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

May 31Edit


[Closed] Gangnam StyleEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 13:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gangnam Style (talk, history)
Blurb: Psy's "Gangnam Style" becomes the first video to reach 2 billion views on YouTube.
News source(s): TIME, Independent Online CNET

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: A rare opportunity to feature entertainment news. This is being treated as big news by RS (see links above) who are treating it as chance to commentate about the changing music industry and the emergence of K-pop. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was "news" too when it was the first to pass 1 billion views. Arbitrary mark for all purposes. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Also to add that YT viewcounts are one of those things that can be greatly inflated via social drives (eg reddit, etc.) so this is really an artificial number. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem.--98.180.53.48 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose it's certainly in the news, and while I'm loathe to confess that three of those two billion hits were mine (my son likes the funky beat), I have to side with Masem, it's too arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not all news has to be "serious" so to speak. And 2 billion views for the first time is notable in this time of social media etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, when the video passed 1B views (it being the first one to do so, too), it was also reported news. It was also then the fastest growth of such a video, beating other other longer-lived videos to the 1B mark. But we didn't post it then, and the 2B mark is rather pie-in-the-sky compared to that. This is, unfortunately, what I think DYK should be able to take (it's a great "interesting fact" to guide people to respective articles), but the updating aspect would completely fail to make DYK's requirements. I really wish there was a midpoint between the "interesting"-ness of DYK and the "current event" approach of ITN for things not pressing but still showcasing good article content (eg, the Gangnam Style article is rather impressive to start). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Though it brings me good memories, I agree too with Masem that numbers may be inflated. However, the closest video to Gangnam Style is Bieber's Baby, with litle more of 1 billion views. Gangnam has still a lot of views. (What if you count parodies? Gangnam Style may even be the most popular song of all time) Küñall (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - big news coverage - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is news for Youtube, but not the rest of the world. View counts are not the best way to judge a song as it does not indicate sales, airplay or live performances. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consensus in previous discussions of the price of gold, stock markets and so forth has always been that these sort of numeral milestones can't be articles of their own, let alone ITN material. By my personal measure of ITN-worthiness—"could a documentary be made on this?"—this event utterly fails. Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia of the highest order. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons given; I agree view counts are not the best indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - news regarding a video with 2 billion views is a better news item to add than a cult with ONLY 3 million followers..--Stemoc (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Stemoc referring to that religion as a "cult" is just offensive and I request that you stop doing so on this page. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That figure further only means that it has been viewed 2 billion times not that 2 billion people have viewed it. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
its to apply that what we regard as the 'standard' for the ITN section has now been reduced so something such as this is a 'pass' in my books and yes its 2 billion views, we can honestly say that it was viewed by a 100m people, at the very least...--Stemoc (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't care why you are calling it that; you can make your argument without being offensive. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And as Masem pointed out, views can be inflated. As is also noted, we posted when it passed 1 bn views. Will we post each time it passes another billion? There are more important things to post at present, election season for one. Thanks, Matty.007 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree Matty, but if you look at the current ITN, all but one actually belongs there..we are supposed to select based on 'newsworthiness', not emotions, I bet a google search for gagnam would have more bigger results than for a syrian church..had it been some other time, i would have opposed this but since we only select based on what certain groups of people deem newsworthy adn not what actually is, this will get my support..--Stemoc (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
ITN is not the same as a news ticker. We select candidates based on importance to the global WP audience and the quality of the articles that they refer to, and make no attempt to try to "balance" the stories in the box. In the sense of importance of GS passing 2B views, that's a matter of trivial nature even though the "story" is being widely covered. There's nothing special about 2B views, compared to when it was the first to pass 1B views too. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) By definition, newsworthy is relative to someone's opinion. Arguing against an item on the main page is more for errors, and seems more of an other stuff is happening argument rather than arguing for this one. Thanks, Matty.007 13:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Guys, its not that it's a trivial topic, it's that it's an open-ended, arbitrary numerical milestone. It's not like a prize. Abductive (reasoning) 15:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd call it trainspotting but same result, not really ITN material :) --MASEM (t) 23:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, it was not posted at 1 billion views (and probably not nominated). Had it been, I wouldn't have nominated 2 billion views. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks, Matty.007 15:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] U.S. soldier freed by TalibanEdit

Article: Bowe Bergdahl (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After nearly five years in captivity, U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, 28, released by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network in Afghanistan — in exchange for five Taliban prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanmo Bay, Cuba.
Alternative blurb: ​U.S. government makes deal with Taliban-aligned faction for release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held nearly five years, in exchange for five Taliban prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanmo. (Strikethroughs = tightening — Sca.)
News source(s): NYT [1], AP [2], Huff Post, Guardian, CNN, Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bergdahl was reportedly the first U.S. prisoner to be released in a guerrilla war such as that in Afghanistan. President Obama was criticized by a few conservative lawmakers for the deal. Sca (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I dunno, it seems that ITN doesn't posts prisoner exchanges. Abductive (reasoning) 15:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This is unusual in that it's the first result of U.S.-Taliban negotiations, which have gone on sporadically for several years. Sca (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most of the media is treating this like a human-interest story, and this nomination feels similarly US-centric. I agree the negotiations and exchange are notable. It could work if reframed as something like "The United States and Taliban exchange prisoners after negotiations..." (the Taliban five being theirs). But I don't know if that's even notable, given the small number of prisoners involved. ToBk (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
On June 2, NYT began its second-cycle story thus: "The freeing of five senior Taliban figures in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has offered both a rare insight into the insurgent group's inner workings, and a ... diplomatic first in the long Afghan war: a negotiated agreement between the highest levels of the U.S. government and the pinnacle of the Taliban command." (My emphasis.) [3] This is a significant event. Sca (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this the first time the US government has conceded and made a deal with a terrorist organisation? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading something like that Sunday, but I'm not sure.
I do know Bergdahl was the only U.S. prisoner held by the Taliban et al. in, or as a result of, Afghanistan. Sca (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It definitely contradicts their policy here. Thanks, Matty.007 16:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does, and it seems likely to be an issue in Washington. See "Debate stirs over US-Taliban captive swap." [4] Sca (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to support if it was told in that manner, not so matter-of-factly, i.e. "US government make deal with Taliban in prisoner exchange" (along those lines) as for me, the news story, the only news, is the complete hypocrisy of the US government here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
See new altblurb above. Sca (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support although even the revised blurb probably still needs tightening. The relevant issues are the prisoner exchange, the two sides and the conflict, and a Bergdahl name check. Things like durations of imprisonments and where they were held are fluff that the reader can determine on click through. 3142 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, see above ... although five years is a long time to be held prisoner by the likes of the Taliban. Sca (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb or Jayron's blurb per Sca and Jayron Smurrayinchester 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support assuming the blurb makes it clear that the US government made a deal with a terrorist organisation in order to free a man who is now suspected of being a deserter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    It is not ITN's job to take sides in a political debate. --Jayron32 22:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Not taking anyone's side, but from what I've read & viewed/heard, it's not known what his motives were. There are specific criteria re desertion, and it may a bit simplistic to say he's "suspected of being a deserter." In the U.S., Presumption of innocence applies to military cases, too — and that presumption has been affirmed by several U.S. officials in commenting on the Bergdahl case. Keep in mind, he's not charged with anything ... now. Sca (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion as a notable event. Oppose any mention of partisan charges or speculation regarding the event, that can be dealt with in the article, not on the front page of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Support Hostage exchange with terrorist organization is pretty big news, especially concerning the five who were released.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted with straight-forward "just the facts" blurb: "The U.S. government agrees to release five Taliban prisoners in exchange for the release of Sargent Bowe Bergdahl." feel free to suggest tweaks to it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment by nominator — After all this time, I'm amazed that it's finally been posted, although — call me biased if you wish — the order of the blurb seems backward to me. What's wrong with The U.S. government secures the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban prisoners? Believe that's the sequence followed by most English-speaking media when this was breaking. Sca (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
PS: In the U.S., "Bergdahl" has become a household/headline name. Sca (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sca. The wording order should be reversed: The U.S. government secures the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban prisoners. Nonetheless, I am glad to see that this was posted, after all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

May 30Edit


[Posted] Malawian general election, 2014Edit

Article: Malawian general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Peter Mutharika (pictured) is elected president of Malawi.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 --Nathan121212 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks good; clearly should be posted. Oppose suggested picture though; it's too weird and does not show Mutharika very well at that resolution (he's signing a guest book.) Maybe a crop of one of the other pics of him? ToBk (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work on the article. Formerip (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: how about File:Peter Mutharika cropped.jpg as an alternative (shown right)? Thanks, Matty.007 11:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Much better. (I wonder why there seems to be water splashed onto his suit in the zoom.) ToBk (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support: I was considering nominating this myself too, but was too lazy. This should definitely be here for many reasons although perhaps the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the vote might be mentioned? Brigade Piron (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted without a pic - I believe the current image is higher quality, and there is no pressing reason to switch. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Veterans Healthcare Administration scandalEdit

Closed per request of the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: [[Eric Shinseki]] ([[Talk:Eric Shinseki|talk]], [{{fullurl:Eric Shinseki|action=history}} history])
Blurb: ​U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki resigns amid a Veterans Health Administration scandal.
Alternative blurb: ​U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki resigns amid a Veterans Health Administration scandal.
News source(s): BBC
 --Pine 22:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you User:Pine for the nomination. I think creating a separate article about the scandal as proposed on Talk:Veterans_Health_Administration#V.A._Hospital_Scandal might be a good idea for commenters here to look at, if you would be interested in creating that. If there isn't an updated article or section (yes, I know the Shinseki article has some information), it's hard to generate consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Spencer: I have started a new article and made updates above. What do you think? --Pine 07:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fairly big but not big enough for ITN IMO. The resignation of a cabinet official of one of the lesser known departments of any country just doesn't cut it. Rumsfeld resigning was ITN level. This not.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with Johnsemlak. I believe(could be wrong, but...) that Shinseki was not accused of misconduct or mismanagement himself; he was the scapegoat for the actions of lower-level people. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Agree with 331dot. Several talking heads on U.S news shows May 30 said much the same, although "scapegoat" is perhaps a too exculpatory. Shinsaki was faulted for having presided over an agency accused of "systemic" faults and even mendacity by lower-level officials. Sca (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Point well taken. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your comments. --Pine 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

May 29Edit


[Posted] Eurasian Economic UnionEdit

Article: Eurasian Economic Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The leaders of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus sign a treaty to form a Eurasian Economic Union.
News source(s): TIME

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major economic treaty with widespread political consequences --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment certainly significant, the article carries an orange maintenance tag and has some serious reference format issues that could be resolved to help us understand what this is all about. A couple of in-line maintenance tags too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Thaddeus; notable international agreement with potentially significant effects. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no mention of how proposed membership in this union brought down the Ukrainian government. Until the article is updated it shouldn't be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. No doubt this is a significant enough thing to post about. But is the best time the signing of the treaty or the coming into existence of the union? Formerip (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB, 331dot. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man and Abductive: - I have expanded the article; please let me know if concerns remain. @FormerIP: I believe now will be the point of greatest press coverage. The agreement going into effect (on Jan 1, 2015) is a formality - the meaningful news is now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is now assuredly going to happen, and from what I remember they are also already looking at bringing in other former Soviet bloc states under this in the future. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
    You remember correctly - two others are likely to join by the end of the year, and a couple others are investigating it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Egyptian presidential election, 2014Edit

Article: Egyptian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Abdul Fattah al-Sisi (pictured) is elected President of Egypt
Alternative blurb: Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is elected as President of Egypt.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 --Matty.007 08:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, but I'd like to see more context information in the blurb. For instance, that al-Sisi was the ringleader of the 2013 coup d'état, or that the election was boycotted by Morsi supporters (only 44% voter turnout). --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Normally the blurb sticks to bare facts and the article it links to expands on these kinds of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I based this off the Ukranian election. Am going to expand results today. Thanks, Matty.007 10:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once missing reference #94 (refname "monitor") is fixed.fixed Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the lead and the results section are both a bit short. Perhaps neither is a disqualifier, but it would be nice if both are improved prior to posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Lead expanded, but not really much else I could say under results. Thanks, Matty.007 13:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I would say the lead still doesn't come close to summarizing the entire article, but I will not oppose. Consider me neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and added a photo, but why do we have an altblurb when the original blurb was correct? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Because the original blurb wasn't that good, I fixed it without noticing that an alt had been added. Thanks, Matty.007 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated and ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Several fixes applied, then posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought heads of states had their photos posted as well when elected. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't post the current image. Too much of his face is in the shadows, and at 100px nothing is visible, and the current ITN image works better at 100px (we can at least see details). The image could be reworked... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to note, I'll probably update the article when the percentages and the like come out. Thanks, Matty.007 09:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
An option for image, just in case...--Stemoc (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the quality of this image isn't very good - in my view it's underexposed. Exposure is just right for the sunlit hedge in the background, but way under for the subject's face. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Antioch Patriarchal ConsecrationEdit

Article: Ignatius Aphrem II (talk, history)
Blurb: Ignatius Aphrem II is enthroned as the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.
News source(s): Syriac Orthodox Church (official)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Enthronement of a well-Known church leader. --Hg andVenus 06:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The Syriac Orthodox Church is indeed one of the oldest in the region and arguably in the world, but it doesn't appear to be as influential as the Coptic Orthodox Church or the Armenian Apostolic Church and I'm not sure if we post anything about these on ITN. Also, what is the impact of this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Slightly unusual fare for ITN, but interesting and potentially significant given the situation in Syria. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To be honest I would love to see this posted, given that I have a particular interest in Oriental Orthodoxy, but I still can't find noteworthy covering of the story in the news.[5][6] The only sources I came across are these 10 days-old Armenian ones that only deal with the Armenian Church's reaction to his election, which was two months ago and made bigger headlines than his enthronement. There is also another one from the Times of India, which is good, but not enough in my opinion. I also fail to see any sources showing this to be relevant to the Syrian conflict, since the church is now based in Lebanon. This is certainly an interesting and colourful topic for ITN, but does it really comply with ITN rules? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't have "ITN rules", we have a "Purpose" and "General criteria". In my mind, something very interesting here would match the Purpose of "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the "point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" aspect was broadly what I was thinking of. GoldenRing (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • By "rules" I meant the event's notability and its coverage in the news, a criteria which it doesn't appear to meet. I would have definitely supported his election (the real deal) two months ago, but this enthronement sounds exactly like Narendra Modi's inauguration to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The objection to Modi's inauguration was that it was much too soon after his election. Hence my vote here - I don't thing we covered Mor Ignatius' election, but if we did, then we shouldn't run this story too. In this case I'd be willing to stretch a point and count coverage of his election towards evaluating whether this is 'in the news', since it's an area in which up-to-date English language sources are scarce. (I checked the Church Times website, but they only had a story about the Melkite Patriarch's views of the war in Syria.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Unless we previously posted his appointment. No need for both. In answer to Fitzcarmalan, I don't know off hand if we've posted anything for the Armenian Apostolic Church, but the selection of the latest Coptic Pope certainly made ITN. Heads of churches are a big deal. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with GoldenRing. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support though I am not 100% happy with the article. How does this position exactly relate to the original Patriarchate of Antioch? Nergaal (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when referencing in Ignatius Aphrem II is improved. This is a nice opportunity to feature religion, an area that is rarely in the news. However, at current the article is not up to standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Would Support per above if both articles were improved. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nominator's Comment There are a lot of articles on this topic needing improvement. 117.216.31.148 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 3.5 millions followers is not a particularly large church. If we posted every new leader of a church with that many followers we'd post far too many such stories. There is no evidence that this church or patriarch is particularly influential. I am also concerned that almost all the religious leaders we post seem to be Christian. We should not promote such systemic bias further. Neljack (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nominator's Comment This news is making huge headlines where I live (India). Hg andVenus 07:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'm sorry, I thought this was wikipedia; a database for knowledge, not a Church....Not a fan of silly 'religious' news like this making the main page and per Neljack..--Stemoc (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Stemoc what you consider "silly" may be very important to other people- if we posted items based on whether or not they were "silly" to someone, very little would be posted. Like it or not, religion is important to some people and merits coverage regardless of what I or you personally think. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
we reject cases where people are killed or even raped (recent india case) and yet something like this is far more important?, I don't think so. Some leader of an unknown cult getting more powers is NOT news to me...I'd rather we focus on the war in syria and not what religion "benefits" from it--Stemoc (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
To say this religion isn't large enough is certainly a possible argument, but there is no need to be offensive by calling it a "unknown cult". You also didn't mention the size of this religious group as an issue; only talking about "silly religious news". 331dot (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Mate if this was the inauguration of a pope or something at that level as its of interest to the GENERAL public, I'll fully support but this is one of those lower level "cults" and does not even deserve a mention in the news section. We leave that for more important events such as new leaders in eelctions, top level deaths or a major current event..it falls in neither..at the very best, it should be taken to the WP:DYK section..--Stemoc (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
If you think it's fair to describe a church with millions of members, dating back to late antiquity, as a 'cult', then I don't think you really know what you're talking about. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - the article is now updated and well referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted while I acknowledge the concerns of those in opposition (and indeed have sympathy), there's a clear consensus in support of this being posted. [P.S. good work Thaddeus]. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

May 28Edit


[Posted to RD] RD: Azlan Shah of PerakEdit

Article: Azlan Shah of Perak (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia Azlan Shah of Perak dies at age 86.
News source(s): [7][

