanted it to stay at the same exchange ratio with the euro (1.2 francs per euro) even as the euro fell in value. As soon as the monetary authorities stopped creating an artificial demand inside Switzerland for euros, the franc went back to roughly the value that it would have been had that artificial devaluation not taken place. The macroeconomic significance of this is simply that the euro has been devaluing significantly faster than the franc. (interestingly, similar devaluations are still occurring with Chinese RMB in relation to USD) Mamyles (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, my questions, I assume. Thanks for yet another explanation. And again I'm sure it's all perfectly sound. But it's not making it sound any more, kind of, "significant". Yes, it's in the news, all over the place, but it sounds more like a small economic landslide than a notable earthquake? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support not just a fluctuation in one 'small' country, but a bellwether for the Euro and the world economy. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support both on the short-term valuation issues, but also further towards normalization of EU's economy. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Of definite significance as a litmus of the EU economy, and far beyond. Challenger l (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable economic news being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose sensationalist blurb that the exchange rate jumped is without dispute, but unless I read the graphs incorrectly, it actually ended trading considerably less than the 30% claimed in the blurb. In fact, any blurb which tries to jump on a trend of a market trade which just so happens to make drastic changes without reporting that the trend is temporary and therefore not actually that relevant needs work. The real story is that the cap has been removed, that'll have a much longer and wider reaching impact than a day of opportunist trading which created the blip. Alternatively, the blurb should be amended to say that the value ended less than 16% up, unless of course we're just aiming for tabloidism and reporting the sensation and not the whole picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Strongly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    I agree that the valuation change should probably not be stated in an exact number. In regard to your assertion of this as a 'trend,' I will note that, as with any instantaneous change in a dampened environment, some oscillation will occur. That does not mean the change is temporary, and given that this is the result of lifting of artificial devaluation, all evidence points to this not being temporary. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Previous performance is no guide to the future. Unless you have a crystal ball, I suggest you stop trying to predict the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant and sudden financial turmoil which is getting plenty of coverage. But TRM makes a fair point about the blurb, in that it is misleading to refer to a 30% increase in value without noting the subsequent decline to a more modest level of appreciation. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready and posted close of day trading value as an alt blurb, since the 30% figure was a spike upon announcement. It's the cap being raised that matters. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Just those two sentences, with the single source for "turmoil", are enough of an article update? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC) ::There were three sentences, with three separate new sources. Someone may have changed that, but a new prose paragraph with three sources is considered cromulent. If we want to wait a few hours I can fudge up something as filler--there's the Swatch price drop. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In what sense is this ready? The update is only three sentences long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support alt. — New era for the SFr. Sca (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree this is now ready. I've supported above though so wont post. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose reiteration a terrible and loaded blurb, not sticking to the straight-and-narrow. Please work on fixing it so we avoid POV terms like "significantly". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Explain which this is a POV term. It might be imprecise, but it can hardly be said that there has been no significant increase in the value of the Swiss franc recently. Formerip (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, let's go back to basic English. "Significant" is entirely dependent on context. Therefore, to claim something as "significant" depends on the point of view of the person claiming it to be "significant". Hell, if we have to go back to giving dictionary definitions of phrases at ITN, we might as well close it down entirely. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But, in this case, what's the point of view from which "significant" would not reasonably apply? Unless there is one, there's no POV problem. Formerip (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But in any case, we're an encyclopedia, significant could be 1%, 10%, 100%, depending on the context. Please understand that... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand, but that's nothing to do with NPOV, and I don't really understand why it's a problem, particularly in a case like this where attaching a figure might cause an actual NPOV issue. Formerip (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Nah, it's the other way round. If we attached a figure then it would be 100% accurate, NPOV and not sensationalist. Quite why you think attaching an objective figure to a blurb would suddenly "cause an actual NPOV issue" is bizarre. Right now it's just awful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Because we would need to choose between various time-points and comparators. 15%, 22% or 30% might all be arguable, but they're also all likely to be controversial and probably not neutral. "Significantly" has the advantage of being undeniable and fair. If I told you that next door's dog was barking loudly, would you object that I'm being biased because I haven't given you a figure in decibels? Formerip (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If you told me you'd be nominating something as nebulous as the volume of your neighbours' dog, I'd object. As I have here. The answer to your question is that the dog is barking loudly, but the answer to this question is nothing like that. We can precisely quantify the issue at hand. Significant is anything to anyone and, as such, is utterly useless in an encyclopedia without provided context. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not useless, because it doesn't tell us nothing. It tells us enough for our purposes, which are just to communicate that something, well, significant has happened. I do look forward, though, to you demanding rainfall figures be inserted into blurbs about "severe" flooding and precise data from medical reports every time the "seriously injured" are mentioned. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems a bit of a "Swiss miss" to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey now! ("Petitsuix Zurix" in the original and also in its English translation ... :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Or even "Take some Swiss Miss while I pour". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Snooker's most centuries recordEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tone 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Article: Century break (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In snooker, Ronnie O'Sullivan overtakes Stephen Hendry as record-holder for most century breaks.
News source(s): EuroSport
Nominator's comments: I think this is an interesting record which is difficult to achieve and thereby worth considering for inclusion. Hendry held the record with 775 centuries and given the fact that all active players are hundreeds of centuries behind this number, it's hard to believe that any other player would pass Ronnie O'Sullivan in near future. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure about this. The amount of professional snooker played - both the number of matches and frames per match - has varied wildly over the last few decades. Players have thus had very different numbers of opportunities to make century breaks. Century break#Players with 100 century breaks notes a huge increase in the number of players reaching 100 centuries over the past ~decade. Is this a meaningful record? Modest Genius talk 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As a snooker fan in general, and an O'Sullivan fan in particular, I think this has no place anywhere near ITN. It's a nice thing to have as a player, but it has no real effect on anything. Fgf10 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Other recent sports records have been rejected. I don't see why this one shouldn't be too. -- Calidum 21:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Did you realise that, back in the day, the world championship would be decided not as "best of 33" but "best of 145" (e.g. see 1946 World Snooker Championship)? The opportunity to score centuries is probably the same or less than it has ever been. The major difference these days is that players play more tournaments, but they are much shorter in duration than those conducted historically. This story has been doing the rounds in my locality and some are saying it's the most important snooker record ever, and unlikely to be beaten for decades given the next active players (Neil Robertson and Ding Junhui) have 350 centuries compared to Ronnie's 776. And Calidum's explanation is baffling, without justification and should be immediately rejected as absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, how dare I think we should be consistent when it comes to these things. If we reject Player X breaking a career record in fly swatting, why post Player Q breaking a record in widget washing? -- Calidum 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Excellent argument. Well played!! (Not to mention we have posted sports records regularly, perhaps just not those you like?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
        • When's the last time we posted one? Last nomination I remember was this rejected one [16] that you also opposed. -- Calidum 21:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Well we (ironically) posted a century of centuries if I recall correctly, but I really don't have the energy to find it, I'm sure you'll be capable enough to do it! And by the way, just because I opposed one particular sporting story, it doesn't mean there's some kind of logical sequitur that insists I oppose all sporting stories. That's in no way a valid argument, so better off stopping it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: In terms of importance within the sport, how does this compare to say # of World Championships won. If it truly is (close to) "the most important snooker record ever", can you provide a source that says so? --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Consistency is key. We have rejected individual records from other more popular sports.--WaltCip (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    And posted individual records from other less popular sports. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Uncertain one way or the other. Every single post needs to be adjudged of its own accords, without comparing to other things which may or may not have been posted in the past for any number of reasons. What we need to know, beyond it being merely a record, is the nature of the record within the sport. There are many records which sports have, and being unfamiliar with Snooker, I don't know whether or not to judge that this is THE RECORD that we should make a big deal about, or instead just a marginal record of little importance over other events in the sport. I can only draw connections to sports I'm familiar with; in Baseball for example, certain gold-standard records are considered newsworthy above the rest. I can't imagine we wouldn't post if someone broke Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak record, given how long it has stood, and how it is often held up as one of the most important records in the sport. But you'd have to know baseball to know the stature of that record; someone unfamiliar with the sport would have no way to judge the record without the historical context to know why that is the most important record in baseball. Since I have no snooker knowledge, what I am asking for is some evidence of that context, provided by those who know it, preferably to some outside press which indicates the importance of the records. Is this the most important record in the game, something people will speak of for decades, or is this merely just another minor statistic likely to have passed unnoticed except for snooker stats junkies (whatever the snooker equivalent of sabermetricians are? If someone could provide that context, it would go a long way towards convincing me (and likely others) of whether or not this is a newsworthy event... --Jayron32 20:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Google News seems to note, by the number of reports, that it's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Always a good idea to review how the discussion went when Manning broke the NFL touchdown record. –HTD 12:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We're lucky we can actually post the Super Bowl honestly. Of course, that doesn't mean someone won't try to block it from being posted for "not being adequately updated." -- Calidum 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Gah. You don't know how hard was it for the Super Bowl to be posted prior ITN had ITNR. Whatever the argument against college football was also used lol (except maybe for the "college/amateur" argument). –HTD 17:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Unnoa dead bodies rowEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Unnao dead bodies row (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than one hundered unidentified dead bodies were found floating in the Ganges River in Unnao district in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh.
News source(s): DNA, TimesOfIndia BBC Daily Mail Sydney Morning Herald
Nominator's comments: One of rare incidents.  MehrajMir (Talk) 07:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. Very strange event and for the same reason the Mozambique incident was posted. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 10:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jonny; the ITNR tag seemed erroneous so I removed it. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Support per nom, unusual event. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose what is significant about corpses in burial place? --Jenda H. (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Um....they usually don't end up floating down the river? There also seems to be some relation to the deaths of unmarried girls.331dot (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Well I heard that it is happening quite often. The locals, both in Unnao and Jhansi, say that floating bodies was a common phenomenon for the people living by the river's side.[17] Maybe the scale is unusual due to drought. "Has there been a good flow in the river, the gush of water would have washed them away. But this year, the flow of Ganga is so meek that these bodies got accumulated," said Mantu (65) of Babu Bangla village in Unnao. But that is all. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem like there's any sinister explanation for this. The bodies of unmarried girls are, sadly, often thrown into the river without ceremony. But that isn't newsworthy. The river is unusually low and, for reasons that don't seem clear, this has caused a large number of bodies to float to the surface. It's a local environmental health concern, but it doesn't seem like a story of particular global importance. Formerip (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but it seems semi-important to India, where 1/7th of all humans live; posting it (once the article is improved) would work on the ever-present systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    We don't really have a systematic bias problem on ITN when it comes to this part of the world, though. If we were talking about the former USSR or Latin America, then you might have a point. Formerip (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in other words. Formerip (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. Strange and unusual event. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    What is exactly unusual about this? Do you mean the drought? --Jenda H. (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose while number of bodies is certainly odd, bodies floating in ganges do happen recularly. Unless there is something sinister behind this and it doesn't seem so, I don't see this as particularly important story. SeraV (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SeraV. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. This doesn't sound like a 100+ bodies dumped in the river as an act of malice, but just something that happens infrequently. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Um....they usually don't end up floating down the river?" - last time I was in Varanasi, just for a couple of days, I saw at least six dead bodies floating down the Ganges, one was a baby. It happens, and it doesn't stop being shocking, but yes, they do end up floating down the river. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should promote Varanasi as a tourism spot, or contribute to the WikiVoyage page on it, not. Anyway, it's hard to believe the media is even reporting on this, since it seems that there were just more bodies than usual. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm just telling you what I saw. If you don't like seeing dead bodies floating down a river (and riverside open cremations), Varanasi isn't for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The floating dead bodies is a common phenomenon in sacred River Ganges, but this time retrieiving of 100+ bodies from a single place and that too of children and unmarried is what makes it one of the rare incidents.  MehrajMir (Talk) 05:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reports say this was bodies of children and unmarried girls--what we used to call virgins. I suspect this is a much bigger story that graves being emptied by a flood, and suggest that users like Jenda H., FormerIP, SeraV, AmaryllisGardener, etc., reconsider the sources and explain why only dependent children and unmarried women appeared in such a mass. Had the bodies not been found in the Ganges, but in one village, I wonder if the vote and rationales given would be different.
I am reminded of John Maxwell Hamilton's Hold the Press: "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In India, when a child or an unmarried woman dies, they are not allowed to be burned or buried, rather their bodies are thrown in rivers or sometimes seas..yes I know its dumb and they do not understand how this could lead to chances of diseases but alas, its India, religion trumps logic there...--Stemoc 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the increase about 90% is certainly huge and unusual. But still I have no reason to see something sinister behind it. Also local crematorium for poor people is out of order for at least five years.[18] So it is not just religion staff. --Jenda H. (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] First free climb of the Dawn Wall of El CapitanEdit