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 major figure in Malaysia across multiple fields, deserving of a full blurb IMO. (How many people have been move headof state and head of the high court in their lives?) Azlan Shah started as a field hockey player, became a lawyer, rose through the legal ranks eventually serving on the country's highest court. After that, he became Yang di-Pertuan Agong (elected king). The state has announced "For one week, all entertainment and celebrations are cancelled"; teh flag will be flown at half mast for 100 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support posting but unsure of blurb vs. RD, and I won't say one way or the other because saying RD might be my own systemic bias. Definitely notable enough for posting as a head of state and justice on the highest court in the nation. Article does need work first though, as mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I can vote as I updated, but support full blurb: King of Malaysia is definitely worthy of such. Thanks, Matty.007 15:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Seems to be the done thing for heads of state and government. I do wonder (and this is partly a systemic bias thing) whether we could say "King of Malaysia" (common translation) or "Supreme Head of Malaysia" (official translation), rather than "Yang di-Pertuan Agong". As far as I can tell, the Malay title isn't used much outside Malaysia. Smurrayinchester 18:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment seriously, given the backlash from Maya Angelou having a full blurb, I'd think twice here. Mind you, most of the backlash came from people who don't contribute to this process, who knows. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, he was a King... I don't know if we posted the last time a British Royal changed, but we don't want to be accused of western bias... Matty.007 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • And he died of ....? And his global significance was...? Just being Devil's advocate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment - Three European monarchs (the Pope, the Queen of the Netherlands, and the King of the Belgians) abdicated last year. We posted all three, along with the election of the new Pope. I wouldn't expect any of them, except perhaps Pope Emeritus Benedict, to merit a full blurb when they eventually die. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    • He's not an American, so there won't be any backlash... Until such time as those unfamiliar with ITN successfully change the guidelines to reflect their desired criteria rather than the ones we've been using for the last 18 months, we should continue to follow our guidelines. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Angelou was posted less than an hour after being nominated. Criticising people for not contributing within that time-frame seems rather harsh. There was no time for consensus to emerge, just a bunch of people reacting to the announcement by heading straight to ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD once the maintenance tags are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb I don't think there is any general practice of blurbs for former heads of state - only when they were particularly important. In this case, he was a largely ceremonial head of state. Unlike many monarchs, he was not a long-serving head of state - because of Malaysia's system of elective monarchy. His contributions to law and hockey were significant, but nowhere near blurb level. Blurbs are for people of exceptional significance and influence, and I don't think this rises to that level. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    The other points are fair, but the King position has considerable actual power in Malaysia, not just ceremonial powers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy. Power chiefly lies with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Sultan Azlan Shah's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, exercised far more power than he did (Mohamed would be a strong candidate for a blurb). Neljack (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Significant individual dies of old age; exactly what RD is for. If for some reason a blurb is used, it should state 'Former head of state' rather than Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Chief Justice, the magnitude of neither of which will be familiar to our readers. Modest Genius talk 22:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD ideal RD material GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD but not blurb. I have started a discussion about the language of the article title at the appropriate talk page, following smurrayinchester's query. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD but not blurb - death of any head of state merits RD, but one has to wonder whether the subject's achievements in various fields would have come quite so easily had he not been royal family. Article needs some work though. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - after extensive work, I believe the article is now fit for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    I will post this in the evening if no one posts or objects. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD thus preventing a massive conflict of interest ;) Stephen 03:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Apple buys BeatsEdit

Articles: Beats Electronics (talk, history) and Apple Inc. (talk, history)
Blurb: Apple Inc. announces its intention to acquire Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine's Beats Electronics for $3 billion in the company's most expensive acquisition to date.
News source(s): Financial Post, The Verge

Nominator's comments: Significant acquisition by a significant organization. --ViperSnake151  Talk  22:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually its fairly insignificant given the size difference of the 2 companies... well maybe not to Dr Dre -- Ashish-g55 23:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has been in the works for awhile, and not a big surprise, plus the amount is rather trivial for at least Apple. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support major business deal affecting a major consumer brand. Being in the works for a while is irrelevant; if anything the fact we knew the deal was in the works, shows how high interest is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose garden-variety corporate merger/acquisition story. Not an industry-changing event. --Jayron32 00:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I disagree. News commentators are saying that this deal is strange. Perhaps the nominator can explain? Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing it as particularly strange. It probably is Apple's largest acquisition to date, and probably has made Dr Dre into "hip-hop's first billionaire" but from a news perspective, it's just another day. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
        • It shows me that Apple is on its way down. Under Steve Jobs, Apple would've never bought Beats, they would've developed new headphones that were better. But, that's my own original research / synthesis, so don't mind me. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I agree, with my techie hat on, this is very big for both Apple and other computer makers. But it's a very long game before we see that impact the overall field, and hence why this isn't really ITN material. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Jayron32. Although the deal does seem a bit strange (does this mean new Ipods will come with big ole Beats headphones instead of earbuds?) It's not a record deal, it's not an industry changing merger. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral It's tempting to see this as one maker of mediocre, over-priced but fashionable toys buying another maker of mediocre, over-priced but fashionable toys. But in the world they're in, such as it is, it seems significant news. GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - If you'd told me, when I first acquired a Beats product, that the manufacturer would one day be Apple's biggest buyout, I wouldn't have believed it. I tend to agree with GoldenRing and Rhodesisland, but it does seem to be in the news a lot. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Massimo VignelliEdit

Article: Massimo Vignelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times, Time, WaPo

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: Honestly I never heard of the guy, but the New York Times article above convinced me to nominate him for his work in graphic design. --– Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Massimo_Vignelli#Awards seems to show top-of-field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree he meets DC2 given the recognition he has gotten. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is improved significantly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Still requires citations and reduction in puffery (e.g. "became enthralled with design and befriended many of the great architects of his day"...) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
De-peacocked, some citations still needed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and Needs Attention. Once the article is up to snuff, seems to me that DC2 is met and this should be posted. Hey, The Rambling Man, how's the article now? Rhodesisland (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    There are two [citation needed]. Fix those & I will post this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    User:ThaddeusB, I have provided references for these. Marking ready. SpencerT♦C 03:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RD: Malcolm GlazerEdit

Article: Malcolm Glazer (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: Multi-billionaire owner of Manchester United F.C. and Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Article needs serious referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Unsure, leaning oppose Being a "multi-billionaire" or a sports team owner doesn't make one "top of the field". Ralph Wilson died not too long ago and I believe was not even nominated. Wilson's contributions to the NFL are considerably greater than Glazer's. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but think the article is too thinly referenced at the moment. Formerip (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present, as TRM said needs serious referencing. Will support if article referencing is fixed, owning one of the biggest football clubs in the world and an NFL team is definitely notable. Thanks, Matty.007 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. Did he contribute anything to the sports by virtue of owning the teams(influenced the rules, known for promoting the sport, etc.)? I'm not sure just being a wealthy owner meets any of the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In the case of Manchester United, the opposite, if anything; his takeover was met with multiple protests and the creation of a new club by disaffected supporters. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • He would count as one of the two best known sports team owners in Europe (along with Roman Abrahimovic). Formerip (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Would support if article was cleaned up some. --Jayron32 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The article needs work but he did own arguably the world's most popular soccer team and an NFL team. Calidum Talk To Me 01:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Does merely owning popular teams make him "very important" in his field? Did he personally contribute to their popularity in some manner? 331dot (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No opinion on whether to post or not, but Tampa Bay was a laughingstock of an organization for the whole decade of the '80s and first half of the '90s, being run on the cheap and losing every year, and before he acquired the team they were on the verge of moving. He changed the uniforms, got the team into a new stadium, and within a few years they were a perennial playoff contender and eventually won a Super Bowl. It didn't really last long past that, but the franchise's fortunes turned around almost as soon as he bought the team. PeteF3 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Manchester United and NFL fan here! But I just don't think he makes the criteria, and I am sorry to say that. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Malcom Glazer's takeover of Manchester United, the world's richest sports club (it's had the title off and on) was a massive event in the UK and made Glazer an immediate household name at least among people who follow football closely. There were a number of manifestations of this, but one of the more interesting ones was when the British media, who were hungry for any information on the Glazers, started packing NFL press conferences in the US and asking questions about the Glazers. Generally he's been viewed as very unpopular because of the way he took over the club by a leveraged buyout. All that said, I'm going to oppose because it seems unlikely that Malcolm Glazer's death will change the ownership much. His sons will continue to own the club.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, at least in the Recent deaths section LADY LOTUSTALK 14:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment In reading the article, it's worth noting that with Malcolm Glazer's death the ownership of the club is now equally divided among his six children (i.e. he was one of the seven owners). He never set foot in Old Trafford in Manchester. The club has been handled primarily by two of the sons Joel and Avram Glazer. So despite being the public face of the takeover Malcolm Glazer's role at Manchester United was pretty minimal and his death won't have much of an impact. I assume he was more involved with the Buccaneers but still this further convinces me to oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Our article Glazer ownership of Manchester United says Malcolm Glazer died on 28 May 2014 at the age of 85. However, his death is unlikely to mean any significant changes to the running of the club.[89]. However, if you follow football you will know he wasn't liked (putting it very mildly) by masses of Utd supporters. Take a look at these pictures... Thanks, Matty.007 17:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, basically per Matty.007. Nsk92 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [Posted] Maya AngelouEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was at the time of posting, and still is afterwards, in favour of a full blurb. The comments now are starting to get acrimonious so it's time to move on. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Article: Maya Angelou (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: ​Poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): CNN, NBC News BBC Globe and Mail

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: Leading American poet/writer. Article is an FA so should be in good shape, subject to updating to reflect her death. No doubt more reports / retrospectives will follow. --BencherliteTalk 13:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I initially suggested RD only, but am more than convinced by the comments below that a blurb is appropriate. For those who like seeing things in bold print, though, support blurb. BencherliteTalk 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely Support RD given her career and recognition; I think the argument could possibly be made for a blurb here. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb when updated I'm not sure if, until today, there was a better-known living poet than Maya Angelou, nor a more important one. The article needs some more context- quotes from notable people and whatnot, which I have zero doubt will come throughout the day- but in my eyes, she is unquestionably deserving of a blurb. Something along the lines of "Poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou dies at the age of 86."-- Mike (Kicking222) 13:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
support full blurb high degree of notability in her field and well known worldwide.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

− *Support full blurb - perhaps the best known living poet in the world. Article in good shape.--ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Does 2 sentences constitue an update? full posting is fine, but needs an update FIRSTLihaas (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's now got a few quotes reacting to her death (Obama, Clinton, Harold Augenbraum); the prose had already been put into the appropriate tense. I don't think we'd want the article to be filled with quotes from random celebrities mourning her death on Twitter, would we? There's not much to say about the death itself; when details are known of funeral / memorial arrangements, those can be added as appropriate, but I think it's sufficiently updated for now. Bear in mind that this is a featured article, in good shape generally, with a lot of assessment of her importance and her work from when she was alive, so whacking in an arbitrary number of sentences or paragraphs to meet the views of some at ITN isn't really always appropriate. I have changed your SHOUTING HEADER to a simple "Attention needed", which is enough, surely?. BencherliteTalk 17:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Update is sufficient, thanks all! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A legendary figure, this is the type of person a death blurb can be used for. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Full blurb per Lihaas. Resolute 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb. Excellent article, no danger of serious issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (Delayed by edit conflict) Support full blurb — An amazing talent in multiple fields. AP, in a 1,600-word obituary, [8] calls her "one of the first black women to enjoy mainstream success as an author, and thriving in virtually every artistic medium...." Sca (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. But it would be fair to say that, even though she was all three, she is mainly known as an author, rather than as a civil rights activist or poet. Formerip (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    I changed the blurb to "author and civil rights activist". Since a poet is a type of author, I think that change should be acceptable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Image? We have a few we can choose from. [9] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Why is this not for RD? I thought deaths of old age and otherwise lacking notability of and in themselves are RD? Without question notable person, but surely a prime candidate for RD? Just trying to understand the distinction here. Fgf10 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Full blurbs may be used for especially notable deaths (e.g. Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher), as well as cases where the death itself is the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, that's how I understood it. I'm just trying to understand why this was given a full blurb, as neither seems to be the case? By that reasoning Wojciech Jaruzelski should definitely have had a full blurb. Not passing judgement or anything, the system is just confusing me at the moment. Fgf10 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb which I think should be pulled. Certainly a significant person who merits an RD posting, but not influential or important enough for a full blurb. Those are supposed to be reserved for truly epoch-defining people e.g. Mandela and Thatcher. Angelou was nowhere near that level. Nothing was unusual or surprising about her death either. Modest Genius talk 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, happy to hear more thoughts on whether the blurb should be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • RD only, pull blurb. I agree, I haven't been convinced in my question further up that this is in any way blurb material. There have been far more nationally and globally important people in recent postings that have only gotten RDs Fgf10 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be interesting to hear of those you allude to. Of course, Jaruzelski was afforded an RD because a significant portion of the article was unreferenced, which was subsequently "hidden" so we didn't have the maintenance tags to worry about. Angelou's article is one of our finest, and shows Wikipedia in its best light. Please, though, list those "globally important people" we missed, it'll make interesting reading. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The quality of the article should have nothing to do with the decision whether to do full blurb or not, that's ridiculous. If the article isn't suited for main page posting, it shouldn't be posted full stop, RD or full blurb. And yes, the first example that came to my mind was Jaruzelski. Fgf10 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, perhaps you can participate a little more here to help us judge consensus better. We're always looking for extra opinions! Thanks for your interest here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I post here fairly regularly, but usually the topics go up so quickly (especially in the case of US topics), I come late to the party, as I don't have time to be on here full time.... Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Well one of the reasons I felt happy to post this was that at least two of those providing strong support were not from the US, and that major mainstream non-US news outlets are carrying her death on their main pages. Hope to see more of you around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It would perhaps be useful to keep a list somewhere of how deaths have been treated in the "RD era", as it were - who has made it to blurb rather than RD (Thatcher, Mandela), and who made it to RD rather than blurb when there was discussion of both options. Over time, that might help show how "blurb vs. RD" works in practice. BencherliteTalk 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • And going through the archives, I find that Gabriel García Marquez was given a full blurb, and treating Maya Angelou in the same way seems appropriate (although I initially just suggested RD). BencherliteTalk 19:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Previous mistakes shouldn't form the basis of current policy. Fgf10 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This unanimous decision from only last month was a mistake? BencherliteTalk 19:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I would consider that a mistake. Shouldn't have been a blurb in my mind. Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't a mistake. There is no requirement that someone must be globally influencial (and who says Angelou wasn't - author weild lotsof influence) to get a blurb. Seems to me the implied desire is that only politicans to get full blurbs.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
As above, I do consider it a mistake. And nope, no need to be globally influential. (And Angelou wasn't, for the record). RD is there for a reason, unremarkable deaths do not get blurbs. If that's not that case, we might as well do away with RD. Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it the creation of RD was never meant to totally preempt the possibility of a death still getting a blurb. Blurbs have been given for unusual deaths and the deaths of people who were tip-top in their field(not just "very important" as with RD). 331dot (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
331dot is correct - there was never any agreement that only unusual deaths get full blurbs. (Indeed, people often make the opposite mistake, thinking only very very important people get blurbs, forgetting full blurbs can be used for unusual deaths.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb (post-posting) - massively important figure. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb I completely agree that her significance and influence are subject of exaggeration here. Her death deserves mention in RD, but it is far from the level of sufficiency for a full blurb. Some may say that the threshold should not be on the level of Mandela or Thatcher, but there were many other people more influential than she was who did not get a full blurb. For instance, her name is almost unknown in many parts of the world; not to talk about international significance of influence of any sort.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. High quality article and an influential author. Gabriel García Márquez received a full blurb and deservedly so. SpencerT♦C 01:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. Per many of the reasons above. Gabriel García Márquez didn't receive such a backlash (for lack of a better term) when he got a full blurb last month. Calidum Talk To Me 01:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    Since you [two] start mentioning Márquez as an example and reason for posting, I'd say that her significance and influence are not even in the stratosphere of his.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    And I would respectfully disagree with your opinion. So that didn't achieve much, did it? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
In other words: "Thank you for your opinion, but I'm going to completely ignore it." Jeez I forgot what a mess ITN can be. I'm out of this place. Fgf10 (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what was actionable here? There's strong consensus in favour of a blurb. Nothing more to add really. Sorry you're off though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Suggest we add photo


Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against it, but the pic is not great at 100px. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
What about this one? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
True. Cropped? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is a cropping of the image, which itself is a crop..hehe..--Stemoc (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  Like Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

May 27Edit


[Closed] RD: Manuel UribeEdit

Clear consensus against posting this RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Manuel Uribe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sky News NY Daily News The Indepedent

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Uribe was internationally famous for being the world's heaviest person. His death is attracting international press coverage --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: top of field? Only reason he was notable was weight. I am not sure if we post that sort of thing. Thanks, Matty.007 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not top of any field. Being in the Guinness Book of World Records and this coverage is enough for him to meet GNG, but not ITN/DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Being the heaviest person in the world is not apprecibly different than being the oldest, which we happily posted. Obviously, we wouldn't post ever World Record holder who dies, but there are certain records of very high interest - oldest person, tallest person, etc. - I would sugegst this is one of those records. The RD criteria are a guideline, not an absolute law, and can be ignored when a person's notability isn't related to a specific field but rather a unqiue record or event. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see how ignoring the guidelines here would be beneficial- and doing so without some benefit would lead to others similarly ignoring the guidelines, rendering them without meaning. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I was against the posting of the death of the oldest living person, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Oppose. I am not seeing which of the three death criteria are applicable here. I don't think being overweight is a "field". 331dot (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose world's former heaviest man dies of a heart attack. Would oppose even if here still the heaviest. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Being fat is not an achievement.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BabbaQ and 331dot. Modest Genius talk 18:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

May 26Edit


Eamon GilmoreEdit

Article: Eamon Gilmore (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Irish Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore announces his decision to stand down
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Like Nick Clegg standing down in UK as far as I can tell. --Matty.007 16:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per nomination. If Nick Clegg stood down, it wouldn't make ITN. Minor highly-localised political micro-tremors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • To be fair I had no idea if we would post on ITN a deputy standing down. Thanks, Matty.007 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nick who? GoldenRing (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] PM ModiEdit

With the greatest of respect to our Indian friends, this is not going to be be posted. We may have posted an inauguration or two in the past, but we do not routinely do so nowadays. We may post governments falling, and we may post appointments that arise under unusual circumstances. But someone winning an election and taking their seat a few days later is not significant enough to be posted. Some of the comments in this discussion are starting to be tinged with vitriol and that is not conducive to anybody's work here. It's time to close this and move on. Stephen 06:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi (talk, history)
Blurb: Narendra Modi is sworn in as the Prime Minister of India.
News source(s): BBC,

Article updated
Nominator's comments: While Modi's party winning the elections was already posted to ITN, his swearing-in ceremony has been also got a lot of news as it is the first-ever-like-event with heads of 7 nations of SAARC attending it.
Please also include User:Gfosankar and the new User:Vishal Manve in the credit list. Can't seem to add more than 3 in the template. --§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not a new development, and much too soon after the election to be an independent story. (The Egyptian presidential election is imminent, by the way.) AlexTiefling (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment A swearing in, with so many heads of state attending, plus live Youtube straming. Why not a new development? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Swearing-in ceremonies in big nations have never been small things with tons of pomp and flair. This is nothing really "news" here because we already knew he would be sworn in. On the other hand, this is a great fact for DYK ("...that the swearing-in of PM Modi was the first such ceremony to be streamed live over Youtube?"), if your article is still in the time frame. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with that, a lovely DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • We posted Obama's inauguration did we not? India is a larger democratic state and this ceremony is getting large amount of attention due to Pakistan's Sharif attending. I will support -- Ashish-g55 13:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, 5 years ago, but a quick look at the nomination shows how much ITN has changed in these past few years. There looks like only one support? SpencerT♦C 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • well i dont necessarily disagree with Obama's posting either even though it was while back. For some countries it is a big event. In this case you have heads of 7 states including one that clearly hates the other attending. I highly doubt we will not post next one for US -- Ashish-g55 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Sounds like your opinion I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Not sure why you would say WP:OR... are 7 head of states not attending? Does Pakistan like India all of a sudden? If anything its my point of view which is all we do at ITN/C -- Ashish-g55 19:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
            • "one that clearly hates the other"? And just because "other stuff exists", it doesn't mean we should continue to make the some mistake. No need to post this, we all knew Modi was PM a week ago. What's changed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose we're not an Indian politics ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Wow. Obama gets all the coverage, but the Indian PM doesn't. Great. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    Barack Obama inauguration closed as "Clear consensus not to post" --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    That was his 2nd inauguration, his 1st inauguration and his election win both made it to main page. And in August 2008, both Obama and the other candidates's choosing vice president running mate also made it here back to back. So what does it make the INT then ? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    It possibly makes a significant difference that the inauguration and election victory are separated by only a few days in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    In 2009, ITN was an informal process with no clear criteria. People suggested items and if some admin liked it they posted it. Discussion of items was rare. Additionally, Obama's first inauguration was a unique historical occurrence with way more peopl in attendance/paying attention than usual. In other words, even if it would be posted under the modern ITN system (doubtful), it would be because of the unusual circumstances. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Change in the leadership for a a big country like India is significant. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would also tend to be against posting inauguration of presidents, but the swearing-in of a Westminster system PM is even less postable. While a president often waits months to be sworn in (Obama was elected in November and sworn in in February January), and the "lame-duck" period is strictly enforced, parliamentary prime ministers take office as soon as is possible - this was only ten days after the general election, and six days after Modi was invited to form the government. In other words, what AlexTiefling said. Smurrayinchester 14:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Very good point - the news he would be PM is still "fresh", and thus a good reason not to "re"post. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. We already posted the election result, and we never post swearing-in ceremonies. This is a formality. Also, the blurb doesn't make sense. Modest Genius talk 15:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is it not making sense? I tried all my best to write it in English. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I appreciate that English is difficult if it's not your first language. I just meant that the grammar should be corrected. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... lets sit and ponder on how it can be done instead of actually doing it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternate?: Is Nawaz Sharif attending the ceremony seen as a major news outside India? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Again, not so much news as it is an excellent DYK. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: nominated for DYK here on basis of comments, though will withdraw nom if this ITN nomination passes. Thanks, Matty.007 15:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: the oppose comments don't make sense. It is a very big event for Indian and Asian politics. To clarify "swears", he "has officially become" Prime Minister now.
Some ALTs from my side (I have not really read the Wikipedia article. It is on what I know from news medias)
ALT1: (change wording if necessary) Narendra Modi, once a tea-seller, officially takes charge of India's Prime Minister's post
ALT2 (change wording if necessary) For the first time in the Indian politics, all Heads of State and Government or their representatives of SAARC attended an Indian Prime Minister swearing ceremony. TitoDutta 18:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The oppose comments make perfect sense, he was elected, what, six days ago, and now he's been inaugurated. Why would we need two ITN entries, a week apart, to commentate on the same item? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the thing to consider here is that the election results have dropped off the ITN... otherwise we could have just bumped it. Think of it as same story being put back in since its fairly big at the moment. There are only a few countries where inauguration is a big event (which this clearly is) -- Ashish-g55 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. The inauguration of most elected heads of government is standard practice, and takes place soon after the elections, as it has in this case. There's no legitimate case for us to put yet another ITN blurb about the exact same story, it's nothing unexpected. If Modi hadn't been sworn in, that'd be newsworthy. This is just business as usual after his election win. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't post inaugurations or swearings-in; we already posted the results of the election. As pointed out above, Obama's was not posted in 2012, and in 2008 the process was very different and that inauguration was a historically significant event(first black man to be President of the US). 331dot (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly notable considering the number of foreign presidents and PMs attending it... So it can't posted twice? I remember we even had updates about the boston blasts last year! ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 00:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The Boston bombings were an unpredictable event with unpredictable consequences; here we have a scheduled election with the known winner taking office- which was a foregone conclusion. As TRM said above, if he had not taken office for some unforeseen reason, that would merit a second posting, but not the predicted consequence of the election. That would mean every election would get two postings. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It must be mentioned not because he took office as the PM but due to the attendance of hell lots of world leaders. Clearly, the arrest of suspects in the boston case was not an unexpected consequence. ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From the point of view of non-Indians, this event will be overshadowed by his victory just a few days ago. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, ITN has only posted a swearing of a prime minister once: the Dutch PM recently after years(?) of not having a government; the fact that ITN waited for the swearing in is that the appointment per se wasn't even sure that will push through in the end. The other swearing in that was posted was President Obama in 2008. Those are the precedents. Well, the Obama one was six years ago, and the more recent Obama inauguration was soundly rejected. The acceptance of the nominations of US presidential candidates were also posted in 2008; I dunno if those were posted in 2012. We've also, from time to time, bumped/posted appointments of a prime minister if there's a hung parliament, or the winner wasn't clear from the election result; ITN did that for the UK in 2010. So clearly, the precedent was the Dutch PM whose swearing in wasn't a foregone conclusion, or Obama's six years ago. Those are quite weak strings. –HTD 00:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It was BELGIUM...but then gaisn as the first homosexual MALE PM that was notableLihaas (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that he won just a few days ago. ... (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
support given we post pre-abbot Australia thrice and uk/Canada twice this is flagrant racist hypocrisy. its certainly in the newsLihaas (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
If those others were posted twice they sure as hell shouldn't have been. Abductive (reasoning) 02:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The kind of lousy reasoning being given here for oppose reeks of hypocrisy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No, we're admitting that if there were these posted before, those were mistakes based on how ITN is chosen nowadays. We have made many mistakes, I believe, at ITN, and as long as we can appreciate 20/20 hindsight to improve ourselves, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

May 25Edit


[Posted] Thomas & Uber CupEdit

Article: 2014 Thomas & Uber Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In badminton, Japan won the Thomas Cup for the first time after defeating Malaysia, while China retained the Uber Cup after defeating Japan.
Alternative blurb: ​In badminton, Japan wins the Thomas Cup for the first time, while China wins the Uber Cup.
News source(s): [10] [11] [12]

Article updated

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

 --... (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • For anyone who was wondering (like myself), the sport in question is Badminton. The nomination fails to mention this. Unhelpfully the first place I checked, the target article, does not mention the name of the sport anywhere in the prose. --92.30.187.11 (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • My mistake, sorry. Fixed. ... (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The blurb is hardly clear, either. China defended the Uber Cup after defeating Japan? So they defeated Japan, then went on to defend the Cup against...who? If you mean they defeated Japan to retain the Cup, say so. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There are two cups. Japan won one against Malaysia. China won one against Japan. If someone can write a better blurb, please do. ... (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
As you know what this sport is, and how it works, and I don't - and couldn't have learned from your blurb or your link - why don't you do it? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I did try, but I don't write blurbs often, so I'm asking for help. Well, there's an alt blurb now. ... (talk)
  • Comment - language needs cleaned up. Phrases like "showed patience and craft to win the match", "highlighted the confidence", "sparkled", "restored order", etc. are sportswriter speak with no real meaning, not encyclopedic decsriptions of the matches. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Cleaned up to your satisfaction I hope. ... (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thaddeus' concerns, and will seek, once again, the removal from ITNR if no satisfactory effort is made to get it up to snuff this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • People maintaining the article: get your act together. This has massive interest. It has more page views than the really pathetic page views of the Heineken Cup. It'll be a pity that a sporting event of such interest won't be posted. –HTD 22:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable per ITN/R, article looks fine. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Balaenoptera.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Although improved, I would say the text is still rather poor and could use a good copyedit. (It was likely written by non-native speakers and sounds odd as a result.) The article also lacks a proper lead. Badminton is undoubtable an important sport to a large chunk of the world (i.e. Asia), but I would still like to see a better article before posting. Perhaps one of the supporters can give it a nice copyedit and proper lead. If not, I guess I will try to get to it tonight. --ThaddeusB (talk)
    • I took a crack at it and made some copyedits. However, I haven't checked if the references did say "leaping smashes, diving retrievals and quick-fire exchanges"; if it did, then it can stay, but if it doesn't, perhaps it has to be edited in a more neutral tone. –HTD 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have further cleaned it up & expanded the lead. I believe its ready to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -Badmingtong is not my sport, but is a Olympic sport and this 2 events are the biggers of the year.--Feroang (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "featuring leaping smashes, diving retrievals and quick-fire exchanges" (for instance) is a direct copy-and-paste (i.e. "close para-phrasing") of this source. Please check the rest of the limited prose for such issues before we post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • My apologies - I just assumed that the mediocre English must be original, but it turns out it was actually copied to a large extent. (Most violations fixed by the copyediting already done). I have fixed the violation you pointed out and the only other one remaining, based on comparing all four sources to the text. the article should be ready for posting now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Indianapolis 500Edit

Article: 2014 Indianapolis 500 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Ryan Hunter-Reay wins the 2014 Indianapolis 500.
News source(s): Fox News USA Today

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R event. Andise1 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Article has everything except what it most needs - a textual summary of the race itself. It also uses poor style in some section (bullet point lists of facts instead of paragraph), which should be corrected before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A lot of the article is also written in the future tense (the race will be broadcast, etc.). Calidum Talk To Me 00:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mega huge article but no description of the race. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No prose update on the race. A complete synopsis of the race (major moments, lead changes, final results in prose) would all be necessary. There is NO prose update, and until there is, this should not be posted. As soon as there is, ITNR means this could go up. But the article needs prose. --Jayron32 16:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have added a textual summary of the race and fixed up the formatting throughout the article. Unless there are further quality-based objections, the article should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 01:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] European Parliament electionEdit

Article: European Parliament election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: European Parliament election conclude with X party winning plurality.
Alternative blurb: ​See discussion below.

Article updated

 --Tone 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. You don't actually get a winning party in the Euro elections, because different parties contest seats in different member nations. Suggest an alternative blurb could be the success of far-right/populist parties, which is likely to be the big story of these elections. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd concur with this: wait until the results and media coverage angles become clear, but go with a blurb about right-wing (e.g. Front national) success in the likely event that this is indeed what gets reported on. It Is Me Here t / c 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd be quite happy for us just to report the (virtually inevitable) EPP plurality. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that would make for a pretty weak blurb, given that the EPP is not on the ballot and relatively few people have heard of it. It's not something that is going to make headlines in any European newspaper tomorrow. Formerip (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support EPP plurality blurb We should follow our usual practice with elections of simply stating who has won a plurality (or majority) of seats in the legislature, which looks to be the EPP. That is the real story here, since it puts the EPP's candidate Jean-Claude Juncker in pole position to become the next President of the European Commission. The far-right and populist parties have done well in some countries, but rather less so in others (e.g. Germany and Italy). We can't convey the complexity of the situation in a blurb. We should go for the objective story of who has won the most seats, rather than trying to come up with neutral and accurate way of reporting on the performance of far-right and populist parties. After all, as Juncker pointed out, pro-European parties still won a large majority in the Parliament. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If we're worried people won't know the EPP, we can always say "The European Parliament elections conclude with the conservative Christian democratic/centre right the European People's Party winning plurality." Smurrayinchester 06:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Why not just put "the centre right" as the winners?Brigade Piron (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    Europe has at least three centre-right parties - the pro-European, Christian democratic EPP, the more eurosceptical, British-dominated ECR, and the anti-EU ELD. The EPP were the winners (on a reduced plurality) - the ECR did poorly and the ELD did well. Without naming the party, the blurb is useless. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support EPP plurality blurb, per Neljack. We should trust our readers to be smart enough to follow the relevant wikilinks in case they don't know what EU or EPP is. "Centre-right" is simplistic and vague. --ELEKHHT 07:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack. ... (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. How is it best to give some consideration to the fact that, within the UK (which covers a significant part of our readership), the EPP does not exist (no mainstream parties are affiliated to it), and therefore the blurb will be meaningless? The (massive) story in the UK (and France, Denmark, etc.) is the vote given to the right wing Eurosceptic parties like UKIP and the FN. I'm not asking for special treatment for the UK, but asking whether the blurb should be expanded to reflect not just the EPP plurality, but other implications of the election results where they are supported by reliable sources - example - in order to make the blurb more meaningful to more readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    It's a fair point, but it's difficult (would there be a way to talk about the UK general election while taking into account the factor that Labour and the Lib Dems don't exist in Northern Ireland?). It's worth noting that none of the Eurosceptic political Europarties have actually won much - UKIP gains were countered by other losses within their party at European-level - and the main Eurosceptic growth has been in the Non-inscrits, who are independents, and largely far right. It might be possible to mention that this election produced the largest number of Non-inscrits ever. Smurrayinchester 11:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Almost every Europarty lacks membership in at least one large country. (I don't think there's a single party except perhaps the Greens with representation in all 5 of the most-populous EU states, for example.) Neljack is right - we can't convey the complexity of the local situation (leftists in Spain & Greece, far-right in France and Hungary, anti-EU party in UK) in sufficiently terse blurb, so let's not. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
And the Tories were in the EPP until a few years ago, so it shouldn't be completely unfamiliar in Britain. Neljack (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
All valid points. Would an additional statement such as "...and anti-establishment groups making significant gains" be supported? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with EPP blurb (only). There's no need to mention the minor parties, regardless of how large their change was. The EPP is still the largest grouping. Oh and there should be an 'a' before 'plurality' in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is that the conservatives (ECR) are a separate grouping, resulting in this being a tad confusing particularly for those in the UK. --wintonian talk 17:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
My proposed blurb:
I think that avoids most of the problems mentioned above, adds a few helpful links, and indicates that the EPP was the largest party both before and after the election. Modest Genius talk 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: the article still needs some prose about the results and/or reaction. At the moment it has loads of build up and then just a results table. There are tons of sources for this. Modest Genius talk 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Modest Genius's blurb. ... (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We should say 'European People's Party'. Many people in Europe won't know what that is, but that's a real-world problem, not a Wikipedia problem, and they can always click through. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is no text on the results in the election article. That would be the perfect place to explain that the "anti-establishment" parties made big gains and such. The article is not fit for posting without an explanation of the significance of the results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be (yet) a consensus among political commentators about the significance of the results, at least in the English-language media I read. Europeans are dissatisfied with the rule of Brussels, except for those that aren't (who are in the majority). It's a new dawn for euro-scepticism, or maybe it's just a brief resurgence. Unhappiness with pan-EU migration is caused by the economic crisis rather than political fundamentals, unless it isn't. This confused editorial is fairly typical. So IMO any such section would have to resort to a "some say this, some say that" kind of thing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There is precisely zero text at current - nothing on gains made or anything else. Recations are normally written according to "analyst X ...", since it is obviously opinion - facts about what it really meant won't be clear for years. So, reactions like that would not be unqiue to this election. I will also point out that the results tabe is largely uncited. Is there a website that has all the results by any chance? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
European Parliament, BBC, The Guardian Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I added some text on the results and expanded the text on the (anticipated) formation of the new government. I believe the article is ready to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Shouldn't the blurb contain something about gains made by the populist/far right parties? To me, this seems to be the story in the news. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In my opinion (and that's all it is), we need to be objective and report the overall result. The article itself is the place, as far as I can determine, to discuss, in depth, the finer points of the elections, including the far right gains. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] IIHF World Championship FinalEdit

Articles: 2014 IIHF World Championship Final (talk, history) and 2014 IIHF World Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the World Championship concludes with Russia defeating Finland in the final 5–2.
News source(s): TSN

Both articles updated

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

 Heymid (contribs) 20:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Summary of the match is good, but completely unreferenced. Please add references to reliable sources to support the text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've added three reliable references to the summary. It should be fine now. Heymid (contribs) 23:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • On ITNR and looks fine to me. Marking [ready]. Modest Genius talk 15:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Heh. It's criminal got posted so easily when the more important one earlier this year didn't. –HTD 17:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Zz. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I tend to agree. The Olympic ice hockey tournament was much more important than this, and had full-strength teams from every nation. It's unfortunate that these facts are not reflected in the discussions/decisions here. Modest Genius talk 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Most certainly not in the discussions. Never mind, roll on 2018, we can all bitch about it again then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I hope we will have clarified ITNR before then! Modest Genius talk 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ukrainian presidential election, 2014Edit

Articles: Petro Poroshenko (talk, history) and Ukrainian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Petro Poroshenko wins the Ukrainian presidential election.
Alternative blurb: Petro Poroshenko is elected President of Ukraine.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 Matty.007 17:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Altblurb proposed (this isn't a sports competition). Support this regardless, but the Poroshenko article requires some attention. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the alt blurb, but it is not uncommon to refer to an election as something that is won. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Should Poroshenko be bolded? Matty.007 09:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell we don't bold representatives. Thanks, Matty.007 09:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. It Is Me Here t / c 10:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Working on issues with articles. Thanks, Matty.007 11:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Think I have resolved issues on both articles (more on Poroshenko than election). Thanks, Matty.007 11:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. ITN/R notable, articles look good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - election article needs more on the results. Especially given the general turmoil in Ukraine, the impact of result (i.e. analysis/international reaction) is a very important part of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. I would prefer a complete results table but this is fine for the time being. Poroshenko's picture is available so someone may want to put it to the ITN as well. --Tone 09:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Wojciech JaruzelskiEdit

Article: Wojciech Jaruzelski (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Wojciech Jaruzelski, last communist leader of Poland, dies at 90.
News source(s): BBC [13], AP[14]