Articles: Kevin Jorgeson (talk, history) and Tommy Caldwell (talk, history)
Blurb: Kevin Jorgeson and Tommy Caldwell become the first climbers to successfully complete a 2-week, 3,000ft (914m) free climb of the Dawn Wall of El Capitan in Yosemite National Park.
Alternative blurb: ​In rock climbing, Kevin Jorgeson and Tommy Caldwell are the first to free climb El Capitan's Dawn Wall in Yosemite National Park.
News source(s): CNN, BBC NBC News

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: An interesting accomplishment, looks like one of the highest challenges for free climbers (foregoing any other equipment to help the climb safe for safety ropes). --MASEM (t) 00:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems a notable achievement in climbing, an area we don't see many (probably none) posts in. Getting some coverage. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once updates are done. We should link to both climbers or neither. Jehochman Talk 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I have created a sufficient stub/start for Kevin - he's got sources out there to work from. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support since ITN could use some positive stories right about now. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose not wishing to diminish the achievement in any way, but this is the first free-climb only of a particular route, not the formation itself, and not the most infamous route at that. Stephen 05:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Every free climb is rated. This undisputedly the hardest free climb ever completed by anybody. On that basis it qualifies for ITN. Jehochman Talk 05:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not a climber, but all the sources suggest this is like the tallest and most difficult free climb out there, and consider that Caldwell has been scoping this climb (looking for where all the usable handholds would be, the various safe "stations" where they would "camp" (hanging from safe points) since at least 2008. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom; notable event. —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 10:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's worth noting that, to the unitiated, it would seem the climb took place in one contiguous two-and-a-half week block, but reading the National Geographic report it seems they had three different "base camps" throughout the exercise, made numerous separate climbs and Jorgeson fell numerous times and had to restart certain sections. It's an interesting achievement but I felt misled when I discovered how they'd actually "free climbed the Dawn Wall"... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's the accepted methodology for free climbing. No human could just scamper up 3,000 feet of nearly sheer granite in one go. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, Caldwell climbed the 914m Salathé Wall (also on El Capatan) in one day. (I've modified the title of this section accordingly...) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that route is not nearly as difficult. The Dawn Wall was deemed to be "impossible". Jehochman Talk 14:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could support this, but El Capitan seems to have been updated with only a single sentence about this climb. If it is that big a deal, we need more than that. Formerip (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I wrote that sentence and am damn proud of it! But you are right, if we don't have more new content, that article should not be a target. Perhaps the articles about the two climbers should be the targets, but if there's not enough new material there, then maybe this isn't the big deal (media circus) that it appears to be. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What kinda sucks is i dont see a whole lot on the actual wall that they climbed. Without it its hard to tell how difficult the climb actually was. Only article is El Captain which has bunch of walls. -- Ashish-g55 16:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This NatGeo has a good picture of the climb they took. The Dawn Wall, for all purposes, is nearly vertical, compared to the other sides of the mountain. Unfortunately, not a climber, I'm not able to easily find how the Dawn Wall is rated on a technical merit easily, but it's clear that this climb was significant. Note that I did create the article on Jorgeson so that the the ITC nom was about the two climbers, not so much the mountain. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This offers some perspective on the difficulty of Dawn Wall which is both exceptionally hard technically and exceptionally long, making it arguably the hardest free climb in the world. Dragons flight (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Caldwell's article does not appear to be updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The Dawn Wall climb is mentioned in the list of climbs, but that article does need sourcing improvement overall. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Am I correct in thinking this is neither the first climb of this mountain, or even the first climb of this route on this not particularly tall mountain? What is the news value here? Fgf10 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It is the first complete free climb of this face of El Capitan. The route's been climbed with traditional climbing tools before, and other routes on different approachs of the mountain have been scaled by free climbing (including by Caldwell), but this specific face was previously considered an impossible route to be free climbed due to the near shear-ness of the face. The two had had two aborted attempts before, once due to an injury, another due to weather. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Summed up perfectly here. Meanwhile, in Belgium... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a helpful discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • An offensive and borderline anti-American piece in a tabloid site, clearly written by someone who doesn't understand why this is notable to the climbing world, is not a reason to oppose this. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Further, if you want to see the Belgium story posted, I invite you to contribute to the discussion above. Posting one doesn't mean the other can't be posted. This isn't just the negativity and anti-terrorism box, it is the in the news box. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear 331dot. The Daily Mash is a well known satirical website, and most certainly not a tabloid site. Think The Onion. Even if you didn't know, it would take at best thirty seconds to work out it's satire. How embarrassing. Pedro :  Chat  11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not embarrassed to not be aware of every satire website on the Internet. I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you are, apparently. Thanks a lot. Pedro. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. I understand you're feeling embarrassed but that's no reason to go on the attack. As I clearly said, it's not hard to do the research - you didn't. Whatever. Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Pedro: What I said was not an attack, just a statement; you must be smarter than me and have more time to research every link that is posted. I assume that people post links in good faith absent a reason to research one, which I didn't see here. I say I'm not embarrassed, but you insist that I am. I guess you know me better than I do. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Embarrassed is the word. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a tabloid. Only offensive to those with no sense of humour. Like yourself. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Calling these two men arseholes, idiots, and "obviously American" is not humorous, but it really doesn't matter. It's not a reason to oppose this widely covered, notable achievement. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hope you don't hurt yourself when you fall off your high horse. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think wanting actual arguments that are not deliberately offensive is being on a high horse. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Cool your double negatives there, chief. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is not unmeaningless. Sca (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of consistency, those who support this don't seem to think that that snooker story is just as important, personally I don't see much difference. SeraV (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a widely covered story. I can't remember posting anything like this before. -- Calidum 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've read it up, I've thought about it a lot, and I can't really see that this is anything truly ground-breaking. There's a certain amount of synthesis and nostalgia going on when people try to claim that this was "impossible" to climb. It's hardly summiting Everest, and as I noted above, many people will not realise that it was done in a number of "pitches", during which the climbers fell numerous times, saved by their ropes. It's not quite as exciting as the claim appears to be. Don't believe the hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • As a comment, if this does not go through ITN, with my recent creation of the Jorgeson's article, I can DYK this. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It's certainly much more appropriate for a DYK than a news item. For the love of God, two people spending two weeks climbing 1000 metres, falling periodically, being assisted all the way, how is that newsworthy? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Arguably the same can be said for nearly all the sporting news we post, since a bunch of people running and jumping around for a few hours is arguably the same. Again, I'm not a climber, but the fact this was highlighted by many reports (And in the days up to their completion, there's a good deal of coverage on the anticipation) shows that there is definitely a short term interest in it to justify ITN inclusion. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support based on the level, depth, and nature of coverage this receives in the press. I know nothing about rock climbing, but it is clear from the context I can find in reliable sources that this is a major superlative event within the discipline, and since sources treat it as such, we should too. --Jayron32 20:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron. Not an enthusiast myself, but prima facie this is important, we've not had such a nom before, and this in no way competes with what's going in in Belgium. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I would Support if it's not too old. This is real climbing, with the rope only used to arrest falls. It is a 5.14d rated difficulty of climb, the only harder climbs that have been done are 5.15a, 5.15b and 5.15c (the last 3 times) but this is much longer, approaching the point where there are not taller vertical drops on Earth. There's only 1 climb over 30 climbing ropes long that's over 5.13d (in a database of 120,000+) and that's "only" a 5.14a. They mostly climbed shirtless at night in January at thousands of meters above sea level two mountain ranges inland from San Francisco it was that strenuous. El Capitan and Half Done are the only climbing rocks I've heard of (besides the record tall cliffs in Extremes on Earth) so they are the most famous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Uluru (Ayers Rock) but I think that's more mountaineering or even hiking than rock climbing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked ready, both articles have over 2KB in updates, no question of support. μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • OMG just post is already.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Jorgeson's article is on the shorter side, but all things considered I think there is sufficient content between the two articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    @David Levy: to post a pic perhaps? There's some good ones in the El Capitan article... --Jayron32 03:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't recognize the Dawn Wall in any of those photographs, but I found (and cropped) an appropriate image at Commons. —David Levy 08:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Under what possible definition is this notable world news? Basically a hollywood version of the Englishman who walked up a hill and came down a mountain. Jeez.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Under the definition that news sources are devoting time to covering it. At Wikipedia, we base our decisions here on what sources say about something (or perhaps don't say, in the case of stories we decide not to run). The decisions are not based on what we wish news sources spent time covering. "I really wish that reliable sources like the BBC didn't cover this in so much detail" is not a valid opposition. --Jayron32 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

January 14Edit


[Closed] 2015 Texas prison bus crashEdit

A tragic and unusual incident but no consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Texas prison bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: A bus crash in West Texas kills ten people and injures five.
News source(s): Reuters, Irish Independent, Washington Post, New York Times
Nominator's comments: Substantial number of deaths. --Everymorning talk 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do not regularly post bus crashes irregardless of number of deaths. (Moreso that this was a prisoner transport bus as opposed to public transportation which generally attracts more attention). --MASEM (t) 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not very many deaths, not very much coverage, not suitable for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose precedent now is that vehicle crashes need about 30 victims to be notable enough, unless some other factor (famous victim, felony) is involved. Even then, it's not a shoe-in. The exception seems to be French train crashes, where we posted one, very contentiously, in which 7 died. That article was edited a whole 5 times in 2014μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this one was bizarre/macabre. The bus slid off an icy bridge and hit a freight train. Jehochman Talk 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Doesn't seem to be anything significantly unusual about this crash; if it was a deliberate escape attempt by prisoners, that might be different. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless one of the prisoners escaped to track down a one-armed man. Gamaliel (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Giorgio Napolitano ends as presidentEdit

Article: Giorgio Napolitano (talk, history)
Blurb: Giorgio Napolitano (pictured) resigns as President of Italy due to his age.
News source(s): Wallstreet Journal, Euronews, and others...

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.

 --Jenda H. (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Having been in the same office for 10 years, this is a significant event. We should also post a blurb when the new president is chosen. Note that I have changed the blurb a bit to more adequately reflect that he was the Italian president. Both articles need the addition of at least a few sentences addressing his resignation. Mamyles (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose post is relatively meaningless. Nice that he made ten years, but so what. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A change in head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Who is his replacement? If possible the resignation and replacement should go together. Does this office have power or is it purely ceremonial, with the prime minister actually being the head of state? Jehochman Talk 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an acting replacement; I'm not sure how or when a permanent replacement is chosen; though thinking about it it makes sense to me that we could wait to post the choosing of the permanent replacement as the ITNR item. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
From reading President of Italy, the position does have power (appointments, pardons, etc), and it looks like the replacement will be chosen after a lengthy (multi-round) election. We will need to decide here whether this resignation is significant in its own right, or whether we should only post the election results of the successor. Mamyles (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems like we should wait and post "So and so becomes President of Italy following the resignation of Giorgio Napolitano." Jehochman Talk 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Very notable political figure. His resignation is certainly headline news. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, certainly a very important political figure, his resignation is a pretty big deal. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose a "very notable political figure" gets him an RD nom when he dies. We don't do unscandalous retirements of old men. No one 100 years from now is going to comment on the shocking historical significance of this act. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Resignation of a head of state is a very big deal. We also have a strong precedent on posting similar stories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a prominent figure, and the blurb must be featured in the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Napolitano has been an unusually important President - he was dubbed "Re Giorgio" ("King George"). He played a crucial role in resolving the political crises of 2011 and 2013. In 2013 the leaders of the major parties and the regional governors combined to persuade him to very reluctantly submit himself for election to an unprecedented second term. He is easily the most respected political figure in Italy and has been seen as an important stabilising figure. Neljack (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am posting this. Hopefully David Levy will come along and take care of the image. I don't see the proper copyright status available at Special:Upload. Jehochman Talk 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for pinging me. I've added the image (now protected at Commons). —David Levy 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] AirAsia fuselage foundEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The fuselage of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, which crashed on December 28, 2014, is found in the Java Sea.
News source(s): Christian Science Monitor, CNN, USA Today
Nominator's comments: This is controversial because we already posted this shortly after it went missing last month. However this seems like a significant development in the story. --Everymorning talk 16:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am curious if we should include the initial finding (not confirmed) that the plane effective crashed into the water and broke up (as opposed to a mid-air breakup), even though this is only a working theory. Or if we should wait for a more official statement (prior to the full analysis) of what the failure was. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment, I think it may be more significant that the Flight Data Recorders have been recovered (although with the current system, of course, they are usually found in the same place). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that could be reflected. "Clusters of wreckage of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501, including its flight recorder and its fuselage, are found in the Java sea after its disappearance on December 28, 2014." --MASEM (t) 16:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support tempted by this as it's been in the news since the disappearance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While finding the fuselage is important in determining the causes of the crash, I don't think it is a significant enough event that we should post the story back in ITN. It is normal to find the fuselage after an air crash (it is far more noteworthy when they don't find it, as with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370), and in this case it was always expected that they would find it. Since it was expected, it doesn't seem like the sort of major new development that would warrant returning the story to ITN. Calathan (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thank you for the nomination. This is an expected development, and the article has already had its days on the home page. I don't think enough has changed to warrant posting the article a second time. Jehochman Talk 21:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think the fact we're still waiting to find any evidence of MH-17 doesn't make this "an expected development" in the current climate. Moreover, it took a few weeks to do this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