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: Last communist leader of Poland. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Damnatio memoriae is probably much more fit for this guy. But he's cetainly notable enough encyclopedically, so, yes, support. μηδείς (talk) 12:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Though he imposed martial law in a bid to dampen support for Solidarity, in the long run Jaruzelski may have spared Poland a "Prague Spring"-style Soviet invasion, and ultimately he facilitated, if reluctantly, Poland's epoch-making moves toward liberal democracy. --Sca (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major head of state of a sizable country, historically important. Textbook RD. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Would also support a full blurb. Jaruzelski was the last surviving of communist East European dictators; he outlived Ceaușescu, Hoxha, Tito, Zhivkov, Kádár, Honecker and Husák. He was responsible for Poland's participation in the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, the massacre of shipyard workers in 1970, and the military crackdown on the Solidarity in 1981. — Kpalion(talk) 17:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A full blurb would also be a good idea here, per Kpalion's support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major historical figure. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this story seems to be getting enough consensus to post, the article has an orange tag on top about citations. I spotted a few paragraphs with no sources at all, including the death section. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I added the tag, you cannot have the fact that he faced murder charges insourced and the like. Thanks, Matty.007
  • Support blurb'. Important figure in recent Polish history. Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD but not blurb. Maybe if this was pl.wp. Formerip (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD but there are referencing and neutrality issues, The article will need quite a bit of work before it can be posted. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb Wojciech Jaruzelski was part of dark and disheartening period of history but he was, nonetheless, an important part of that history that should elevate him above basic RD listing. However, I agree with Neljack that there are significant article issues that need to be addressed. AgneCheese/Wine 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This has consensus to post, but in light of the issues raised, can we post it to RD? Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it should be posted at RD as a minimum, and that can be done right away. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Article has an orange original research tag. We have always considered that a disqualifier for a blurb/RD (which have the same quality standards). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, fair enough, several [citation needed] tags. Guess we need a helpful Polish political history expert to pop by and sort it out for us.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb per Kpalion. He was a major figure in world politics for a very long time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present. Article needs multiple citations before it is at a level suitable for the main page. Thanks, Matty.007 11:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Should we just purge this information for now and just throw it on the main page, since some of this could easily be removed for now and added back in on a later date (with a note on the talk page, of course). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't be a bad idea, could comment it out and, as you say, leave a note on the talk page requesting some assistance with sourcing etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Things which are fairly central to the article, such as his resignation as PM, shouldn't really be removed I don't think. Thanks, Matty.007 11:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - Article is not perfect, but seems up to minimum standards now. Thanks to all who worked on this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

May 24Edit


[Closed] UFC 173Edit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: UFC 173 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In mixed martial arts, T.J. Dillashaw defeats Renan Barão to become the Bantamweight champion.
News source(s): Fox Sports ESPN Yahoo Sports ABC News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: MMA is not currently represented on ITN but I think it should be. Specifically, UFC events are watched by lots of people and are usually big events. Also, this fight ended up being an upset, which obviously is not expected among those watching the fight. Although some may say UFC fights happen fairly often, that is not exactly the case. The PPV events (the most popular fights/the ones that get the most attention) only happen about once a month. The events which garner media coverage and have decent articles are the ones I feel we should post to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Doesn't seem widely covered outside specialist media. Saying that viewers didn't expect an upset is tautology, and tells us nothing about the notability of the event. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's covered in Canada, Russia, Greece, Poland, Croatia, Mexico, Korea, France, Sweden, Camobdia and Israel.
  • The "173" part should be enough of a reason to shoot this down. Nergaal (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I was about to defend that, but as it turns out UFC 1 was only in 1993, so on average, these events take place about seven or eight times a year, right? The last one was a month ago, and the one before that just six weeks earlier? What makes this nearly monthly event noteworthy? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They have these things every few weeks. It's not even particularly important sporting news, let alone real news. If one of these events is super notable for whatever reason I'd consider supporting it (or at least not opposing), but there needs to be much more of a story than "PPV event takes place as scheduled." --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The nominator's "the PPV events [..] only happen about once a month" indicates this isn't major news. —Lowellian (reply) 15:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Barão's defeat is surprising for the MMA community, but I don't think his defeat garnered as much as attention as Silva's two-time loss against Weidman, for example. Honestly, UFC title fights have to be incredibly notable to make it to ITN. Like I mentioned in a past discussion, I think St. Pierre's return to the UFC and his next fight will probably make it. Not this one. ComputerJA () 04:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Brussels museum gun attackEdit

Article: 2014 Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three people are shot dead at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in an apparent anti-Semitic attack
Alternative blurb: ​Four people are killed in a shooting at the Jewish Museum of Belgium.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian Le Soir CNN Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Both gun attacks and anti-semitic attacks are uncommon in Belgium. --Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is, as the nom says, unknown in Belgium and occurs very close to the national, local and European elections in Belgium at a time when the rise of the popularist far-right is noted across the continent...Brigade Piron (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Note that another victim has subsequently died, bringing the total up to 4.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but, although the wording "apparent anti-Semitic attack" is hardly unreasonable, I don't think we should use it in the blurb, since nothing is known about motive at the moment. Formerip (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree that we shouldn't mention antisemitism given the lack of confirmation. Given the lack of such confirmation, I oppose at present. I would probably oppose in any case. Regrettably, it is not at all uncommon for people to be killed because of their race, religion or other characteristics. I don't think that the fact (if it be so) that this is anti-Semitic rather than anti-Muslim, anti-black or anti-Arab is of any relevance. Neljack (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty uncommon in Western Europe, in the centre of a major capital. And don't pretend that the motives and contexts of murders aren't relevant to their newsworthiness. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed although the motives are unknown, pretty much everyone quoted in news reports is treating this as anti-semitic so it is not a characterisation original to Wikipedia. Even if it isn't anti-semitic, 3 people being killed in a gun attack at a major tourist site in the centre of Brussels is a newsworthy event in itself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
AlexTiefling, don't pretend that I said any such thing. All I said was that the fact that the target was Jews, rather than another minority group, was not relevant. Are you really saying that racially motivated murders of Jewish people are more important than racially motivated murders of black people or Arabs? Neljack (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying one is more or less important. I'm saying that they're different and not interchangeable, particularly in a part of Europe that was under Nazi occupation. The context of anti-Semitic attacks inevitably relates to that. That's what I mean by the context being relevant. I'm not trying to score any points here, but you do seem to be doing exactly what you claim not to be doing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
AlexTiefling, how am I claiming "that the motives and contexts of murders aren't relevant to their newsworthiness"? Our disagreement is merely over whether one bit of the context - the ethnic group that has apparently been targeted - increases its notability. I am certainly not advancing any broader proposition on the irrelevance of motive or context - for instance, I think that, all else being equal, a racially motivated murder is more notable than a non-racially motivated one. I am of course aware of the historical context in Belgium, but I would suggest that Arabs and black people are these days more likely to be the victims of prejudice, discrimination and hate crimes there than Jews are, so I find it hard to see why an antisemitic attack today is of greater significance in terms of the issues it raises. Neljack (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While the exact motive may not be confirmed, the attack has resulted in increased security at Jewish sites in Belgium (FWIW).--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Support - Notable event that was covered by many sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 04:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find the way that this nomination is going very curious because an equivalent anti-semitic shooting that resulted in the deaths of 3 people two months ago was roundly opposed: April_2014#.5BClosed.5D_Overland_Park_KS_attacks. Pardon me, did not read the nominator comment. SpencerT♦C 05:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the rarity of such an event and the wide news coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The news coverage about this story in Arabic media is scarce; I wouldn't have known about this if I hadn't read it here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well thank goodness for Wikipedia! And yes, I'm not surprised that this kind of story doesn't get much coverage in the Arabic media. But that's an entirely different story. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Champions League finalEdit

Article: 2014 UEFA Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, the UEFA Champions League concludes with Real Madrid defeating Atlético Madrid in the final.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - It is also their 10th title and I believe this should be mentioned in the blurb. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. In principle I support mentioning the 10th title but the snag is not all of them are Champions League titles precisely.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article seems to have everything except a textual recap of the game, which it does need to get posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    I've added some references and cleaned up the summary somewhat.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    Looks good, posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Mahafarid Amir Khosravi executedEdit

Article: Mahafarid Amir Khosravi (talk, history)
Blurb: Mahafarid Amir Khosravi is executed for masterminding the largest fraud in Iran since the 1979 Revolution.
Alternative blurb: Mahafarid Amir Khosravi is executed after being convicted on charges of bribery, embezzlement, and money laundering as part of largest case of fraud in Iran since the 1979 Revolution.


altblurb2 - Mahafarid Amir Khosravi is executed as part of largest fraud investigation in Iran since the 1979 Revolution.
News source(s): AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It is not everyday billionaires are executed. Khosravi was once considered the richest person in Iran, but his wealth was largely built on fraud and his house of cards came tumbling down in 2011. The fraud amounted to US$2.6 billion, the largest case since Iran the monarchy was overthrown in 1979. A total of 39 people were convicted on fraud-related charges and Khosravi was given the death penalty, which has now been carried out. Since the case was never covered here before, now would be a great time to feature it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - High profile executions are not unusual in Iran, but in this case it is very serious. Per nom, it is not everyday that a country's once richest man is executed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Why is the execution of a rich guy more serious than that of a poor person? Neljack (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If one is rich it usually means they are successful at their business/industry, and a nation doesn't usually execute its successful citizens. Further I don't know many countries that have fraud as a death penalty offense. In the US, such offenses are usually murders of children, police officers on duty, or murders during other crimes(none of which the rich typically do). 331dot (talk)
It's certainly more unusual for a rich person to be executed - no doubt partly because they can afford the best lawyers etc - but I hardly think a poor person being executed is less serious. Also it seems that here the allegation was that he had become very wealthy and successful through criminal activity. Neljack (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, the nomination is based on the notability of the "largest fraud in Iranian history" story, not just the wealth of Khosravi. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely oppose blurb who's saying this, the un-audited theocratic dictatorship that accused him and will seize his assets? Neutral wording is deperately needed and the actual scope of his supposed crime, untried in a independent judiciary, has no way of be compared factually with anything. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    It is not up to use to judge the validity of the verdict, only the importance of it. Also, Khosravi admit to bribery to obtain fraudulent loans in court... If you think another wording would be better, please supply it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    ThaddeusB, but if (as I agree) "it is not up to use to judge the validity of the verdict" then surely that means we must take a position of neutrality on its validity? I take it that Medeis's point is that the blurb implies that he was guilty. And while he admitted bribery, he did not, as far as I can see, admit to "masterminding the largest fraud in Iran since the 1979 Revolution". We have to be careful here - BLP continues to apply. Neljack (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    Would you prefer "executed for his involvement in ..."? --ThaddeusB (talk)
    I added an altblurb that is longer, but is more straight forward as to neutrality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks - that looks good. Neljack (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't you think our readers would expect us to support the idea that some things (e.g. murder) are bad, regardless of the laws in play at the specific place and time?
I don't think we can avoid making that kind of judgement - it's implicit in a lot of the stories we post (and certainly in our choice of those stories) that death and suffering of innocent people is a bad thing.
I have no idea whether the guy in this case would have been convicted by a non-Iranian court, but given the world's opinion of Iran (e.g. in many WP:RS), I don't think we should treat an Iranian conviction as proof that he actually did the things he's accused of.
Therefore the blurb should just say "is executed by an Iranian court" - we should treat the charges as unproven and therefore (on WP:WEIGHT grounds) we shouldn't list them.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
He wasn't just executed at random. He was convicted and executed on specific charges. Someone being executed by Iran is not very notable. Being executed as part of the biggest fraud case in history is. If you want to drop the charges fine, but the case is what makes it notable. See altblurb2. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; I'm in agreement with Fitzcarmalan. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm very much mistaken, this isn't ITN/R, so I've removed the note saying that it is. ThaddeusB, if I'm missing something, do feel free to revert. Neljack (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    Nope, just an accident on my part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer a bare, factual blurb. Something like MK is executed on the largest fraud charges brought by the revolutionary government since taking power in 1979--assuming we even need to mention the revolutionary government. As it stands, the blurb reads as an accomplishment of the the rev gov in cleaning up the country. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the altblurb accomplishes that. If not, please be specific about what part is objectionable as I am not seeing it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Medeis: See altblurb2 and let me know if that works for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, and with that I'd consider it ready on blurb and notability, though I haven't looked at updating and sources. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a big case and article is looking fine. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Article has some problems e.g. "He and his brother were running a cattle when Khosravi began getting loans for the facilities during 2005-06." (I would correct this particular one but I'm not clear what it's meant to say). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Just missing the word "ranch" after cattle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
If there are any remaining errors, please let me know. It is very hard to catch ones own errors as one tends to read what they intended to write instead of what they actually did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready for altblurb2 per Medeis' comment "with [altblurb2] I'd consider it ready on blurb and notability" which effectively makes this unopposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a four supports-plus nom plus 14-refs and this update, so let's post. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Heineken Cup finalEdit

Article: 2014 Heineken Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, the Heineken Cup concludes with Toulon defeating Saracens in the final.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - article is in very good shape except that the team sections are unreferenced. I imagine that should be easy to fix. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, you can click on the "report" link in the match details section and see all the players. If you like, I can add a few more links, but that's usually sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess I was unclear, I meant the text in the "Route to final" section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Sub-optimal, but I added some links to the club's own fixtures pages which feature full match reports on every game played from the beginning to the final. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
          • If there are no further objections, this ITNR item (despite the absence of Irish teams Howard!) is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to leave this until we've got another item to go between this and the football, just for the sake of variety. Anotehr admin may disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The CA attack, the Belgian attack, and Khosravi could potentially be posted. (I.E. may have consensus but need evaluated) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Cannes Film FestivalEdit

Article: 2014 Cannes Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: Winter Sleep, directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan (pictured), wins the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.
News source(s): Screendaily

Article updated

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

 --JuneGloom Talk 17:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment article obviously will need to be updated for tense etc since the festival concludes soon, and I imagine we could use more prose on the Palme d'Or itself, although I have sympathy in this case as there's probably not much more to say other than "it won the Palme". Otherwise bold article is in good condition, but I would have expected Winter Sleep to be the bold article as, after all, it's that which has won the prize.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Article looks good if perhaps a little thin on prose. Notable per ITN/R. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but needs expanding. The festival article has virtually no prose after the lead, and most people will want to know about the film, for which the article is very short. Formerip (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - it might make more sense to link to the film than the festival - this is what people will be most interested in. Either target (or both) is fine, but there should definitely be a good description of Winter Sleep whatever the target article is. At current, neither article has that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Also, Ceylan is a very well-known director and is at the top of his field in Turkey. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The ITN/R really relates to the movie, not the awards article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think both should be linked, but the film article requires some attention. I might assist with the work on it tomorrow, though I can't promise anything. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


  • Concerns have been expressed about the lack of content in the article about the festival and the one about the film. I haven't looked a the latter, as the festival article s the one bolded in the proposed blurb, but the former still has no prose after the lead, which itself is not huge. I'd like to see something a bit more substantial before posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have added a textual summary of the awards, including a brief plot summary of Winter Sleep. When the film article is ready the blurb can be switched to have two bolds, but no reason not to post the Cannes article now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it would also be wise to have a photo posted. Maybe the director's? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Good idea, pic added to template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, this is ready. The film article is also a bit less flimsy now. Formerip (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the film article is ready. Can someone take a look? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Yunnan earthquakeEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 Yunnan earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An earthquake in Yunnan province of China destroys 9,412 homes and displaces more than 8,000 people.
News source(s): People's Daily, Shanghai Daily, ITAR-TASS
Nominator's comments: Currently no reported deaths (fortunately), but the aftermath looks notable. --Brandmeistertalk 12:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A 5.6? No! Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor event. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the large number of people affected. Typical case of systemic bias - imagine this would have happened in California! --RJFF (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, or London, or Mars, or .... but it didn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If it happened in California there wouldn't have been any significant damage because buildings are better constructed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Massive destruction, of course this should be posted. Küñall (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Massive number of people's lives severely affected. TRM, the argument that this story should not be used because the region and the people who live there are less important than other areas such as California or London isn't one which I find at all convincing. Perhaps I've misunderstood your comment. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • My comment is directly related to the comment that preceded mine. Perhaps I've misunderstood your comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You seemed to be saying that if the story had happened in California then it would have been notable, but that because it actually happened in China, it wasn't notable.
That seemed to me more of a confirmation of Wikipedia's systemic bias than an argument capable of refuting RJFF's point.
But as I say, I may have misunderstood.
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am concerned that this number of 9,412 homes destroyed is complete horsehit. First off, with that many homes destroyed there should be huge loss of life. Second, how on Earth could they come up with such an estimate within a few hours of the quake? So this cannot be posted without independent confirmation by non-government sources. Abductive (reasoning) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It looks like the earthquake damaged 9000+ homes, which is a far cry from destroyed. Here is how PTI decsribed it "Residents rushed out of their homes when the quake happened. Tiles fell from some roofs and there was a power blackout in the epicenter, said Tao Jiqing, Party secretary of the county."[15]. There were a mere 13 injuries. Sounds like the kind of damage that would normally be expected form a small quake, of which there are several monthly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Nabeel Rajab is releasedEdit

Article: Nabeel Rajab (talk, history)
Blurb: Bahraini human rights activist Nabeel Rajab is released after serving a 2-year prison term.
News source(s): FIDH, Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, AFP, AJE

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is a GA. Rajab is often described as "one of the most well-known activists in the Arab world" BBC (sometimes "one of the world's most prominent activists"Reuters) and some compared him with Nelson Mandela[16][17]. We posted his sentence back in August 2012 [18]Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Mild oppose very decent article, but for me, not that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - was the release unexpected or just the end of his sentence? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • According to the article, his initial sentence was reduced to two years, so this was expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • It was expected and long awaited for, especially after he was denied early release back in December. Mohamed CJ (talk)
  • Support - It has been a long wait on his release, even though he it was expected. It was never clear whether or not they were actually going to release him given previous circumstances with other activists/individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.1.69 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree. After all Rajab was denied early release few months ago, despite meeting all the requirements according to Bahraini penal law (according to his lawyer). Such a repressive regime could have found any excuse to keep him jailed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

May 23Edit


[Posted] 2014 Isla Vista shootingsEdit

Article: 2014 Isla Vista shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: A shooting in Santa Barbara County, California kills seven people.
Alternative blurb: A spree killing in Santa Barbara County, California, leaves seven people dead.
News source(s): Daily Star

 --Jinkinson talk to me 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose looks more like six deaths, but it's another (random) day in the US really. I'd be much more interested in the anti-Semitic shootings in Belgium that took place earlier today. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Both the Santa Barbara shootings and the Belgium shootings sound good. Even if gun violence happens frequently, we can't turn a blind eye to it... OmriSama (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2014 (PDT)
  • Support - Seven deaths confirmed; six victims plus the perpetrator. There are a number of circumstances - such as the perpetrator's overt misogyny and his privileged background - that make this story more than just another US gun tragedy. OmriSama, I know what you meant, but really, none of this 'sounds good'; it's appalling. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - mass shootings are not nearly as common in the US as is sometimes implied around here. Regardless, this one is receiving a ton of attention and the article is in excellent shape which is enough to earn my support in what otherwise might be a borderline case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb is inaccurate. Three of the deceased were fatally stabbed. Neljack (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tragic but of little wider significance. Given that in our patriarchal societies misogyny is an extremely common feature of violence, I'm not sure how that provides a basis for singling this out. It is hardly uncommon for it to be associated with privilege either. Neljack (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as TRM said, random day in US...--Stemoc (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. To be honest, I don't understand people's Oppose rationales here at all. How is this "just another day in the U.S."; what are you basing that on? This story is currently the lead on CNN, ABC, BBC News and the Sydney Morning Herald, so people are likely to be looking for the WP article on it (Wikipedia:In_the_news#Purpose). The article is above Stub-length and is well-sourced (Wikipedia:In_the_news#Procedural). So, per the ITN criteria, there is every reason to support. It Is Me Here t / c 09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'd be happier not seeing every killing of this type end up on the front page (for reasons similar to those stated in the opposes), but the excessive media coverage unfortunately makes them more notable. ToBk (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Come on, this happens all the time in the US of A. If you separate the blurb from the actual details of the story, is the blurb itself really that newsworthy? It really isn't. I agree that the Belgium shootings are far more notable. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - No, this doesn't happen all the time in the US. This is definitely in the news.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Most definitely doesn't happen all the time barring a really loose definition of "all the time" --ALK (Talk) 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support If we have the Belgian shooting, we have to have this one as well. "Another random day in the US"? Uh, what? What kind of justification for an oppose is that? The Belgian shooting, currently on ITN, has a lower death toll (both are tragic events) and this topic is most certainly "in the news", regardless of whether or not the amount of media coverage is justified. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm an American and even I would agree with TRM that the anti-Semitic shooting in Belgium is more newsworthy and unique. The rampant gun culture of the US does, sadly, make these mass shootings all too common. Many organizations even keep a running tally. In 2013, there were 23 mass shootings in the US. It's heartbreaking to say this but this type of violence is becoming "run of the mill". Of course, every loss of life is tragic but whether or not an item gets posted to ITN has no bearing or significance on "how tragic" that loss was. Of the plethora of items that get global coverage in news sources, we do have to strive for diversity so do we really want to get in the habit of posting every major mass shooting the US? AgneCheese/Wine 03:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I will also add that 2014 is an election year in the US and you can make a fair argument that quite a bit of the media coverage on this event has some political tinges to it as partisans in the media on both sides try to spin the story to their own benefit. I would caution against "bean counting" media stories as evidence of newsworthiness. AgneCheese/Wine 03:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth, most mass shootings involve either a single location, or victims who are well known to the shooter, or both. The type of spree killing where the murderer targets strangers at multiple locations is rarer, averaging only about 2 incidents per year in the US. Dragons flight (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. There is consensus, albeit not overwhelmingly strong. Also taken into consideration was the strong quality of the nominated article. SpencerT♦C 04:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove from ongoing Why is this in ongoing!? It's not an ongoing event, and we're not CNN with tabloid coverage of every new discovery in the case. Having "California killings" up with "Ukrainian unrest" and "Balkan flooding" looks really tacky. ToBk (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] CamelopardalisEdit

A non-event Stephen 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Camelopardalis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Camelopardalid meteor shower happens on the night of May 23rd, and remains visible until the following morning.
News source(s): USA Today
Nominator's comments: Kinda like the eclipse I nominated a month ago shortly before it happened, in that this is also supposed to be a pretty big deal--although according to the article I linked to above, it "...is unclear what the shower will resemble." --Jinkinson talk to me 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. This is a predicted new meteor shower, which has never been observed before. The intensity of meteor showers is notoriously difficult to predict. It may or may not happen, so WP:CRYSTAL applies. If this turns out to be spectacular, then we can consider a nomination. Modest Genius talk 20:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support' for the exact reason MG opposes--this is a first show, hence likely to be a stronger one--our readers can make up their own minds as to whether to step outside and see this. μηδείς (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the first encounter with a meteor stream is 'likely to be a stronger one'? I think the various peer-reviewed astronomy journals would be very interested to hear about it. You're just speculating. Modest Genius talk 20:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all reliable sources have no idea what this is going to be like. We're not here to speculate nor provide an almanac for future viewings. If it becomes singularly notable, once it's actually occurred and once it's been reliably reported, we can reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose more that we have a lot of other significant stories going on right now; if we were in a slower news period, I'd be all for it even with this being only a predicted show as opposed to a known one. But to display the major items we have now with this is a bit iffy. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
In other words, the Credit Suisse fine is morr important than a once-in-a-life-time event that we can report after it happens? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not once in a lifetime. Supposedly it will be annual. Abductive (reasoning) 22:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait. If I see any in the light-polluted area where I live, I'll change to strong support. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Any updates? Nothing been reported as far as a quick Google is concerned... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see diddly. Abductive (reasoning) 11:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears you're not alone! Good job we held off posting in advance, that would have been embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Very America-centric blurb. In Europe, it happened on the morning of the 24th, in New Zealand on the night of the 24th (and it wasn't visible from most of Asia). At any rate, the peak (which is happening as I write this) doesn't seem to be especially spectacular - certainly less than the the one-per-minute Perseids. Smurrayinchester 08:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    "The night of X" generally means from sunset on X to sunrise on X+1 so that would cover morning of the 24th... If we had posted this, it would have been in simple present tense, like all blurbs, without specifying a date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest this is closed as a very damp and disappointing squib. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Glasgow School of ArtEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Glasgow School of Art (talk, history)
Blurb: Glasgow School of Art is severely damaged in a fire.
Alternative blurb: Charles Rennie Mackintosh's building, the Glasgow School of Art is destroyed in a fire.
News source(s): Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Iconic building with an international reputation, voted the best building of the past 175 years in a poll by RIBA 81.86.140.189 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: article needs a lot more referencing. Thanks, Matty.007 17:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Pics show extensive damage. Art schools are very much rarer than colleges, and I have never heard of one being destroyed. Abductive (reasoning) 22:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's unfortunate, but single-building fires happen every day, and it's not an internationally famous building. No casualties; no notable artworks reported destroyed. —Lowellian (reply) 07:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "It is a work of architectural heritage of world renown and its influence on 20th Century architecture is immeasurable. Scotland has seen the loss of an international treasure which reflects the genius of one of our greatest ever architects." (president of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, as reported by BBC). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "Damage to a building of such immense significance and uniqueness is an international tragedy. It is irreplaceable." (RIBA quoted in The Telegraph) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Mackintosh building is of international importance" (Scottish culture secretary quoted in The Guardian) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "the international architecture community is in mourning for Mackintosh's masterpiece as tributes pour in for "immeasurably" influential building" (Architecture magazine De Zeen)
  • "The shock following the fire that has swept through it will be felt way beyond Glasgow, Scotland and the UK; this is a historic building of great international significance." (The Conversation)
  • "A world renowned building" (Assistant Chief Fire Officer Dave Boyle quoted in Architects' Journal) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The library ("one of the finest examples of art nouveau in the world" - BBC) has been destroyed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian confirms the library has been destroyed, calls the building "world renowned". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately though, it's just one building by one architect. It's really sad, but I still can't see it being notable enough to knock other ITN items off the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose In a slower news period, maybe, but there's far more tragic things going on in the world right now that ITN should be covering than an accidental fire with no loss of life. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
We have loads of disaster stories, but when did we last have an architecture story? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Pritzker Architecture Prize is ITNR so that'd be the one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It was Pritzker winner Shigeru Ban who was posted to ITN on 25 March. Hopefully that resolves your query? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] ICC convictionEdit

Closed as suggested by nom. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Germain Katanga (talk, history)
Blurb: Germain Katanga of Congo DR becomes the 2nd person convicted by the International Criminal Court.
News source(s): Al Jaz
Nominator's comments: Since there ar e only 2, its seems to be saying a lotLihaas (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC). --Lihaas (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

*Support. War crimes convictions are notable. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Change to oppose; we already posted this when the actual conviction took place; I was confused by the proposed blurb and the article. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah,, too quick but feel free to close then ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2014 Taipei Metro attackEdit

No consensus to post; stale. SpencerT♦C 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2014 Taipei Metro attack (talk, history) and Taipei Metro (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A knife attack on a Taipei Metro train leaves at least 4 dead and 21 passengers injured.
News source(s): (Focus Taiwan) (AP via Washington Post)(The Wall Street Journal)
Nominator's comments: For the Taipei Metro being attacked. --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 02:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
oppose of we set precedence at 4 deaths then we have to post a whole bunch of Asian attacks (and more). Neither has the nom indicated notabilityLihaas (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't seem to be part of any larger story, which might have made it notable. Sadly, this sort of spree killing is a common sort of tragedy. Smurrayinchester 13:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to be terrorism or any sort of larger issue(as Smurray suggests); just someone who wanted to harm people. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not especially notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - major event that has a significant impact on the country, good coverage in the article. Also, coverage in Portal:Current Events. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

May 22Edit


[Closed] RD: Imre GedőváriEdit

No strong consensus to post, and unfortunately the item is now stale. Stephen 23:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Imre Gedővári (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): (Not in English, sorry): [19][20][21]

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: My latest RD nomination aimed at increasing coverage of deaths from non-English speakign countries. Imre Gedővári was a three time Olympic fencer (presumably would have been four if not for the boycott of 1984 games), winning a gold medal in 1988 and 2 bronze in 1980. Three time world champion (1978, 1981, 1982) and three-time runner up (1975, 1981, 1983). He won the Hungarian national title 10 times. That seems to be pretty clear evidence he was at the top of his field to me. Our article is a micro-stub, which I will fix up later today. For now, see the Hungarian Wikipedia article, which is much better, to get an idea of his accomplishments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets DC2; important in his field. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is way, way away from being ready. Will re-assess if and when article is less than a micro-stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unable to assess. The article is barely a stub, and the sources given are not in languages I can understand. Given the lack of an article, this nomination seems premature. Modest Genius talk 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man and Modest Genius: Please take anotehr look when you get the chance - article has been substantially improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Very good work. However, strikingly absent in wikilinks, e.g. "Order of the Star medal and the Kemény Ferenc award", if these are notable enough for the lead and are being used to confer additional notability, do they have articles? Also, some of the Games and Championships could be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Good question. The Order of the Star was discontinued in 1991 when Hungary went to the Order of Merit system, so it is not surprising we don't have an article on it. It is definitely a major honor though - based on a picture of it I found, I am pretty sure it is equivalent to the Golden Cross today (coloration is different but the design w/3 bars is very similar). I can't tell if the Ferenc Kemény award is significant or not, so I removed it from the lead. (I forgot to reverse to word order when changing "Kemény Ferenc-dij" into English; it is named after Ferenc Kemény whom it is a shame we don't have an article on.) It is given annual for teaching/scholarship and carries an award of "six times the base salary". --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: - Are you still opposed, or can get you to go at least neutral? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Brigade Piron (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Thaddeus has done great work on the article, was at top of field: competing at Olympics shows that. Thanks, Matty.007 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, but this is a bit too much of a reach for me. Most of his medals weren't individual medals, but team medals, including the Olympic gold and one of the bronze. Was he notable? Of course. The best fencer in all of Hungary? Perhaps. But I don't think his accomplishments rise to the level usually required for ITN. A lot of athletes have won a lot of medals for a lot of countries. We can't post them all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • As the lead fencer, he played a large role in winning the team golds. There is no reason we can't post all well-accomplished Olympic gold medalists to RD. The number is not that great - a couple a month, and many such articles won't be in condition to post, further reducing the number that could be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Top 10 New SpeciesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: It's well established that new species are good encyclopedic content. Of course we can only feature a few a year, but here is an interesting opportunity to feature 10 diverse creatures. The list gets good coverage (see examples above) from across teh world and as far as I know is the only such list that is widely noticed. I have extensively updated the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is with the weird descriptions such as "Hanging Around in the Jurassic"? That doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that the article is leaning too heavily on the primary source material, and on quoting the guys in the Institute. Without secondary analysis of their picks I feel that the article really shouldn't be on the Front Page. But otherwise it is pretty interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    Good suggestions. The weird descriptions are actually from the institute, which is actually a second reason they shouldn't be used (unattributed creative content). They were there (for the 2013 list) before I got to the article, but I clean them up now. I will also add some analysis of the picks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an annual event, but it's not one that rises to the other annual events that regularly make ITN -- the average person on the street will have heard of the Nobel Prize, the Academy Awards, the NBA Finals, etc., but not of this. It is a list that depends on what one not-too-well-known organization considers important. I'm in favor of ITN entries for newly discovered species, but for the immediate announced discovery of a specific species that makes a big splash in the news, not for the annual list of one relatively small organization. The problem with this as an ITN item is that the news isn't the recent discovery of a species -- the news is the release of an organization's annual summarizing list. —Lowellian (reply) 07:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • That is basically true, but really it's the creatures that are worth highlighting. We would never post soemthing like the clean room bateria or the snail found 3000 feet under the surface of Earth on their own, because there are far too many interesting discoveries each year. Here we have a list of ten such discoveries which really gives us a chance to feature the diversity fo life on ITN (as opposed to mostly new mammals and birds), and the list is very much in the news around the globe. I also dispute that we only post very recognizable annual events. I doubt the average "person on the street" can identify what the Fields Medal, Leone d’Oro, or IMPAC award is, but we post all those and many others well below Nobel Prize level of recognizability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the creatures are definitely worth highlighting, but maybe that's more DYK territory. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not a major award - it's a bit of publicity for an admittedly noble cause. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies. However, these species do sound like excellent candidates for DYK. Modest Genius talk 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] May 2014 Urumqi attackEdit

Article: May 2014 Ürümqi attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 31 people are killed in car bombings in Ürümqi, China.
News source(s): (The Washington Post), (The Guardian), (BBC), (CNN)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the deadliest attack so far in the Xinjiang conflict. —Lowellian (reply) 17:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I thought the subject seemed familiar, we had April 2014 Ürümqi attack in ITN only 20 days ago. Perhaps a move to ongoing? Thanks, Matty.007 17:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    The April attack left 3 people dead. This new attack is at least 31, which is a huge escalation, and should be its own news item. Again, this is the deadliest attack so far. —Lowellian (reply) 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support we appear to have set a precedent, as long as the article is up to scratch (it currently is not and is simply a stub although not tagged as such), we'd look daft if we don't post this. Again, another possible shout for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppport this is simply more of the typical bomb, knife and arson violence we have come to expect from a country deprived of its God-given right to guns. Not opposed to ongoing, but will we describe it as Islamist or sectarian? μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppport major attack, high casualty. -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is pretty stubby at current (it has several sections but each section is about two lines long). It should be beefed up some more before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I got the article a bit higher, and will expand tomorrow if it still needs doing. Thanks, Matty.007 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • If you would be so kind as to flush it out more, I woudl appreciate it. Paragraphs of 2-3 short sentence just don't offer very much information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
        • ThaddeusB: combined paras as I think that is the best way for the minute, and added a bit. Thanks, Matty.007 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Event notable, article adequate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
support high enough death tooll for China. theres also a major social conflict/issue in China and there reaction ondicates this. + there were the train stabbings a few fdasy ago.v Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Mali fightingEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Northern_Mali_conflict#January_2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Rebels take control of Kidal, Azawad
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: More violence and de facto removal of state control seems pretty notable (as with Thailand) --Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose One small town, that has been previously struggled over in '12, compared to issues with an entire country or province. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. —Lowellian (reply) 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2013–14 Thai political crisis (coup d'etat)Edit

Article: 2013–14 Thai political crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: Thailand's army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha (pictured) announces a coup d'etat, saying the military is taking control of government.
News source(s): (Reuters), (BBC)

Nominator's comments: Interesting turn in the Thai political crisis, seems notable. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A major development. Note that the existing declaration of martial law is already nominated further down the page; my feeling is that this nomination represents a much bigger event. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not a massive surprise given the martial law annoucement, but as Alex stated above this is a bigger event and should be included. Miyagawa (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly newsworthy per above. Article could do with more updated info. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support. per above. ComputerJA () 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly newsworthy with major regional (if not global) implications. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support , outweighing the original declaration of martial law blurb below. This shouldn't be a matter of debate beyond making sure the article's there, and I think there's a fair # of good editors on it. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article still has the neutrality tag which needs addressed; a possible solution is a new article for the c'oup as it is almost certainly independently notable and the main article is aleady too long. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Aristitleism has created a new article at 2014 Thai coup d'état. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    Very good, posting with a link to the new article. I changed the blurb a bit to avoid all the consective blue links and link to both articles: "The commander of the Royal Thai Army, Prayuth Chan-ocha (pictured), announces a coup d'état following months of political crisis." Please feel free to discuss tweaks to the blurb here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion, could we insert the rank ... General Prayuth Chan-ocha ... just that word? He is referred to as such in the above Reuters / BBC sources. starship.paint "YES!" 02:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

May 21Edit


[Closed] Michael Jackson song in top 10Edit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Love Never Felt So Good (talk, history) and Michael Jackson (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael Jackson's Love Never Felt So Good reaches no.9 on the Billboard Hot 100 making Jackson the first artist to have a song in the Top 10 in five different decades
News source(s): HitFix Eurweb Michael Jackson World Network Billboard

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: The is a first in music history. --Nathan121212 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Statistical trivia. Also not a world first; Cliff Richard had top 10 hits in 5 consecutive decades here in the UK. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not (yet, at least) covered in mainstream media as a top story. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as trivia. Decade boundaries are arbitrary anyway. Modest Genius talk 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose definitely a DYK candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment unfortunately DKYCheck shows it was only expanded 21 days ago and therefore not eligible. Nathan121212 (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Libyan uprisingEdit