January 13Edit


January 12Edit


[Closed] Centcom hackingEdit

No consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: United States Central Command (talk, history)
Blurb: United States Central Command's Twitter account is hacked by pro-Islamic State group
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Timed to coincide with Obama giving a speech on cyber security..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is hacking of the Twitter and YouTube accounts (eg simple password break) as opposed to any central Centcom server, so it is not as severe as, say, the Sony hack. Further, we are not sure of the identify of the group - they have stated Islamic feelings, but that simply could be trolls trying to stir up stuff. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Per the BBC, "Some internal military documents also appeared on the Centcom Twitter feed". Not quite as benign as you're suggesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    "You can find maps showing the same things on the websites of many US think-tanks." The BBC article and response downplays any serious breach of US security matters. It's a bit of hysteria how it is being reported. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, of course, they wouldn't come out and say, oops, they found that map, silly us....! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    The point is that it reads that all the information leaked were from unclassified documents that were either posted in public areas on the military websites or from think tanks that worked with the military, or otherwise public information. I'm sure they are checking their internal servers to see if they were hacked, but these stories are expressing the initial idea that no, no breach of Centcom servers was made in regards to this - this was the weak security measures of Twitter and YouTube that enabled that. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    The point is I'm agreeing with you and your assessment of what's been published. Nevertheless, the US government's own accounts have been hacked, by someone, and it's major news whether your personal assessment of the infraction agrees with it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    My point is that it is the security of Twitter and YouTube that failed, not the US Gov't's account measures (unless it was a weak password). There is a false panic here. Twitter and YT by default have weak security (with YT, there is arguably 2 factor google authentication), and there are accounts hacked on an all-too-frequent basis on these sites. Being a gov't account is nothing "special" here. The only thing that would make it special if the group that pulled it off were directly tied with terrorist groups that the US is fighting against, but there's no indication of that yet. Every security expert that's talking about talking about the press fearmongering by misleading reporting, there's no threat because a twitter account was hacked. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Again, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment sad face. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC) It is, however, the top news story on the UK version of the BBC website right now. Next up, Tic Tac Toe
  • Support per nom, big story. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The top story on the websites for BBC, The Times of India, The Washington Post, The Telegraph, and Daily Mirror; one of the top stories on websites for Fox News, MSNBC, MSN, The Los Angeles Times, Le Monde, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Independent. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose given the current wider world context (2,000+ dead in Nigeria) and that this is a minor embarrassing stunt. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I saw the Twitter feed before it was taken down and it wasn't really anything to write home about. The information could easily be found online, and the rest of it just consisted of attacks on the nation. Nothing huge came out of the leaks, so I wouldn't consider this all that notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, this xkcd might be of note in this situation, since it kind of explains the popular perception versus what really happened. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, this is indeed a big story.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was a Twitter account that got hacked, not Centcom. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Mozambique beer poisoningsEdit

Article: 2015 Mozambique funeral beer poisonings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​69 people are killed after drinking beer laced with crocodile bile at a funeral in the African country of Mozambique
Alternative blurb: ​After drinking contaminated beer, 69 people are killed at a funeral in Mozambique
News source(s): Russian Times, The Guardian, Huffington Post

 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support because why not. ITN regularly features mass tragedies, and because of the unusual circumstances this one is certainly more notable than a bus crash. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hoax? Not the deaths, but the cause? This article in Forbes indicates crocodile bile is more poisonous in the imagination, than in fact. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It appears that several dozen people did die, but "crocodile bile" may indeed be a hoax. I've suggested a different altblurb. Samples of beer and blood have been sent in for testing, so let's just call it "contaminated beer" like many sources do. (I have no objection to "poisoned beer" either, if that makes more sense.) WneQ (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Poisoning sounds likely, but unless there's some evidence, contamination (i.e., accidental) is possible, So I would stick with contaminated for now--PS that's a Support especially since this is the sort of thing where I would come to WP for factual reporting. Obviously the article needs expansion. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb since it has not been confirmed that crocodile bile was the poison - they are still carrying out tests. An unusual incident that is likely to get plenty of international attention and be of interest to our readers. Neljack (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb as the BBC are reporting it. Article, however, needs a big uplift before it's suitable for mainpage inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Suppoer altblurb as the true cause of death may take a few days or so to figure out, but the number dead is significant. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the article is long enough now, so please let me know if it needs expansion further, or is good to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready yes, with this edit it's been more than doubled in the last few hours, and while it might use some fiddling it's technically ready by new article requirements. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(I'll do some searching in Portuguese later on and see if I can find more detail from the local press. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I've read a few Portuguese sources from within the last 24hrs and added the president's declaration of 3-day of mourning. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] First college football playoff everEdit

If the consensus is not clear after ~10k words of discussion, it's never going to be. I know this will disappoint many people, but given the length and quality (or lack thereof) of the discussion, keeping it open is not in anybody's best interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Clearly not going to gain consensus to post. —Cryptic 03:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 College Football Playoff National Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: Ohio State defeats Oregon in the first top-level college American football playoff of the sport's 146 year history.
Alternative blurb: ​In college football, the Ohio State Buckeyes defeat the Oregon Ducks in the 2015 College Football Playoff National Championship, after the first College Football Playoff tournament to determine the finalists in the sport's 146 year history.
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, SMH
Nominator's comments: In 1869 AD, the first championship of the original form of US football was kind-of not really "decided". The game grew more violent until up to 20 players died per year. There were no fouls — you were allowed to just punch or drop-kick a 13-year old or break his bones. There was no padding.

The US President stepped in to prevent American football from being outlawed and it slowly got safer. (non-college American football wasn't popular until around this time)

But they still didn't know who the college champion was some years. The sportswriters just started voting who the winner was in the 1930s. A rival coaches poll started. Eventually the winners were chosen by the Byzantine system that the coaches were contractually obligated to vote the winner of one game set up by a weighting of human and computer polls the winner which wasn't the sportswriters' champion 6% of the time. Three voters once breached their contract. A coach once lobbied and voters were besieged by calls.

Even Obama wanted to end this.