Articles: 2014 Libyan uprising (talk, history) and Khalifa Belqasim Haftar (talk, history)
Blurb: Fighting intensifies in Libya after General Khalifa Haftar (pictured) storms the parliament and declares its suspension.
News source(s): (Reuters) (The Washington Post) (TIME) (BBC) (The Daily Star)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The tensions are clearly escalating and Gen. Haftar is gaining more support from top officials in the country as we speak (e.g. the Interior Ministry, the Air Force, Libya's UN ambassador as well as many tribal leaders across the country). The US is currently preparing for a mass evacuation and a number of governments have recalled their missions. The crisis is also having a regional impact as the Algerian army may soon be forced to change its strategic doctrine, which it has long maintained, at least officially, to not send soldiers outside Algeria. A potential new alliance with Cairo would be a sign that a new power axis is being formed in North Africa. The Joint Algerian-Egyptian Higher Committee is expected to meet in June for the first time in five years, after a new Egyptian president is elected. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose until new government is formed, or open warfare commences. This sort of thing (internal power politics) is becoming pretty routine in certain North African and Middle Eastern countries, and unless it leads to a significant change in the [i]status quo[/i], I don't think it passes the notability test. 128.214.172.232 (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've changed the second part of the blurb and replaced it with the attack on parliament and its eventual suspension three days ago. There is already an armed confrontation between Haftar and the government/Islamists as the air force chief who announced his backing of the revolt bombed a number of targets in Benghazi on Haftar's behalf.[22] [23] The government responded by setting a no-fly zone over Benghazi.[24] Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait and see what develops. Instability in Libya isn't really news; as the IP user suggests we should wait for a more significant development such as actual warfare or a peaceful end to this situation. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This development is significant. Haftar now controls Benghazi, the Parliament is suspended and more than 70 were killed in the events (at least according to BBC Arabic radio station). The article has room for improvement, including for the title (NPOV issue IMO). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
strong support its eerily similar to Thailand and that's posted. _ we posted 10 deaths in Nigeria...no difference with black or brown deaths. #hypocrisyLihaas (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's similar to Thailand. This guy spent years in northern Virginia, and I think you can connect the dots. Abductive (reasoning) 16:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

? Perhaps this should replace Balkan Flooding in Ongoing? μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree because the events are quickly developing and the parliament storming incident was a few days ago which means it is not in the news anymore. However, the article is still incomplete and important sections are missing, including the reactions to the crisis and the allegations of foreign involvement. I will try to update it while I can but any help would be very appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
this has been going on for a while.Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Natural gas dealEdit

Article: Natural gas in Russia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia and China announce a US$400 billion agreement regarding natural gas distribution.
News source(s): (Washington Post), (NY Times)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After decades of not being able to come to terms, Russia and China have agreed to a $400 billion contract (between state-controlled gas companies) for Russia to supply China with natural gas. It is the largest contract in the history of the industry and is seen as a significant political move against the West. New York Times calls it a "deal of much consequence". --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I'd probably describe this as Russia recognizing reality, rather than a defeat for the West, but it's a huge move of long term geopolitical consequence. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support There are multiple implications that the deal could have in the world apart of being the largest contract in the history of the industry. Additionally, the news has a worldwide coverage and could be a fine example of similar stories that should go on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Kiril Simeonovski, above. CaptRik (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable international agreement being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there any talk of this being connected to China's desire to lessen coal pollution? Or to fracking (or lack thereof)? Abductive (reasoning) 16:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that is what China gets out of it. I have tweaked the article accordingly. I didn't wnat to put too much about China in (the article is Natural gas in Russia), but two sentences seems fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

May 20Edit


[Posted] Credit Suisse fineEdit

Article: Credit Suisse (talk, history)
Blurb: Credit Suisse pleads guilty to helping American citizens evade taxes and agrees to a US$2.6 billion fine.
News source(s): (Washington Post), (CNN)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I have been wrong many times before, but I think this is a business story people can actually get behind in my effort to increase our coverage of business news. By pleading guilty, Credit Suisse became the largest bank to admit to criminal behavior in more than 20 years. The massive fine ends a 5 year investigation into more than a decade of wrong doing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Unlike many business news stories, this one is a single big event without any danger of being appealed, denied by regulators or otherwise made null. It is international, and involves Swiss banks, legendary in their disregard for the law and notorious for helping dictators and millionaires hide their money. The world is a changed place with Swiss banks reined in. Abductive (reasoning) 02:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB & Abductive. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable settlement with a Swiss bank, significant in the financial world. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; Substantial fine, important far-reaching case. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted good article condition, clear consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Shall we use File:Credit Suisse Logo.svg? -- Y not? 20:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure they'll be delighted with the exposure! Just need a helpful admin to make sure the image doesn't get replaced with a bunch of cocks, or something equally representative. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Exposure is not what I am trying to achieve. It's just a useful and available illustration. Better than an old mugshot of Abu Hamza. Maybe you're right, let's not use it at all, leave it without image for now. -- Y not? 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm just messing with you. I couldn't care less what image goes up there, but as we're continually reminded, unless it's uploaded properly and protected, it could be replaced with a massive cock image or something equally unappealing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's just leave ITN w/o a picture until a good one is available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] May 2014 Nigeria bombingsEdit

Article: May 2014 Nigeria bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​46 people are killed in two bombings in Jos
Alternative blurb: ​More than 100 people are killed in two bombings in Jos
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Matty.007 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Seemingly part on ongoing Boko Haram insurgency issues. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as part of an Ongoing item per Masem, perhaps change the emphasis from the kidnappings to the ongoing troubles in Nigeria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I would support the Boko Haram stuff as an ongoing item, definitely. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps we change the "Chibok kidnapping" heading to something more general? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I do not believe there is a general article that is regularly updated. That is not necessarily an issue though - if new incidents continue to get new articles, that link name can stay the same ("Boko Haram insurgency" perhaps) while the link itself changes. That said, an existing ongoing item shouldn't be seen a barrier to a full blurb - the ongoing will naturally be removed if/when a full blurb goes up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Understood. So to make my position plain, I'll oppose until a suitable Ongoing article is created. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — With "at least" 46 killed, [25] on top of earlier events, it would seem appropriate for ITN to take note in some fashion ASAP. (For a general title, suggest something like "2014 Nigerian strife.") Sca (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I would agree if it weren't for the fact we would then have two Nigeria stories relating to the same insurgency on ITN. Solve that, and we have a real way forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it would be safe to combine the two. See AP.[26] And this version from AP [27] goes a bit farther, saying, "the twin car bombs ... bore the hallmarks of Boko Haram, the Islamic extremist group that abducted nearly 300 schoolgirls last month." Sca (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • So either suggest a combined blurb and remove the Ongoing, or modify the Ongoing title and target? Which one? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As an escalation in conflict, seems like ITN blurb material to me, so kill the Ongoing (though that might return if things calm down later). Sca (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • UpdateGuardian, in staff-written story from Lagos, [28] says "at least 118" killed, adding that "the bombs bore the hallmarks of other attacks by Islamist sect Boko Haram." Sca (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well if it's accurate, it's a definite blurb, dependent on article quality. Perhaps the community is fine with two Nigeria stories after all? We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there some other likely Ongoing candidate? Sca (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Update Added alt-blurb. I've updated the article a little bit with some up-to-date information, but I've also added a citation needed to the link with Boko Harem as I can't find something to backup their leader's claim. I do Support this for posting however. CaptRik (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - more than 100 dead means this a notable escalation of the situation in Nigeria. When promoted, I suggest removing the kidnapping story (its still in the news but is closely related to this story). Article is coming along but could use a little more work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alt. blurb — The 118 figure was also used by PBS Newshour in U.S. However, blurb should include Boko Harem as suspected perp. Sca (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb per Thaddeus. Neljack (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this definitely has support for a blurb, but the article needs just a little more expansion, although it's several sections, only about five sentences (excluding lead repeats) relate to the actual bombing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Notability is clear. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment yet another attack in Nigeria today, again Boko Haram suspected, 17 murdered. This really needs to be in the Ongoing section, that's exactly what it's for... I think we're going to need to do some serious work on Islamist insurgency in Nigeria.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
support REPLACING this link with the Chibok kidnapping. Its practuically a full-fledged war since the kindnappings.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Conspicuous by its absence from ITN. Sca (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Then instead of complaining here, help expand the article on the bombing or improve the article on the insurgency. Noting problems is easy, providing solutions seems beyond many around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Valid criticism. Alas, surfing around 1600 UTC failed to find an up-to-date roundup incorporating Wednesday and Tuesday events. Coverage seems to be in bits. (I thought CaptRik was working on it — no?) Sca (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I have expanded the article. Thanks, Matty.007 16:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Now here's a new AP story that combines Wednesday bombings with Jos attack. [29] Sca (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, work got in the way. Taking a look now. CaptRik (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted by ‎Smurrayinchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    I had a look for an ongoing that could cover this and the Chibok kidnapping, but the closest article, Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, has nothing about the bombing. Besides, while I think there's little doubt that it's part of the same conflict, no-one has come forward and nothing has been proved yet (both Christian and Muslim groups are been active in Jos), which might cause people to cry NPOV if we link them so explicitly. Smurrayinchester 17:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a concern, but one could say that BH "was widely suspected" of being responsible. Sca (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Bekasovo rail crashEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bekasovo rail crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A passenger train collides with a derailed freight train near Bekasovo, Russia, killing nine people.
News source(s): BBC News Online
Nominator's comments: Death toll stated to be "likely to rise" --Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. Low death toll, accidents like this happen all the time all over the world. If death toll significantly increases, will re-consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Ditto, plus no apparent wider significance. Sca (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rail accidents are not terribly unusual occurrences. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - latest figures are 9 dead, 51 injured. Death toll still likely to rise. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

May 19Edit


[Posted] Abu HamzaEdit

Article: Abu Hamza al-Masri (talk, history)
Blurb: Abu Hamza is convicted in New York of conspiracy to aid terrorist organizations
News source(s): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27478998

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Should this be on ITN? I'm neutral, but am nominating it in case people might have overlooked it. He's the one who fought extradition from Britain for years. --Abductive (reasoning) 03:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - fought extradition for 8 years, UK government reluctant (or too scared) to prosecute. Definitely ITN-worthy. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support significant terror conviction on both sides of the pond, and article in decent condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most significant stories here in the UK for many years. This development is certainly front page worthy doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - one more crazy muslim terrorist imprisoned. nothing special really but it is still a major player.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - needs a better update (1 sentence at current) before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Updated with a couple of additional sentences. The history leading up to this sentence is quite well covered in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't like the hook. Formerip (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I should probably add that this is not a real oppose vote. Formerip (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  Like Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose and wait until the duration of the sentence is passed. IE, the blurb can be updated to state the duration. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The consensus here at ITN is to post upon convictions. As I saw the debate, the moment of conviction has two benefits: first, it is a single, closed event and finding of fact which allows people to be called "murderer", "rapist", etc without fear of being sued for libel. Second, the endless legal maneuverings post-conviction, including sentencing, reporting to prison, appeals of convictions, appeals of sentences, paroles, pardons and so forth, are just that; endless. Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Doesn't America have some sort of separation of powers? Has Hamza really been convicted by the United States government, or was it a jury sitting in a court like usually happens? Formerip (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the blurb was erroneously tweaked when posted, should be more appropriate now, as noted at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
      • My bad. I used a phrase common to US English, which isn't understood literally, in an attempt to generalize New York -> United States (he was prosecuted under NY law, but US law). I should have known better, as I can clearly see how it could be read differently by different readers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just added a further comment at ERRORS. CaptRik (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Martial law in ThailandEdit

Superseeded by later events, see coup d'etat nomination on May 22 --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013–14 Thai political crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Military officials declare martial law in Thailand.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Reuters, Straits Times, Radio Australia
Nominator's comments: Clear escalations of ongoing political tensions. --Allen3 talk 23:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Was in the middle of noming there. Article has some cleanup tags but more related to too much information and not from lack of sourcing. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Seems very important and serious. [Soffredo]   01:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but article needs properly fixing up and this appears to be a good candidate for Ongoing news (the clue's in the target article title....) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It's a super-major political development for the Army to take control of any country. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the neutrality tag needs addressed before it is posted. The too long article/lead tags are less of a concern, but, of course, it would be nice if someone made an attempt at addressing those too. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Comment: Coup has just been announced. The Army Commander said that the military is taking control of the country. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably best to close this nom in favor of posting the coup one, above. --MASEM (t) 12:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] Jack BrabhamEdit

Article: Jack Brabham (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [30]

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: Three-time Formula 1 world champion. "He remains the only man in history to have designed, built and driven a championship-winning car." (BBC). --Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Unarguably top of his field for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support top of the field, don't mind a full blurb neither. Secret account 02:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets DC2 as very important in his field. Article doesn't seem in bad shape either. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple world champion, just to keep my nomination short. Donnie Park (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I expanded the relevant section in his article. Marking ready. Calidum Talk To Me 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly among the top 20 most significant people in the history of F1 if not the top 10. Two more championships as constructor on top of his driver's championships. 3142 (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support' - but doesn't he deserve a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD with no prejudice against a conversion to a full blurb. Stephen 05:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - A great in his field, but that's what DC2 is for. I'm not seeing the death itself as the story here, so RD is appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD only per GoldenRing. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 18Edit


Fundación bus fireEdit

Article: Fundación bus fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thirty one children and one adult are killed when a bus ignites in Fundacion, Colombia.
News source(s): BBC Los Angeles Times Washington Post CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A major bus fire which resulted in many children dying. Andise1 (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Normally not a big fan of these types of accidents, but as the LATimes article points out, the driver did something rather stupid (pouring gasoline over the carburetor, which IIRC is one of those ways that you could restart an engine but also one that's meant to be done very carfully, and hence why the driver's already been arrested under criminal charges). This was something that could have been avoided and the story might carry weight forward in terms of the driver's trial. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Large number of child casualties = notable. Article looks ok. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. As a "auto accident" the particulars of this one are quite unique and tragic; the death count also makes it quite notable. Rhodesisland (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article, while the AFD will close as keep, is still barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Gordon WillisEdit

Article: Gordon Willis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

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: Seems to meet the criteria with several awards like an honorary Oscar (and 2 other nominations for Best Cinematography). Ranked as one of the 10 most influential cinematographers and worked on several renowned films. --Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support an honorary Oscar is a decent shout, the article's looking good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I would like to see him listed just because I'm such a fan of his work on The Godfather but really it is a borderline case. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It is borderline but the awards and article quality convinces me that it's worth a front page posting doktorb wordsdeeds 09:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Does it add any weight that movies he worked on won a total of 19 Oscars? That's pretty big! Unfortunately, none were actually awarded to him. (IMO, the fact he was overlooked for Godfather II is stupefying!) Rhodesisland (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Fine article, meets RD crit. wirenote (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Influential and important cinematographer despite not winning any Oscars himself (probably the worst genuine Oscar snub). Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] AT&T Acquisition of DirectTVEdit

Articles: DirectTV (talk, history) and AT&T (talk, history)
Blurb: AT&T agrees to purchase DirectTV for $48.5 billion.
Alternative blurb: ​An agreement for AT&T to purchase DirectTV for $48.5 billion is announced.
News source(s): NYTimes CNN

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Significant acquisition in both money amount and impact (in light of the FCC's net neutrality issues). --MASEM (t) 21:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong support when updated - one of the largest business deals in history. AT&T is the better target since it the acquirer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Large deal involving two well known companies. Also notable for possible influence on their industries. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait presumably this will face regulatory revue? The proposed two-tier net inneutrality regulations seem more imanent, although I find this all as easy to follow as The Last of the Summer Wine. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, there will be a review by the FTC (trade commission), and the issue of Net Neutrality is a factor on the FCC (communication commission). However, they have affirmed they are going to initiate all necessary paperwork and reviews to complete this. This, for mergers like this, is the ITN news point, compared to say when the FTC approves the merger. Should the FTC deny the merger outright that might be another news point but won't be known for several months. Given the last time there was a major deal like this (I believe, this being the Comcast buyout of NBC), the FTC simply asked Comcast to divest itself in some markets, which they easily did, and I see no similar reason that a similar deal would be met here by the FTC to outright prevent the merger going forward. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That "they have affirmed they are going to initiate all necessary paperwork and reviews to complete this" is about as definitive as the Orwellian "all applications will be accepted" or "comes with available air conditioning, power steering and breaks". μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated, multi-billion merger, uncommon, newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support significant business story. Also, I'm not sure the picture of a 'regulatory revue' is one I needed in my head. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That's the right word, for all intensive purposes. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you have an alternative blurb to suggest? This sort of story is usually bigger news when it is announced, not when it actually occurs(i.e. when the government says it's OK). 331dot (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • A few times a year, ITN posts a story about something that it later transpires never happened and, each time, an angel cries. ITN blurbs don't normally - and shouldn't - be posted on the basis of speculation, developments, predictions or announcements about the future. Regardless of what media interest there is ahead of the main event (in this case it's a decent amount but, let's face it, not exactly wall-to-wall) we normally wait for the main event. So, for example, we haven't yet posted about Oscar Pistorius's conviction for murder, or anything else about his trial. This takeover isn't a done deal. Not only could it be stopped by the regulator but, until the sale happens it is not too late for the parties to pull out (they even apparently have "no forfeit" clauses). What are the chances? I have no idea, but so long as they are more than zero, this is a premature nomination. Formerip (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • A murder trial is a different proposition than a corporate buyout(BLP issues). There are also few guarantees in the world other than death and taxes; there is always a potential for a planned event to not happen. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Which is precisely why we don't normally post about planned events. It's not just murder trials. We don't, for example, post elections whose results are widely anticipated until the actual results come out, even if it takes forever. We don't post the fact that the FA Cup final is happening today, even though the news coverage will be enormous. We wait and post that it has happened. And so on and so forth and so on. Formerip (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
          • The announcement of the formal plans for merger/acquisition (which this is) is more equivalent to the sentencing of a suspect charged with a crime, which is when we would normally post those types of stories (assuming the case is big enough). That sentence may change depending on appeals, plea bargains, etc., and if it is a major change, that would then be another possible blurb. But the news that will always be big is the first sentencing. In the case of the merger/acquisition, the action could certainly be stalled by the FTC (as noted for the T-Mobile case), but the "news" is that there's formal agreements in place to make this go forward. Even if the FTC blocked it, the biggest coverage will be now, not then. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The time to post is now, as this is the point in the merger process that attracts the most media attention. It is possible that the deal will fall through for one reason or another, but that is very rare. However, I tweaked the blurb to accurately reflect the situation ("agrees to purchase" instead of "purchases"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB, now is the newsworthy moment - unless it's blocked in which case that'll be another newsworthy moment. But if it goes ahead as planned then right now is the newsiest moment - the later story ("Planned merger goes ahead") is comparatively un-newsy. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have updated both articles with the merger info. AT&T is both the more logical target and the higher quality article, so I suggest it be the only bold link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted 03:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013–14 Euroleague finalEdit

Article: 2013–14 Euroleague Final Four (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, Euroleague concludes with Maccabi Tel Aviv defeating Real Madrid in the final.