In 2014 a 13-member committee that includes George W. Bush's Secretary of State used advanced methods to decide the top four college football teams the best they could. Finally in 2015 AD they played in the first tournament of college American football and the Final Is today. --Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Close - Simple: amateur sport, limited interest.--98.180.53.7 (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • What exactly do you mean by "limited interest"? SpencerT♦C 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    It means he is personally not interested in it. Any other argument is unlikely to sway him. --Jayron32 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for the economic effect of the event [see http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20150108-dallas-arlington-look-for-300-million-plus-boost-from-college-football-playoff.ece]. I know this nomination is highly unlikely to succeed, but there are international players and the game receives international press coverage. It's not possible to ignore the importance of the event economically and socially in American culture, and I'd say that the importance is significant enough to merit an ITN posting. SpencerT♦C 04:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose There are some outlandish claims being made here. How do we know what the economic / social importance of the event is, or whether it's the 2nd most watched annual sporting event in the US, if it's never happened before and hasn't happened yet? I could perhaps be persuaded that the result of the college football season is worth posting, but so far the arguments have either been speculative (as just described) or based on the change of the season layout (introduction of a playoff), neither of which seem very convincing to me. GoldenRing (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed per Tryduulf below - this is a minor change in the format of the season. The championship itself is not ITN/R and there is nothing significantly unusual about this year's championship to merit posting. GoldenRing (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I made a memory mistake. The correct claim is now above. Also if you read the history the claims are not outlandish. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and it was ungentlemanly to do those things (like break a man's ribs) and some weren't willing anyway (not everyone's a thug), and most players were not bright enough to get into college in their early teens, but both still happened. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, okay and some players wore nose guards or a regular hat, but they didn't even have leather helmets yet. That's hardly what I'd call padding. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing this line of argument as significant. We still play this game without padding; it's called Rugby Union. GoldenRing (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No padding is not a line of argument, I just thought it was a cool part of the 146 years. And what you can do in rugby is pussy compared to what you can do in football (but there is no padding so rugby might still be the rougher sport). At any rate the football of that time was much tougher than any sport now. Is there any sport where you can signal for a fair catch and have your nose shattered by a punch and simultaneously be given a field goal kick without penalty? And 12-20 players die in two months of play? That's in the linked breakdown of 1905's deaths. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but I think you've muddied the waters somewhat with all that. So what's the basis of the nomination? That the format of the season has changed? GoldenRing (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The sport is significant enough in US culture that it should be in every year but this is a year of historical significance to the sport of American football. The tradition of bowl games (~80 to 113 years old) are a reason why this took so long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Those who oppose this are uninformed. The college football championship is one of the most watched sporting events in the US; it's rating greatly exceed the World Series, NBA finals, Stanley Cup finals, the four tennis majors, and the four golf majors, all of which we post. We also post a half dozen soccer stories each year, but American football gets only one. It's time to change that. -- Calidum 05:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Enough with the ad hominem. What you say might well be true, but how is this nomination, of some new fixture in the season, a significant item that should be posted at ITN? I'm not saying it isn't; I'm saying it hasn't been explained why it is, yet. If we start posting changes to the layout of fixtures in sports, where will it end? And we probably post half a dozen football stories each year because, you know, that's a game played by most of the world. GoldenRing (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
About half of our readers are American. Why do their bare 6 championships overwhelm the system when the sum of three kinds of footy, three kinds of cricket and two kinds of rugby manage not to? (Two kinds of English football championship, sheesh.) This is one of the last major sports in the world where it's false that enough of the best compete to decide the winner that it's unlikely the best one doesn't get a chance. I think Test cricket might be one (or actually championship-less, even worse), I don't see why the new Test Cricket World Championship shouldn't be posted either. With only two spots, it's highly likely that the best football team will one year be physically unable to win (because there are 3 nearly equal top teams and they can only pick two), that situation happened in 2003. At least you'd need a "five-way tie for first place by acclamation" for this system to screw up which I think is unlikely. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not about overwhelming the system, it's about balance. As for the remainder of this comment: Please take a step back and try to explain this to someone with zero interest of, or experience in, American football. It's currently incomprehensible to me. I am unable to parse the sentence, "This is one of the last major sports in the world where it's false that enough of the best compete to decide the winner that it's unlikely the best one doesn't get a chance." I am sure the fault is all my ignorance; just please try to step back and explain, simply and cogently, to someone who knows nothing about the competition, why the event you have nominated is significant. GoldenRing (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try to show how big college football is in the US. (I think it's unbalanced without college football btw). If the top school stopped spending money on sports they could build a World Trade Center Tower on campus every 8 years with the money. That's a billion dollars spent on sports (mostly football) every 8 years and they still make a profit
The co-founder of Nike wanted one of the two teams playing to win so badly that he gave them $300 million. $70 million for a 1 hectare locker room (with Jacuzzis for the coaches and dehumidified, climate-controlled foot lockers) Who the hell gives a 10 meter square of locker building to every player? You can read more about this here: [19]
Remember that famous speech Kennedy gave about going to the Moon "But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." Rice and Texas are college football teams (mismatched ones). He gave it at a college football-only stadium.
Look at the list of the largest stadiums in America, 15 of the top 16 most capacious stadia are non-professional college football stadiums. There are 8 college football stadiums over 100,000 capacity. The top 3 are college football only. Despite having a smaller field the 110,000 of the largest is I believe larger than any cricket ground on Earth. Many Americans follow their alma mater's team all their life and some non-players even choose which college to go to based on how good their football team is.
And college football is one of the last major sports in the world where the postseason is so small (2 teams) that the best team of the regular season has a good chance of being physically unable to get in that field (and having a chance at winning the championship). That is what the overly complicated sentence meant. There are other postseason games but they were not in the "tournament" (of one game, lol). Now the litany of BCS controversies that got Americans talking shouldn't happen anymore. It's not easy to do seeding with dozens and dozens of teams (only a few can be played - 12/13 game seasons) and varying strengths of schedule, so the pick 4 committee was needed instead of going by win-loss records (and there are many ties in those). If you're wondering why they didn't do more levels of games, they wouldn't have enough time to study for one reason. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The University of North Carolina wanted to win so badly that this happened. You absolutely have to read that. Some research universities are just football teams with universities attached instead of universities with football teams attached. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Super Bowl is the only notable event in this sports calendar that gets a mention here, this is amateur level and has no following or interest outside of US..--Stemoc 06:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Neither does the Super Bowl. And they're second league professional-level players. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Super Bowl has no interest outside of the U.S.? Do I have to quote you about viewership abroad, which is substantial? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If the non-expat viewership is over 20% the total I'd say you're right. If not I'd say it's rhetorically true. Obviously it has some non-expat viewership. (And of course the NFL are the first-league players, I now see that it might sound like I said they're not.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is unclear outside of the microcosm of US college football what the significance of this is, the blurb provides little indication as to why it would make any sense to anyone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As said above nobody outside US would understand why this is even remotely important... First reaction by anyone would be why is college sport of any country even on ITN. And if only reason to post it is that a lot of our readers are from US then thats basically the definition of Systemic Bias. -- Ashish-g55 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, we have posted college-level sports of other countries on ITN beore. The Boat Race has previously been posted. SpencerT♦C 06:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This appears to be a playoff and nothing more. Not the top level of the sport, obscure and downright confusing in the blurb. --86.166.158.112 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Oppose. Despite reading the extensive arguments here, I still do not understand why this is significant outside US college football. I get that it is a massive deal for some people who follow this single country amateur sports league, but that doesn't translate into being relevant to the front page of a general purpose encyclopaedia.Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ESPN, a cable network, paid $7.3 billion for 12 years of games, the majority of which will go the playoff games. $2/yr/American. That's, say $500 million for only 3 games while US television paid $1200 million for 17 days of London Olympics. That's say 68 hours of primetime and 6x12=72 hours of weekends. ~$500 million is for 12 hours of college football on cable. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't understand comments like this one, asking about relevance outside of the sport. Is the cricket championship relevant beyond cricket? Or any other sport? We post top level sports competition championships, and while the "amateur" may throw people, this is a major sporting event on par with those in ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support College football is a huge deal in the United States, and this is a newsworthy event which crowns a champion, for the first time. In fact, I'd rather the blurb be worded as "in the first college American football playoffs in 146 years" rather than "ending 146 years without college American football playoffs". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Better blurb, thanks. Though it should be since the sport's invention in 1869 or something since there is a little discrepancy with the counting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    It makes for a nice factoid, "Did you know that the first ever college playoff took place in 2015...?" I can't really see how it's really "news", just trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The fact that the playoff was instituted was news when that happened. It's been a big deal here, even Barack Obama has discussed it at length. But I'm not for posting that it's the first championship game to happen in this playoff system, I'm for posting whether it's Ohio State or Oregon that wins the game. We can mention that it's the first playoff in the blurb. I get that college football isn't professional (strictly speaking) throws off the Euros here, but college football in the U.S. is a big deal and in many places its more important than the NFL. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