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: The Euroleague is the strongest basketball competition in Europe, roughly compared to the UEFA Champions League in football. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment "roughly compared to the UEFA Champions League" apart from the viewership and general interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    The viewership and general interest do not prevent it from being the strongest and most followed club basketball competition in Europe like the UEFA Champions League in football. In general, basketball does not enjoy popularity even nearly on the same level as football, so it's virtually impossible to find anything in common and make the two comparable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    I agree, it'll be another tough few days for European basketball Wikipedia In The News fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    Probably we don't need to worry much about it since the item is on ITN/R and the same issues might once have been addressed. However, a real discussion is always welcome and any outcome with opposition may steer discussion to revisit its listing there.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    Has this actually ever been on ITN? I can't find any evidence of the last four year's worth of tournaments, and this one looks like it's heading south. Perhaps it shouldn't be on ITN/R after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality. Zero text on the final game, ALMOST zero prose otherwise in the target article. It's a mash of tables, notes explaining the tables, and some bullet lists. We could use either a season summary fully detailing the highlights of the season, or a separate article on the final game itself, with a synopsis thereof. I have no qualms with the event itself being highlighted if we have a quality article to point readers to. As yet, we don't. --Jayron32 01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have expanded (OK, written - it has 2 sentences previously) the article on the finals: 2013–14 Euroleague Final Four. Unless there are quality based complaints, this is ready to be posted per WP:ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted perhaps the ITN/R listing needs to clarify that it's not the Euroleague article that's ITN/R, but the Final Four article? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Good work all on cleaning this entry up and getting a quality article to work from. This is EXACTLY how it is supposed to work. We spend way too much time here debating the merits of an article based on our own opinions of what "should" be "news", and not enough time fixing up articles. It is nice to see it work out here! --Jayron32 13:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Seconded. Far too many !voters and not enough editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks guys, I appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Don MeyerEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Don Meyer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox 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: The most significant thing he did was probably that he "...passed Bobby Knight as the NCAA's winningest coach in men's basketball history in 2009." --Jinkinson talk to me 20:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the nomination comment. Can't see the big deal here, plus the article is in a really poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Fine. It's not the only thing he did, though: "He was presented with the John Bunn Award at the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2010." [31] Besides that, I think being called a "legend of college basketball" means you are indeed "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", as per criterion 2. Jinkinson talk to me 21:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's not exactly the highest level of the game, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I support in principle(the article mentions one other notable coach influenced by this man in addition to his WL record and HoF which would meet DC2) though the article seems light on prose. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support on notability, oppose based on article quality. Beef up the article, and this is marginally newsworthy enough for the death ticker, as a record holder and HOF member. --Jayron32 01:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sure had a lot of wins but he did so at the division two level, which isn't the highest level of college basketball. Calidum Talk To Me 03:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Calidum. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A great man, but the lion's share of those wins came at the NAIA level and exactly zero came at Division I. In addition, he's not in the Hall of Fame, he was just given an award by it - an award that by my count 8 people that don't even have Wikipedia articles have won. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

RD: Gerald EdelmanEdit

Article: Gerald Edelman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.myconsciousbrain.org/gerald-m-edelman-1929-2014-nobelist-neurobiologist-fundamental-theorist-biology/, http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/hirnforscher-gerald-edelman-gestorben-darwins-gehirn-12946590.html

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: Not yet picked up by major media, but the source listed is extremely reliable, so I'm opening this for discussion. He is a Nobel prize winner, founder of the Neuroscience Institute in San Diego, and author of several bestselling books about the neurobiology of consciousness. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support iff verified. At present I can't verify in a source I know is reliable that he has died (I don't know the reliability of the cited source), however if he has died then I support an RD listing for the reasons given by the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Bernard Baars seems like a reliable person. wirenote (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article reflects this nomination and until it's fixed to a quality level commensurate with main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Note: I have added a second source (an obituary in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a top German newspaper), and fixed the issues that I could spot in the article. The date of death has also been added by another editor -- that's the only information available at this time. Looie496 (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we only have two sources then it just isn't In The News. 09:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talkcontribs)
  • Comment - appears to be confirmed now with an English source. Connormah (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support RD. A Nobel Prize is undoubted evidence that he was at the top of his field. Perfect RD material, and the news has now been confirmed by multiple English-language media (NYT etc.). Modest Genius talk 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Wubbo OckelsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wubbo Ockels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Volksrant, RTL, Elesvier

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: First Dutch citizen in space, Officer of the Order of Orange-Nassau, Merit Cross 1st Class (Officer's Cross) of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. News appears to have broken within the past hour or so and doesn't seem to have been picked up by English-language media yet but it is all over the Dutch-language news sources. --Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pending referencing Support for RD, the early life end ESA career sections are entirely unreferenced. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as Kelapstick, the article needs the tag to be sorted out, otherwise a good shout for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think being the first astronaut of a particular nationality qualifies, and I don't see anything else that indicates that he was a very important figure in the field of space exploration. Neljack (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack; he might meet DC2 if he was the first Dutch citizen in space due to an indigenous space program, but he wasn't, and I don't see how else he might meet the criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Concur with 331dot.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

May 17Edit


Preakness StakesEdit

Articles: 2014 Preakness Stakes (talk, history) and California Chrome (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In horse racing, California Chrome wins the first two races of the Triple Crown, the Preakness Stakes, and the Kentucky Derby.
News source(s): NY Times

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: There is currently discussion as to whether to add the Preakness to ITN/R in the event the race is won by the Kentucky Derby Winner. Since that is precisely what happened this weekend, I think it best to discuss it here. I am unsure myself, so consaider me neutral for now. Article will need a textual description of the race itself (at minimum) before it is ready for posting (see 2014 Kentucky Derby. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment and maybe this should be at that discussion as well, but I would think that if the Preakness is being included only if they also win in Kentucky, than the bolded story and the update should be the horse, not the Preakness, and the blurb should reflect both wins. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I decided to be bold and add a listing to the page as I didn't see much if any opposition to the concept, but I 1) would not object to the listing not being applicable this year and 2) welcome changes or any sort of further discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I bolded the name of the horse here, per a comment I was given the last time the horse's wins were a news item here. Hope I wasn't too bold, but I am the lead editor on California Chrome and I did some work on the 2014 Preakness article as well. Montanabw(talk) 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as involved contributor (I've not done ITN before, if I'm not supposed to vote, just trout-slap me.) Montanabw(talk) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No, all good. And for what it's worth, we'd typically only bold the article which has the quality to sustain a main page appearance, so Chrome is a shoo-in, as the article is mint. I've yet to look at the Preakness article, but that'd be the key.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the discussion on ITN/R, I would suggest since the criteria for this is having one both the Derby and this race, that they should both be mentioned, and maybe why it is significant. i.e. "In horse racing, California Chrome wins the first two races of the Triple Crown, the Preakness Stakes, and the Kentucky Derby." Not everyone (including me up until now) knows exactly what the Triple Crown is, but would know it is significant. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm groovy with that change and did it up, above. Again, slap me with a trout if I'm over-bold here. and @ThaddeusB: that I'm getting prety bold with his nomination! Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose So, this race is significant based on what has happened before it and what may happen in the future as opposed to being notable in its own right. That's altogether too speculative for posting.
As an aside I'd suggest that whole section on WT:ITNR needs some wholesale refactoring if there is ever going to be any clear consensus for any additions - there are possibly too many proposal thrown into one discussion, proposals modify other proposals but don't always make it clear precisely what they they are modifying, proposals appear to have been abandoned but never closed. Put simply, I shouldn't need to spend an hour unraveling a discussion simply to be able to make a statement of position. 3142 (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Um, back-and-forth discussion is precisely how consensus is reached on Wikipedia. That is (one of the reasons) why we don't count votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think these three races should be ITNR and stand on their own; it'll just be a bonus if they can all be tied together by being won by the same horse. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ignoring the 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' element about things that could possibly happen but most certainly have not. There's a considerable sentiment that sport gets too much coverage and we already post several top-ranking horse races. We don't need to lower the bar to lower ranking races, particularly in countries for which we already have coverage. Depending on how you count there are 150-200 countries in the world. We don't post races from the vast majority of them. Saying that an already well-served country needs yet more coverage is undue emphasis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Urquhart Stewart (talkcontribs) 01:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The Preakness is not a "lower ranking" race. It is an important part of a notable and rare achievement in sports, the Triple Crown, which has not been done since 1978. We post races that get notable news coverage, good articles(ITN is for highlighting articles), and that readers are interested in. Please note that it states at the top of this page "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." Stories from the US have actually been limited as of recent days(there is only two currently, one involving Mexico as well) and no Americans listed in RD. We post what is in the news, as this is the In The News page. Do you deny this race is in the news?
If we are missing races that get equivalent coverage from other nations, feel free to write articles about them and nominate them for posting here. That doesn't mean this should be excluded. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how does an editor with 9 previous edits and 0 to ITN come to know about a random sports nomination and presume to judge the sentiment of the community regarding the quantity of sports stories posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Also out of curiousity, how long do we debate a "news" item until it is too stale to be "news?" The race ran on Saturday, we need to get in in here soon or just throw up our hands until the Belmont. Montanabw(talk) 17:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
An item can be posted as soon as consensus is achieved, or as late as it being the bottom item on the template... Unfortunately, it looks likely this one will go stale (at least one more opinion is needed to assess consensus IMO), due it part to it's late nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. If the horse does win the triple crown, then it can go up. Until that point it's just another horse race, and we already have enough of those on ITNR. There's no need to supplement them with more individual posts which aren't particularly notable. Modest Genius talk 20:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted as combo blurb] Spanish La LigaEdit

Article: 2013–14 La Liga (talk, history)
Blurb: Atlético Madrid wins the Spanish La Liga for the first time in 18 years.
News source(s): The Guardian USA Today

Nominator's comments: There is no doubt that this is a major football tournament, and like the article says: It's their first league title in 18 years, and their 10th overall. The win was also the first time since the 2003-04 La Liga that a club other than Barcelona and Real Madrid had won. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support - It may not be the biggest football story of the day, but it's pretty big. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think we need to be sensible about how much football we feature at once. I'll give this a weak support if the FA Cup is not posted and an oppose otherwise. I'd prefer posting this to posting two British football stories on the trot. Formerip (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe we can merge the FA Cup and Premier League blurbs while having this one as a separate. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Combining blurbs wouldn't mean we were featuring less football, it would just mean we were trying to get away with it. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
        • So what do you suggest? I understand the FA Cup is the world's oldest football cup competition, but it simply can't be compared to La Liga in countless ways. In my opinion, this should definitely be on ITNR. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Like I said, weak support if the FA Cup doesn't get posted, and I'd prefer this to that. That's my suggestion, in full. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
        • But if we have all the soccer in 1 bullet point, that leaves 5 bullet points for other things; whereas if we use up multiple bullet points on soccer then it reduces the number of other things we can feature. So using a combined blurb reduces the proportion of the total which is soccer (because it leaves space for more other things). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose First title in 18 years but 10th overall isn't convincing. Soccer is plenty well represented here and adding each and every single league's champion would be overkill. Have to draw a line somewhere, and I say that's ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the strongest league in the world according to UEFA coefficients. And it's a rare title by a team outside of the top two. Support adding to the EPL blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I would earnestly support this if we had some prose for the target article. We've got a little tiny bit of prose and pages of tables. Fix the article, and I would support this. --Jayron32 02:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - La Liga is one of the three top leagues in the world by most accounts and is surely very important in its home country. If that country spoke English instead of Spanish, I'm sure it would be a shoo-in for inclusion (e.g. Premier League, which is roughly the same level of play). However, article is inadequate so it can't be posted until that is fixed up. Specifically, it needs a prose summary of the season and a better lead - see the Premier League article for an example of what is expected. No objection to combining all two/three football stories into one blurb - despite the claims above, that actually is a reasonable compromise (takes up less space while still covering all the important stuff). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Either combined with PL or by itself. I think we should stick w/ top tier league competition, e.g., Premiere, La Liga, Bundsiliga, and Serie A, and even then just the biggest of these leagues not every country's league, e.g., not MLS, or Japan's or Australia's leagues. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support merging with the Man City blurb. Nergaal (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Thaddeus. La Liga is probably a stronger league than the English Premier League, so it would be ridiculous to post the EPL (which is ITN/R) but not this. Neljack (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many football stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this a pointy comment, or do you seriously believe that the FA Cup Final is more significant than La Liga? Neljack (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the FA Cup has been around since 1871, this year's competition started with 737 clubs, oldest cup competition in the world, etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well those points could all be used to oppose posting the English Premier League, but I assume you don't oppose that. Neljack (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I don't agree, they couldn't be used to oppose the EPL, that would be crazy, the comparison is chalk and cheese. However, as you know, the EPL is the premier association football competition on a global basis, viewership, sponsorship etc. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Funny, I thought the "premier association football competition" was starting in a few weeks in Brazil. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's an international competition, and on ITNR I believe. Perhaps you weren't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rambling Man...what next, Bundesliga? ..--Stemoc (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Why ever not? The Bundesliga has the highest attendance of any soccer league in the world. Neljack (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
support if EPL is ITNR, this better be.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: is more text not needed? The only prose at present is about pre-season. Thanks, Matty.007 12:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think that comparisons drawn with the Premier League are handy enough to illustrate the significance of La Liga. UEFA coefficients are something that changes every single year, while the ITN/R lists the Premier League, not the one with highest coefficient or the best football league in the world by any measure. Those who are not content with the current methodology we use to post domestic football stories are encouraged to challenge it on a more prominent place, the discussion page of ITN/R, or find other arguments rather than claiming something like 'it's even stronger than the English Premier League'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As the instruction expressly say, something not being on ITN/R is not a valid reason for opposing it. ITN/R does not constitute "the current methodology we use to post domestic football stories", particularly given that we have posted La Liga in the past. Neljack (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't use the absence on ITN/R to oppose the inclusion of La Liga, but the fact that the Premier League has more significance for our readers regardless of any league rankings or coefficients. You seem to have misunderstood my intent to relocate all the comments ranking La Liga as stronger than the Premier League to a page where they would be able to challenge the current inclusion of the Premier League and propose inclusion of the league with the highest UEFA coefficient instead. Finally, the precedent of posting it in the past might have been a more valid reason for support rather than making ridiculous comparisons.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, notability per ThaddeusB above, articles now look good. Favour a combined all-soccer-results blurb so as to leave more bullet points available for non-soccer stories. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready yet - but I will fix it up this afternoon/evening if no one gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • You'll add a few paragraphs of prose as well as fix the maintenance issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is what is required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I have added a season summary, expanded the lead, and added many references. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted but as all football events took place on the same day, I've combined the blurb with the existing EPL and FA Cup blurb, to avoid two consecutive "In association football..." blurbs (or even worse, one "In association football...." blurb followed by "In soccer...." blurb). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    The matches actually occurred on three different dates (11, 17 and 18 May, respectively). The Premier League concluded on 11 May (two days before the next earliest event with a blurb) and was bumped back to the top of the section because of the FA Cup's addition to the item, so I've dropped it and retained the other two events. —David Levy 08:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    As you like. You seem to tweak just about every ITN change, it may be useful if you posted those which are lingering so they're posted correctly the first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    To be clear, I wasn't criticising you for doing something incorrectly (and I'm sorry if that's how my reply came across); I felt that it was courteous (and potentially helpful to someone reading your message) to explain why I dropped one of the three events from the item.
    I do tweak many of the section's blurbs, which I regard as the most constructive contribution to ITN that I'm able to make on a regular basis. Obviously, your efforts (and those of others who read these discussions and gauge consensus) are far more important, but I rarely find the time to participate in that capacity. —David Levy 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    To be clear as well, once again I ask why we spend some time here determining which blurb to post, only to have someone completely overhaul it on a personal whim (albeit in good faith, of course) thus trumping any consensus previously achieved in the ITN/C discussion. It's all very well to suggest you don't have the time to assess consensus, but to completely ignore consensus by reworking just about every entry at ITN to fit your own tastes (which, I note recently, have been entirely contrary to the community, and reverted, either by yourself or someone else) seems like you're not taking any ITN discussion too seriously. I'm sure you're just being a great Wikipedian, but to see just about every single ITN update "tweaked" by David Levy becomes somewhat demoralising; we have our own "ITN monitor". Perhaps we shouldn't discuss the blurb construction in any detail any more, that way it doesn't matter if it gets reconstructed once posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    In fairness, the blurb itself is rarely discussed even in cases where it is clearly bad (e.g. poor English). Of course if there is discussion on the blurb text, that should be taken into account before making any changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    That may be the case for the majority, but I always attempt to consider that (along with article quality). Any way, we have a overseer so it's no major issue as everyone else at ITN/C seems quite content to have every blurb "tweaked" post-posting. I'll leave it at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    You seem to object to my edits primarily on principle. This is what confuses me most. If you disagree with a specific change, that's one thing. In such an instance, you should bring the issue to my attention and/or revert. But you appear to be complaining mainly about my edits' existence, not their specific natures.
    This is a wiki. As noted in the five pillars, "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". Those to fully protected pages are unusual in the respect that most editors are unable to perform (or undo) them, so greater care must be taken to ensure that they reflect consensus (and if they don't, they should be reverted promptly). This, however, doesn't mean that advance permission must be sought. I would understand your criticism if my ITN edits drew frequent complaints, which isn't the case. I assume that people are "quite content" because they regard most of my ITN edits as improvements or neutral changes. It certainly doesn't stem from apathy (as evidenced by the actual controversies that arise around here). —David Levy 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. That's why I came here and read The Rambling Man's rationale before performing the edit. Administrators needn't do that when correcting obvious errors or inconsistencies. —David Levy 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    Most of my edits involve relatively minor changes to formatting, grammar, etc., in accordance with our normal standards (not my "personal whim" or "tastes").
    Switching from the past tense to the present tense, bypassing redirects (thereby decreasing the likelihood of rapid moves resulting in the appearance of double redirects on the main page), including "a"/"an" in a link involving a specific instance of the thing mentioned, replacing "twelve people" with "12 people" (or vice versa) for consistency with other blurbs in which people are quantified, shifting the blurb with an image to the highest position for its date, separating blurbs about similar topics (when their respective dates allow), and correcting capitalization/punctuation/basic facts (such as the names of persons, places and events) doesn't constitute "trumping any consensus". Many administrators perform edits along these lines. Earlier today, Smurrayinchester did so to the very item under discussion (first edit/second edit).
    If a change is more substantive, I do look to the nomination. (When I noted that I "rarely find the time to participate in that capacity", I was referring to the evaluation of multiple nominations to determine whether the items should be posted.) In this instance, I found your explanation that you combined the three events into one blurb on the basis that "all football events took place on the same day", so I explained that they actually occurred on different dates and that I was dropping the Premier League because its conclusion on 11 May meant that its turn to be pushed off the list had arrived (per standard procedure). I'm confused as to the nature of your objection.
    Indeed, I've self-reverted some edits upon learning that the changes were contested or likely to be (example from yesterday). I make mistakes, just as you make mistakes (such as the one that Smurrayinchester corrected today). No one is perfect, but I always address concerns brought to my attention (as I'm sure you do too). Over the years, I've received few complaints about my ITN edits, with no one other than you asserting that I'm acting as an "ITN monitor" or systematically disregarding consensus. —David Levy 21:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    No, you're right, you always "tweak" blurbs for the betterment of Wikipedia. The main reason no-one complains that you routinely overrule any kind of consensus at ITN/C is that no-one, beside a couple of admins, follow nominations once they've been posted. Perhaps all you should take away from this is that it's a little odd that you always pop by almost instantly once ITN is updated, yet you claim to have no time at all to gauge consensus, get involved with the process etc. Hence why I noted your role as an overseer. Maybe we need a note to tell people that blurbs, once agreed, are subject to immediate change by your tweaks? Better still, write a little guide for us to understand "how to post to ITN without requiring tweaks from David Levy". That way we get it right first time and don't take up any of your scarce availability? I note things like avoiding placing items of a similar nature next to one another if possible, consistency with linking, but there are more subtle things you seem to indulge in (such as introducing English variations) which aren't clear to me. It's helpful to all of us if you could write down your methods. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    The main reason no-one complains that you routinely overrule any kind of consensus at ITN/C is that no-one, beside a couple of admins, follow nominations once they've been posted.
    If that's your belief, I suggest that you compile evidence that I "routinely overrule any kind of consensus at ITN/C" and initiate a community discussion of the alleged misconduct.
    Perhaps all you should take away from this is that it's a little odd that you always pop by almost instantly once ITN is updated, yet you claim to have no time at all to gauge consensus, get involved with the process etc.
    I use some of my limited time to improve posted ITN blurbs. This is a part of the process in which multiple administrators – including you – participate.
    You mentioned my self-reversions (which, for some reason, you regard as consistent with the premise that I arbitrarily impose my personal preferences and disregard others' input). I cited the most recent instance, in which I restored this change, which doesn't appear to have been discussed here or at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Am I to understand that you noticed a style issue and simply tweaked the posted ITN item to address it? Does this mean that you unilaterally overruled the consensus established in the ITN/C discussion, wherein the blurb contained "F.C."? Or does performing this type of edit more frequently somehow make it harmful instead of helpful?
    I'll remind you that your above complaint arose when I dropped the earliest concluded event from ITN (per standard procedure) and posted an explanation here as a courtesy to you (and others). I remain baffled as to the nature of your objection.
    Maybe we need a note to tell people that blurbs, once agreed, are subject to immediate change by your tweaks?
    Everything written at Wikipedia is subject to change. That's how wikis work. Many administrators – again, including you – perform such edits. As far as I can tell, I've been singled out because I do so more frequently than most and/or because you view me as an outsider (due to my limited participation at ITN/C). If I'm mistaken, I welcome your elucidation.
    Better still, write a little guide for us to understand "how to post to ITN without requiring tweaks from David Levy". That way we get it right first time and don't take up any of your scarce availability? I note things like avoiding placing items of a similar nature next to one another if possible, consistency with linking,
    In case you're under an impression to the contrary, I'll note that I didn't invent those conventions (or the others that I mentioned).
    Setting aside your sarcasm, WP:ITN/A could be expanded to include additional advice, but this would complicate a process that some regard as too complicated now. Adherence to the core standards is more important. Various admins (again, I'm far from the only one with such involvement) can perform the style tweaks as needed.
    but there are more subtle things you seem to indulge in (such as introducing English variations) which aren't clear to me.
    Are you referring to WP:ENGVAR issues? —David Levy 22:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, " It's helpful to all of us if you could write down your methods. Thanks." You could add them to the admin instructions page, thus not burdening anyone unduly. Perhaps here, as a style guide, as I mentioned, for the benefit of those of us who don't follow all that you do. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