        • But they always say wait till it happens, oh well. And who wins the game is obviously important enough to be posted every year if all this Commonwealth stuff is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I note that the more-ordered NCAA basketball playoffs (aka March Madness) which is just as big as college football within the states is not ITN/R, so I don't think we start showcasing the football side here. There is potentially something here about the major change to the structure of the finals, enforcing a better playoff structure, but that's again, only of interest to those that follow the sport at that level, and we've not really included amateur or college/uni-level sports at ITN in the past, this doesn't feel like a reason to start now. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe we posted the NCAA basketball championship in 2013, but didn't have the consensus in 2014. I believe that the college football and basketball championships (only) should be added to ITN/R, but obviously there isn't consensus for that (yet?). This "professional vs. amateur" distinction is a false one, and below it's pointed out that some of these European sports events we post that I know nothing about are amateur. Interesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because ITN doesn't post college sports unless it's the Boat Race, amateur sports unless it's Gaelic football and the the Boat Race, and top-level sporting events unless it's the Premier League and the Boat Race. Long live the Boat Race! (P.S.: GO DUCKS!!!!) –HTD 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting the national championship (though I'm not sure the playoff aspect makes it any more significant than it normally is). College football is a major sport in the United States in terms of news coverage, viewership, and financial significance. Lots of things are listed at WP:ITNSPORTS that are specific to one country, so saying this shouldn't be posted because it is only of interest to people in the US comes off as anti-American bias (though I'm not sure if all the things listed at WP:ITNSPORTS are actually posted every year). The arguments that it shouldn't be posted because the athletes are amateurs and aren't as good as NFL players is ridiculous, as the skill level of the participants isn't what makes a sporting event notable, but rather the degree of interest shown to it. Calathan (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Support. We post The Boat Race, a single-country collegiate sporting event due to its extensive coverage and notability(it even made ITNR). Single-country objections are not valid, as stated at the top of this page, anyway. Tens of millions follow collegiate football (as pointed out, more than the World Series and other events that are posted) as the nominator has written extensively about on this page. Given its coverage I think it merits posting. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Actually the Boat Race is far from a single-country sporting event, it usually has rowers from around the world involved, there's a strong American background to the event as well, many Yale and Harvard rowers have taken part. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification, but it is still fundamentally two UK college teams rowing against each other. I'm sure there are non-American college football players. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, just to clarify your point, it's the second and third oldest universities in the world racing against each other, having done so since 1829, and is broadcast in around 160 countries. Not sure the college football playoff has that notability or reach. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, most likely, no one outside the US knows what this is. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not required; we post many single-country events. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a question, do we post the final results of the FA Cup? --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, last year. AFAIK it had been posted multiple times ever since the new Wembley opened. –HTD 16:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You got it all wrong. The Premier League is the biggest competition in exclusively in England (except for a few Welsh clubs) of any sport, while the FA Cup is second. In that regard, both the biggest two events are posted. We also used to post the biggest two sporting events in an island less than the size of London but finally ITNR got rid of one of them (LOL). –HTD 16:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Those football competitions always confuse me. Anyway, support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A shame you've allowed yourself to be cowed by Howard here. The FA Cup is the oldest association football cup competition in the world and is watched worldwide because soccer is a worldwide sport. We also used to post the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, but as Donald states, Ireland is a small country so therefore why should we post items relating to it? Why should we post minority items of interest, like amateur college "football" which is of interest to one tenth of one thirtieth of the globe? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Eh, good point, even though I doubt that many Americans like me know what the FA Cup is, much less watch it, but Americans are weird when it comes to sports. Neutral. (I flip-flop on discussions more than any other person on WP, I believe.) --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I know all of you are probably tired of me changing my !vote, but I'm now going to Oppose, as after more commentary I believe that this is an amateur sport event that is not worthy of mention at ITN. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if updated and relevance made clear in the article The fact that it is >100 years ago since this happened, and the play offs selection group is that autoritive; in combination with the large (US) audiences is enough for me. I am always afraid for US bias, but in this specific year it seems notable. However, the article seems in horrible shape and almost a template-produced article, with some headings with only a "main"-link and nothing else. Hardly any text about the relevance; and still using future tense. L.tak (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, It has to be future tense because the game hasn't started yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Second most watched [sic] annual US sports final" says it all. By all means we should post the first, but anything more smacks of systematic bias to me I regret. Plus the nom, if I can understand correctly, seems more concerned with political points which, to me at least, seem pretty irrelevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • There are no finals of US sports that are not annual. But I didn't feel like doing an analysis of Olympic events and college football finals. Those are the only sports besides the National Football League that could possibly beat some or all college football finals, and only on the Olympics. And I've clarified the template to second-most watched annual sports final in the US. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You think we should be limited to posting the Super Bowl only? That makes no sense. How is that systematic bias? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if the hook is modified, as the hook right now reads a bit weird, and it makes it seem like there was some sort of conspiracy that prevented playoffs from occurring for a number of years. We can work out the metrics of the viewership later, as these claims are premature in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Though the BusinessWeek article on this thread says that record viewership numbers are all but certain as semifinal 2 broke the all-time record for viewership of a cable program held by semifinal 1 which surpassed a college football final before that). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The World Junior Hockey Championship is massive in Canada, but we don't post as it does not represent the highest level of the sport. I see no difference between that and American college football. Additionally, I do not believe we post the winner of the NCAA basketball championship either. Resolute 16:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The World Junior Hockey Championship (links are your friends) is an under-twenty competition. In other words, teams that might include high school seniors who have been held back a year, not but not college-level or -age teams. Juvenile sports has always been deprecated here. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, thank god we have you here to educate us hockey fans about how hockey works. Gee whiz, Medeis. What would Wikipedia ever do without you? Now, in as much as you don't like it, the comparison is still valid. The WJHC's are of disproportionate interest to one country (though the hockey tournament would have greater international interest, naturally, as an international tournament), is amateur in a sport with pro levels, and does not represent the top tier of the sport. Three good reasons not to post the WJHC champion. Also three good reasons not to post the NCAA championship. The fourth reason is that we haven't posted the NCAA champion in the past, and the fact that they changed the playoff format this year doesn't necessitate a change in that regard. Resolute 16:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I don't think the World Junior Hockey Championship is on the same level in terms of scope and popularity as the college football national championship. That we haven't posted the BCS championship in the past is a mistake, in my opinion, and not a reason not to post this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Popularity in terms of what? On an absolute scale, perhaps. But relatively? Looks like the NCAA game managed an 18.5 overnight rating, which I believe translates to about 21.5 million viewers. The WJHC gold medal game was watched by 7.1 million Canadians. Given we have 1/10th the population, I would argue that the WJHC is more popular in Canada than the NCAA football championship is in the US. Never mind the fact that about 40% of Slovakia's population watched their medal around games, etc. Resolute 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
7.1 million when Canada played, [tt_news=8371&cHash=825d9dab9239ac300abbb7a34e5432f8 1 million] when Canada lost last year. The numbers for the Nordic countries are far more impressive, though. But that's a "national team" tournament where a country has, uh, "one" team. This College Football Playoff isn't like that; of course, the Super Bowl is an entirely different beast. –HTD 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hopeless, unfortunately even though the USA is the third most populated country in the world, even though the USA makes up the largest block of readers for the EN wiki, even though a number of European soccer stories (but no South American, so much for the worlds most popular sport, I guess it's the oldworlds most popular sport) are on ITN/R, even though lesser interest amateur "sports" like "The Boat Race" are on ITN/R, even though anyone who bothers to scratch even slightly below the surface will realize that NCAA sports in the USA are amateur in name only, even though I doubt there is widespread international interest in Gaelic Football or the Heineken Cup (two countries in Europe each with a population less than California have a kick-off and you get to label it international) it's impossible to nominate a story originating in the USA without overwhelming and unsubstantiated claims of US-centrism, US-bias, and of "no-one outside the USA cares", despite the fact that rule number 2 for ITN/C clearly states "[do not] complain about an event only relating to a single country". I don't watch football, but this was a major story in the USA, not just because of the sports contest but because of a change in a system so broken that the President of the United States took time out of authorizing drone strikes to comment on it. It's utterly absurd the level of vitriol seemingly reserved for the United States. I guess we have to save room for more stories about Lionel Messi!! --12.216.96.52 (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Nah, Ronaldo's winning that association football trophy later, and that'll be posted. –HTD 17:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support if this is actually for a national title (even if amateur), by analogy with the Boat Race. But the blurb should specify what title has been won, rather than focussing on trivia relating to the format. If this is just a regular match with some technical differences, then oppose. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed the title will be won by winning the game and not by polls/computer programs, this is certainly not a regular match. And the format is a big deal in the US causing record viewership, as is the game and winner. The game is always a big deal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support college football is hugely popular in the US, with the major networks showing many hours of broadcast play each weekend. A once-a-year mention is certainly justified if we compare it to the viewership of other sports that get listed. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment regardless of this perennial jingo-fest, the blurb needs serious work. No-one outside the microcosm of US college football could care less or worse, even understands the significance of not having playoffs. Indeed, in many European countries, playoffs are something different from what I assume is meant here. The nomination also seems to be swaying between the significance being the playoffs or just the result itself. Which is it? Oh, and the article sucks, which, despite all the "support", is an overriding factor. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Here is an explanation for the "Which is it" question. The Americans don't need a special justification to post this yearly. But American support is not enough. For the Commonwealth/ESL people in the audience, will this be enough to convince you to support this even once? Maybe not. Also little updating will occur until the game actually happens. A look at the history of the 2014 game should give an idea of when the more prominent 2015 article will be up to snuff. It likely will be good first few hours of Jan 14 UTC or as early as mid-morning Jan 13 UTC. (People have careers tomorrow) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The significance of playoffs is that in 1998 they started this stupid system and it only took till 2003 for there to be three possible best teams and only two spots that can lead to the final (i.e. the final itself). And what was perceived as unfair lobbying in 2004. At least now there will be a two-level tournament. The systems before the 1998 one were even worse. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry but none of that really addresses why this is actually "in the news". It's a super-minor nuance of college football that affects just about nobody. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Let's use money. The outright crappy Bowl Championship Series had a revenue of US$202 million in 2012. If you'd compare that to real professional leagues, that's quite low, just below France's Ligue 2. But consider this: in 2013, the BCS had five games. That's US$40 million per game. The Premier League had a revenue of 3,200 million euros at 380 games played, or 8.4 million euros per game. If you're looking at per game averages, the BCS was a lot more profitable than the Premier League, despite the latter's international clout. Don't get me started on the Boat Race. –HTD 20:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Your money per game argument is just fascinating. Let me know when that's part of the criteria. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Having looked at the Business Week article, I would only be surprised if more than $250 million of the $600 million/year for 7 games ESPN paid for TV rights went to this one game. Now that is money. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Compared to your made up criteria out of thin air ("THESE SCHOOLS ARE OLD AND THEY LOVE ROWING!"), this is a start! At least this has something to stand on. All of this money talk means that there's some "interest" in this game. After all, if people would pay to see (this is on cable), that's some interest. –HTD 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
          • You should focus on this article, not others which have no real bearing on this nomination. And please, refrain from shouting, it's counterproductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Eh, I just said that there's some mad interest to this game. The "SHOUTING" part was the only part that didn't focus on interest, which you apparently focused upon. Sorry if you were distracted on what should you had focused upon. –HTD 20:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Listen, you and I have had this debate (and if I remember correctly, it was far too boring to continue, you made up some stats, you challenged the sourced refs I gave you, etc etc). Just support this nomination, and I'll oppose it and we can move on to do better things. Deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                • Well, that's a first time anyone here has explicitly admitted they'd oppose a blurb no matter what in the name of "made up criteria" and against "made up stats". Congratulations. –HTD 20:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • I have no idea what you think you're trying to say. I have said no such thing. I oppose the blurb as it is irrelevant and not ITN-worthy. The reference to made up stats is simply to your own proclivity to try to prove straw man arguments using your own research. I have no more time to deal with your particular line of "argument". Feel free, as you always require, to have the last word. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Am I following this correctly, that this is a new structure for the sport a sport called football that doesn't actually involve one's feet touching the ball? Or is it a structure that's existed for 146 years but this is the first time it's been needed? I'd support the former, because rule changes in major sports are rare. The latter ... meh. In general, I always thought we used to post too much domestic sport (of whatever national origin). I don't know if that's still the case, I've been less active here until relatively recently, but as a general rule I think we should normally post major international tournaments but typically not domestic tournaments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is the former. There have been many systems since the 19th century (some of them really informal & unofficial) but none of them have been good. How about a tournament? No one ever had that in the rules before. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • See mythical national championship. I believe football is still the only college sport that does not have an official top league winner. Until tonight. The NCAA (official college sports authority) certifies titles in dozens of other sports (by you know, having them play it out). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Note that AFAIK, the NCAA still won't certify the College Football Playoff champions as "NCAA champions". –HTD 20:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • So... why isn't rugby football called handegg? Same egg-shaped football, both are called football, and both use hands to propel the ball. (LOL) –HTD 20:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Helpful, really helpful. (In actuality, a rugby ball is much larger than an American football, and doesn't have laces to make holding it so much simpler....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Look, let's just close this discussion. This has escalated into absolutely nothing productive. The snipefest above is almost a decent self-made argument for not posting sports at all on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure who you're referring to here, I simply stated facts about the size and construction of the ball in question. I imagine your comment must be aimed elsewhere, or else it makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously. I have trouble believing this is a serious nomination? It's a joke, right? Or is somebody trying to make some point? Fgf10 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay I admit I was trying to make a good story without too much undue weight but I didn't make anything up. This is still a more popular sporting event here than the pro baseball finals, pro basketball finals, pro hockey finals, FIFA World Cup, golf, tennis, motorsport.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @Fgf10: Why is it "obvious" that this should be opposed? Just saying it is "obvious" is not sufficient. Unless you have evidence that this nomination was not serious please assume good faith. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well it seems pretty clear. a) A sport that has essentially zero global impact and b) Nowhere near the top level of that sport, an amateur university competition. Obvious! Fgf10 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sports events don't have inherent significance; their significance is cultural. So what that this is a university event? Who cares that it is nominally amateur? It is still an event with huge cultural significance and massive public interest in the US. It may seem strange to us that they care so much about a university tournament, but that's irrelevant. The fact that it is mainly of interest in one country is not disqualifying - we post the Gaelic football championship, which is ITN/R, despite it only being of much interest in Ireland. We do it because of its cultural significance and popularity in that country, and we should post this for the same reason. And frankly this is far more culturally significant and popular that the Boat Race, the one university sporting event that is on ITN/R - that certainly doesn't generate the same level of passion and interest that this does. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So If I've read the above correctly, the rationale for posting this is that it's the tournament-decider for a major sports league in the United States. Is that right? And all the stuff about history and format changes is totally irrelevant to the nomination. Am I right? Essentially, the argument is that this final should be ITN/R and there's nothing that makes this year's event more special than other years', except that it's just been introduced. Is that right? If so, then (a) you've done a terrible job of promoting your nomination. Sorry, but it's true. All the trivia has completely put people off. (b) the comparisons to other sports are not very helpful. Eg. the Boat Race has an estimated audience that exceeds the population of the United States and covers more than 3/4 of the nations on Earth, and the claim above that it is more popular than the FIFA World Cup is just ludicrous. So, you're no doing yourself any favours here, either. (c) I'd be persuaded to change my opinion to a weak support; sorry that all the noise about irrelevant trivia above means it will come too late to make a difference. GoldenRing (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Billion Dollar Sport the net revenue of the top-10 college football programs for 2013 in the US was over $500,000,000.00. That's only the top 10 schools, and only the net, not the gross. Source quoting US Dept of Ed. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • comment . I still don't understand what this nomination is about. Is it about there being national champions in a sport for the first time? = 1st rationally decided ones, yes Is it about rule changes in a sport? = yes Is it about Barrak Obama's support for a sport? = no Is it about this being the 146th (or whatever) season ending game? = yes Is it about how much money has been paid for a sporting event? = shows significance Is it about TV rights? Is it about computer programs? = twas part of the old method Is it about American cultural significance? = yes Is it about something else? The blurb (as TRM has pointed out several times) is basically incomprehensible to someone who doesn't follow the sport, and this discussion doesn't help me understand it either. If you want this posted on ITN you need to be able to explain, clearly and concisely, to people who don't understand the sport why it is significant. I still don't even know whether this is the final match = yes (or simply the deciding match) in a league, the top two teams in a league playing each other again = no, the last match of a knock-out competition = yes, the best two teams in a league (as determined by something other than match results) playing each other = that's the old way, the top teams from different leagues playing each other = no, or something else? Whether this is or is not suitable for ITN, this discussion should be held up as an example of how not to promote a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'm an American watching this as I write and I don't understand why others are so vehement this be posted. The entire nom comment reads like a very POINTy agenda or, more likely, mocking the supporters of this nomination. This is an amateur level league which purely exists as a feeder league into the actual professional league, the NFL. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess having a little fun and imitating the movie Gladiator's dramatic entrance and the artsy history synopsis method of nominating is confusing and a bad idea. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd have said it hasn't played well. GoldenRing (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bzweebl, we shouldn't post about amateur leagues in ITN. SeraV (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - "Amateur leagues"? Gimme a break. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposed ALTblurb. SpencerT♦C 06:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One-country competitions really don't deserve to be featured here unless they're really big-name events, e.g. the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals. Do we generally feature college football or basketball champions? WP:ITNR tells me no, since they don't expect to get more than one story annually for American football and no more than three in basketball. The method of deciding the champion has changed: so what? It's not more significant in the grand scheme of things, especially since it's a sport almost completely unknown in most countries. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We post many single-country events; As it states above, "Please do not oppose an item because it is not on ITNR" and "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive". 331dot (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • For one thing, I'm making a logical argument, not a simple complaint or misusing something written elsewhere on this page. For another, please read what I said: I used ITN/R as evidence that we haven't generally featured NCAA football (or basketball) champions. I'm just expanding the "not a particularly significant event" by giving background research into what we've done before with comparable events. The burden is on you to justify why we need to treat this championship differently, just because it was achieved through a different process. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a better update. FWIW, I'm Australian. College football is the equal of any the four US major leagues by just about every measure except player salaries. The amateur status of the competition does not detract from its massive popularity and economic impact. The playoff, as the competition's designated pinnacle event, should be posted, as with other sporting leagues and knock-out tournaments.. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose WTF? This American shit cannot go on the main page.--Droneanddrone (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Droneanddrone: Do you have a specific reason for that view other than curse words and anti-Americanism? 331dot (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • You cannot simply recall on the guideline that we don't accept the argument of opposing a nomination relating a single country and its economic impact to throw away its status as an amateur sport. The nomination itself reveals a sport success but not records in all the side effects derived from it. What I want to see here is a sport success that is worth hearing, not a blown commercial story woven within the pride of the people from a single country. Compare with the other stories already appearing on the main page: we don't have Charlie Hebdo shooting because one of its side effects was the effects on the financial markets or the fear among the journalists in other satirical magazines around the world.--Droneanddrone (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
        • So I assume you oppose posting The Boat Race, an amateur sporting event(which is ITNR)? For an "amateur" sporting event, college football generated hundreds of millions of dollars a year and is followed by tens of millions(with some collegiate stadiums like Michigan Stadium larger than professional team stadiums). This is no ordinary amateur sport- but I thank you for posting an actual argument. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • reiterate my previous oppose. Having actually found some articles that explain what has happened here, this is not actually a very significant change. Previously two teams were selected as the best (by a computer using statistics afaict) and played off against each other in a final. Now, four teams are selected as the best (by a committee of 13 people using criteria I haven't been able to find) and play off against each other in two semi-finals and a final. It still isn't sanctioned as official by the relevant governing body. If this was a league or cup final in the sense used by soccer, rugby union, cricket, etc, etc, then I might be convinced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Saying it "isn't sanctioned as official" is a complete misunderstanding. The best comparison I can think of is the golf majors, where tournaments like the Masters and the U.S. Open aren't run by the PGA of America, but are official events in every sense, and more prestigious than a normal PGA tournament. Likewise, in college football the bowl games are run by organizations other than the NCAA, but are more prestigious than the regular-season games. The bowl games, including the national championship, are official games in every sense (e.g., they count for career statistics, follow all NCAA rules, players or teams ruled ineligible by the NCAA can't play, etc.). The NCAA specifically doesn't run a championship because the teams can play in the bowl games, and instead designates which teams are eligible for bowl games (by classifying them in the Football Bowl Subdivision, the top half of the top division of college football). Also, really, the regular season games aren't run by the NCAA either, but by the conferences . . . the NCAA just sets the rules so that everyone is playing by the same rules. Each conference determines its own champion, and then the bowl games invite teams (with the more prestigious bowls getting first pick of the teams to invite, and with most bowls having an agreement with certain conferences to always invite a team from that conference). You could think of the bowls as a little like the Champions League in soccer, and the conferences as a little like the various European soccer leagues, except that in college football you normally play 4 games outside your own conference in the regular season (out of 12 games, i.e., 8 are within the conference), and the bowl games are only single games, not a tournament. Since the 1990s, the top bowls have had a system in place to try to match up the top two teams, so as to determine one champion. Starting this year, they decided to have the top 4 teams play in two of the top bowl games, then have the winners play in the national championship game, when before that they just put two teams directly into the national championship game. I agree that this isn't really a significant change that makes this year's championship game any more significant than the ones in previous years. But it is actually a championship, run by the agreement of the conferences and the top bowl game committees, with the sanction of the NCAA. Calathan (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This is analogous to a "league or cup final in the sense used by soccer, rugby union, cricket, etc", only that instead of coefficients which are based mostly from past seasons' results, the "committee" uses "this season's results" plus some other metric that they could think of. Granted, this is subjective, but you could argue the same for UEFA coefficients: France is 11 points away from Italy's coefficient, but they both get 3 Champions League berths, but Russia only gets 2, despite being just 2 points away from France. Try doing that in the college football system, and it could produce some bad results if a conference emerges to have a crappy season, but still has many berths due to impressive results in the previous seasons. American college football players can only play for a maximum of four years, so roster turnout is liquid; a best player may leave just as their "coefficient points" were racked up, only to lose impressively because they now suck. –HTD 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're making the argument against the nomination, here. If its significance is based on such arcana as this, it's ITN material. I've changed my !vote above accordingly. GoldenRing (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Several good reasons have been given. Theres some bad arguments on both sides. eg the claim we dont post amateur sports is certainly false.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As a keen observer of events here, I have decided to create an account just to support this nomination for In The News. I can clearly see the level of dedication, support, media interest and money that is bequeathed to this particular sports tournament. Whether you don't "get it" seems hardly relevant to the importance of the story at hand. And I don't watch American Football save for the Super Bowl... --Smirking Cat (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
8,000 words. Sca (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strip away the massive infobox and table in the middle of the page and there's really not much of an article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • That is true. This article needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added some sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I usually do not support these "american national sports articles" but this one is a record. Seems notable beyond the usual "results noms",--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    In what sense do you believe it to be a "record"? Just because the way the winner was decided has changed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ratings record' FWIW, this set a cable television ratings record with an 18.5 Nielsen rating.[20] That equals 33.4 million viewers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Excellent. So, do you know, or can you find out, what are the typical ratings for that annual thing of paddling canoes down the Thames? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • According to the lead of The Boat Race, they get 15 million television viewers. So yeah, this little competition here more than doubled it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
        • It might help your cause if the condescending bullshit took a break for a while. But if all most of you have is "wahhhhhh it's more important than the Boat Race waaaaaah" perhaps there's no point in discussing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I think this is a legitimate point. Twice as many people watched last night's college football championship than watch the boat race. That speaks volumes as far as importance goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Of course you do. And next time you find the ITN criteria citing that if A is posted, B must be posted, and next time you find the criterion which says TV viewership in a single country means "importance", let us know. By the way, let me know how you counted viewers outside the U.S. for this event, that would be fascinating.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
              • In spite of nearly overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it seems that you're unwilling to recognize that this is a highly nationally significant event. Or did it not occur to you that ITN isn't just about international stories? Ridiculous.--WaltCip (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
                • OK boys lets all calm down. This interaction leads nowhere and is filled with users who is not interested in discussing but more so arguing so just step back.. non of you decides what others should think anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
                  • But especially to user The Rambling Man, come one that kind of language and that kind of provoking behavior isnt that a little beneath you. Is it really necessary to take everything so seriously. Take a deep breath and calm down.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously this event isn't as big as the Super Bowl, and obviously it's below professional level, but that doesn't mean it's not significant enough to be posted. The amount of coverage/press leading up to, during, and after the game is quite large. As shown above, nearly double the amount of people watched this event than the Boat Race. This event is also covered in Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico again, France, Switzerland, Switzerland again, France again, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Italy again, among many other countries, so it's not just the US who cares about this event. Andise1 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose,Neither the rule-change or the result of the playoff created in the rule-change has international resonance. Arguments about how much money it made are grasping at straws. APL (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Arguments about "international resonance" are grasping at the air in between the straws. –HTD 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe responding to about every single oppose vote is grasping at air between the straws. C'mon, each person can have their own opinion, and then we can carry on as usual, right? :) --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please can this be closed. I don't think that this is going to come to a consensus and its getting acrimonious now. I have commented above but do not wish this comment to be associated with one side of the argument. 5.179.100.129 (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Amen to that, brother IP. GoldenRing (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I disagree with the above closing and its rationale; I'm not sure how most of the oppose arguments are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT and once you remove those I think the consensus is pretty clear. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, and once you remove the WP:ILIKEIT supports, you're back to no consensus to post. Resolute 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The supports are not ILIKEIT. They are rational arguments related to its significance. Most(not all) opposes are something like "this is amateur level and has no following or interest outside of US", the latter of which is not true(and it is not a valid argument as stated on this page); while it is 'amateur' it generates hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and is a significant cultural influence. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Further, other arguments are "I don't understand it" which is a reason to read the article or seek an explanation, not a reason to oppose. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

January 11Edit