For reasons that I think are obvious, I interpreted your request that I "write a little guide for [administrators] to understand 'how to post to ITN without requiring tweaks from David Levy'" as sarcasm.
I don't mind expanding the section to which you linked, provided that it's clear that these are longstanding conventions (not "[my] methods", implemented "on a personal whim").
For the record, I recall introducing one now-common practice to ITN's blurbs: sidestepping the "win"/"wins" and "defeat"/"defeats" English variety issue via the "[tournament] concludes with [winning team] winning/defeating [championship/losing team]" construct. I'm not particularly fond of this awkward solution, but under ITN's present-tense format (which I believe should be replaced), it seems to be regarded as the lesser of two evils. —David Levy 19:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said " It's helpful to all of us if you could write down your methods. Thanks." If you have the time to do this, that'd be great, and it may save you time in the long term. If not, so be it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I don't mind doing that. I'll try to get to it soon. I was just addressing some peripheral points. —David Levy 20:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted, as an addition to the Premier League item] FA Cup finalEdit

Article: 2014 FA Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Arsenal win the FA Cup with a 3–2 win over Hull City.
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Manchester City win the Premier League and Arsenal win the FA Cup.
News source(s): Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, New Zealand Herald, The Australian, Slovak Pravda, Le Monde, Die Welt, Yahoo Canada, El Pais ... &c

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The oldest association football competition in the world, massive worldwide viewership, should be ITN/R (just as Epsom Derby is being mooted right now). I've listed several major news outlets from the UK, France, Germany, Australia, the US, Eastern Europe.... all covering this story. If anyone needs me to find further evidence that this is both "in the news" and ready to post, please let me know as soon as possible. Blurb is crap and needs some adjustment, but otherwise the nomination is sound. P.S. Per the instructions, please don't "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." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Suggestion Combine this with the existing soccer blurb, for "In soccer, Manchester City wins the UK Premier League while Arsenal wins the FA Cup". So then we'd avoid having soccer using up 2 spaces at once.
Suggest we use 'soccer' rather than 'association football' because that's the more common name (apart from 'football' which is obviously confusing in an international context and should therefore be avoided).
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has settled on "association football" as the name of the sport and ITN should follow that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be content with a merged blurb, but never "soccer" for two British footballing events. Never. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Wikipedia has not settled on "association football" as the name of the sport in all contexts - I have fairly recently been involved in a lengthy discussion which has affirmed that "soccer" should generally be used in Australian contexts. I have no objection to the use of "association football" in this context, however. Neljack (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Our article says, "Association football, more commonly known as football or soccer". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge the only place that calls it soccer is America. Matty.007 12:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not correct. It's commonly called soccer in Australia and New Zealand. Neljack (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's not start all this again. If this combo blurb gets posted, then it's "association football". No need to change it. It's wikilinked. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Further suggestion - It's a busy day for European football; Bayern Munich just beat Borussia Dortmund to win the DFB-Pokal and thus the German double, while Atletico Madrid just won La Liga for the first time since 1996. Is it stretching a point too much to have a long-ish narrative blurb covering all of these events? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense to me. Otherwise we will have half our ITN items all about the one sport. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. "In soccer, A and B and C and D have happened". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suport - the FA Cup has been opposed in the past because of the "not top level" competition canard. That is true, but irrelevant. What is relevant is the cultural impact of the event, which is substantial. I do agree it makes sense to combine this with the Premier League crown so as to only take up one line. As to the other football items, they should probably be nominated separately. (La Liga is pretty significant but DFB-Pokal is not, nor is a double; a triple, however, is worth posting.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    P.S. Article and update are good. The "Media Coverage" section is unreferenced, though. Its not a major issue (uncontentious material) but should sitll be fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Question If this "should be ITNR", why isn't it? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    1) It hasn't been discussed in a long time; standards were much tighter on sports ~4 years ago when it was suggested for ITN/R. 2) Consensus can change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combo blurb only. My initial gut instinct was to oppose since we will be having the World Cup happening soon and that is, clearly, the "top level" in the world of soccer. I really don't see a strong argument to post just the FA final over La Liga but separate blurbs would be overkill. However, with all these events happening in a relatively short period of time, I can see the overall newsworthiness of this sort of "Championship Week" in soccer. So while my instinct is still leaning towards oppose, I would support a "combo blurb" that list several of the championship winners (no need to list who they defeated) that have recently been decided. AgneCheese/Wine 00:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The FA Cup is the oldest football competition in the world and has a remarkable place in the history of the game. Drawing conclusions as to how and why this is not comparable to the top level football competitions (whatsoever a definition for a top level competition is) should not have any impact on the ultimate decision, as the tradition and history are much more important as decisive criteria rather than using controversial definitions for top level football competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though this was a phenomenal game and shows the reasons the FA Cup is so exciting, I still oppose. I think we should stick w/ top tier league competition, e.g., Premiere, La Liga, Bundsiliga, and Serie A, and even then just the biggest of these leagues not every country's league, e.g., not MLS, or Japan's or Australia's leagues. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many football stories, and many of them are more notable than this. Nergaal (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was on the frontpage yesterday in the DYK section. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, the result was not on the front page yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Thaddeus about the importance of cultural significance, but I don't think that the FA Cup Final is quite as big as it was a few decades ago - when it was probably a bigger deal that the league championship (no-one would contend that the FA Cup is more important than the Premier League these days). Also the soccer leagues of many countries are of considerable cultural importance - the Brazilian, Argentine, German, Italian and Dutch leagues, to name but a few. Giving full allowance (as I think we should) to the fact that this is the most popular sport in the world, there is still a limit to the number of competitions that we can reasonably include - even though, as I have noted, there are plenty of ones that would have a fair claim in terms of cultural significance. Given this, I am not convinced that including two English competitions is justifiable as the best use of a scarce resource. Neljack (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, a combined blurb would add an additional 27 characters to the main page. I think the "scarce resource" can cope with that! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well I guess I wouldn't object so much to a combined blurb (I took this to be a separate nomination), though I would have thought that fitting the EPL, La Liga and the FA Cup into one blurb would make it rather long. I suppose we could have the EPL and FA Cup in one blurb and La Liga in another one. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
support the worlds oldest football story ought to be ITNR...and finally a trophy! at least therest something fo rbeing top otf the league for 20 weeks...Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If we use this, I would suggest merging it with the DFB-Pokal, which was played on the same day, and is the equivalent tournament in Germany (a country that is at least the UK's equal in terms of football fanaticism). So: "Arsenal beat Hull City 3–2 to win the FA Cup, and Bayern Munich beat Borussia Dortmund 2–0 to win the DFB-Pokal." Smurrayinchester 11:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Too many conflation options. Let's stick to keeping the British football together. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted as an addition to the Premier League item. Stephen 01:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • WTF???? this gets posted but La Liga doesn't? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't suppose the pitiful quality of the La Liga article helps, and the distinct lack of prose. Maybe you could add some details on the season itself, rather than just relying on a one-liner in the lead saying what the result of the whole season was? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Louise WilsonEdit

Article: Louise Wilson (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: Article may need expanding Matty.007 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose an academic who "influenced" fashion designers. Not really getting this for RD. Perhaps the nominator can explain the significance against the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The same source also says "leading figure", and Vogue's UK editor said that she "played a remarkable role in making the British fashion scene as successful and relevant as it is today". Thanks, Matty.007 13:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Top of her field. Guardian says "inspirational figure in the world of fashion", Business of Fashion says "legendary". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It seems fair to say she was an influential figure, but "top of her field" doesn't look clear to me. The article would need considerable work before posting. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the article isn't adequate, it's barely stub-quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Fantastic work from January has expanded the article. Thanks, Matty.007 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm not seeing anything to indicate she was on the top of the field of fashion. If one narrowly defines fields, then what is the evidence that she is the top of the field of "fashion academics" or "fashion studies"? Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in light of the statements about her impact and stature in the fashion field. Neljack (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready As Matty says, January has done an excellent job expanding and referencing the article. There is 4-2 support, and plenty of evidence has been provided of her importance and impact in the fashion field. Neljack (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Vote counting is against the rules. My arguments remain valid. The idea is not to weave together a narrowly defined field and then say someone is the top of that. An academic could never be on the top of the field of fashion the way a designer could. Similarly, a biologist working in industry could never be on the top of the field of biological research the way an academic could. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it is a common problem here that people declare an item to be ready based on some numerical scoring system which Wikipedia does not support. Well argued discussion resulting in a consensus is better. For example, Abductive argues that there's really no such field unless it's narrowed to the point of non-existence, while Balaenoptera musculus states she was "Top of her field". While the article work is greatly appreciated, it's probably still fair to say there's some concern over the matching of this individual's contributions and the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I did not simply engage in vote counting. I mentioned the numbers as one factor supporting the view that there was consensus, along with the evidence that had been provided showing her impact in her field. It can hardly be denied that the number of people supporting and opposing something is relevant to determining whether it has consensus. Neljack (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - The intersection of academics and fashion is indeed a very small catgeory. That is a concern, hence my "weak". On the other hand, a reasonable case can be made that Wilson was in some sense a top the fashion world. In creative fields, it is often not just those who achieved the most success that are later seen as the best, but also those who influenced them. There is no question Wilson influenced a lot of important designers, so I can see the case that she is RD worthy. Coverage is surprisingly broad (otherwise I would not support in a border-line case such as this) with a large percentage using terms such as "legendary" to describe Wilson. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Personally I don't have too much problem with notability based on being a top fashion academic - we wouldn't be asserting the field is too small to be notable for a top physicist, historian or geologist. Fashion subjectively feels less "worthy" but don't see a rationale basis on which to arrive that conclusion. My problem rather is how do you arrive at the conclusion that she is a top fashion academic? The sources I have seen talk relatively vaguely about designers she has "influenced" which is a fairly nebulous concept - how much did she shape the course of any individual's career? Was that impact a positive or negative influence? Was the affect to follow her ideas or to rebel against them? How much of any claimed influence is purely vanity claims of the supposed influenced as opposed to any real change in direction? You can never get any real dimensions to such vague claims, which in my mind reduces it more to the level of notability by association. 3142 (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • She has been called a legend and a genius, by such people as the UK editor of Vogue. Thanks, Matty.007 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I find am I swayed by the oppose opinions, in particular, 3142's. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

World's largest dinosaurEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The largest dinosaur yet is found in Argentina
Alternative blurb: ​Scientists find fossilized bones of what may be the largest dinosaur found to date.
News source(s): http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/dinosaur-unearthed-argentina-breaks-record-largest-ever-discovered-n107966

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: If it is true that this is the largest dinosaur ever found, it will attract a lot of attention. Certainly the lay media is claiming it to be the largest ever. If it is not true, sing out. Most of the news media sources aren't giving the name, so it will be helpful to our readers to put this on the Front Page. --Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Seem important enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that the new giant that was today reported is not Leinkupal, named on the 14th. Leinkupal is in fact a very small animal (for a sauropod) attaining about nine metres in length (Yes, this information should have been added. Frankly, I forgot about it...). The (apparently) new species hasn't been named yet and this might take many years. Also, there are other candidates for the title of "largest dinosaur", such as Amphicoelias, though the latter is based on much more limited remains.--MWAK (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
My bad. I misread [33]. I should have known; the large one was discovered by a farm worker, and they usually give some sort of nod to amateur discovers in the scientific name. Abductive (reasoning) 19:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing in the article which even hints at this being the largest dinosaur ever, and as MWAK said above, there is nothing apparently special about this specimen. Also, the hook is misleading, as there is a difference between "largest ever found" and "largest ever". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I have made corrections to the nomination. Perhaps somebody could create the article? Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an article Dinosaur size which might serve for this purpose.--MWAK (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose pointless nominating an item at ITN without even a blurb with a linked article. Come back when you have a real proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Besides the lack of article, there's the issue of how this has accepted as the largest by the scientific community (any peer-review? The MSNBC suggests none). There's also the idea "there's always a bigger fish out there", and we tend to avoid to ITN stories about the newest "largest" thing found unless there's reason beyond doubt to show it. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • This is my view in general, as my history of comments at ITN/C will show. However, the readership of Wikipedia will be looking for this dinosaur. Abductive (reasoning) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral I do not believe the results have been published in a scientific journal (if they were the dino would likely to named). That is a significant issue, although perhaps not decisive. That a bigger dinosaur could be found some day is not an issue. Perhaps it is better to wait until the find is published and an article on it can be created, but I'm open to persuasion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - It looks liek we have an article now - Unnamed Titanosaur --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I wanted to nominate this, but couldn't find a suitable article in time. This is a big discovery both in quality (largest bones ever) and quantity (7 dinosaurs). Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and important dinosaur size news. I suggest calling this giant "Megatitanosaurus" :) MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a partial skeleton. The trend towards ever larger diplodocids in Argentina is not surprising, and we do have a target article, Leinkupal laticauda.
    • You're making the same mistake that I did. Also, I am not aware of any 100% complete dinosaur finds. Abductive (reasoning) 20:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
In other words, this is not Leinkupal. But it would still remain a wait until the description is published, no? If that's wrong policywise, whoever creates an article on the newster should notify me and I'll iWaffle. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • 99+% of all finds are "partial skeletons" --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • After some thought, I support this based on the large amount of news coverage it continues to received days later. That the find is not yet peer reviewed is a concern, but insufficient for me not to support since it is improbable something as basic as the size of teh find would be disputed. I have suggested an altblurb that better captures the situation. If this is not posted now, it should not be considered stale when the find is peer reviewed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've read several of the articles regarding this find, but I am uncomfortable with the phrasing in the blurbs, "may be" in one and "largest dinosaur yet" in the other. Wouldn't a stronger and more accurate blurb be written once there is peer review? All we would need to say is something like, Paleontologists confirm the recent finding of...". That would keep it from being stale. However, it is true that we then run the risk of it no longer being In The News. Still I oppose as the blurbs stand.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait for a peer-reviewed publication. Just because some media outlets have jumped on a science press release without a journal article doesn't mean that an encyclopaedia should. I'm inclined to support if/when this is actually published. Modest Genius talk 20:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Lao Air Force crashEdit

 Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A fatal crash killing multiple currently serving government members is important enough for me. CaptRik (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the BBC has just reported this and seems very reluctant to go into too many details. If, as suspected, there are fatalities of members of the Laos government, and assuming we can expand the article a bit more, then this is certainly ITN material. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the article can be developed gradually. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Well it has to be a minimum standard before it's posted. Currently it's not there yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The Rambling Man: I have expanded. Better now? Thanks, Matty.007 10:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Moderately, but until we have a clear idea of the casualties/deaths, we should refrain from posting, just reading the article makes it blindingly obvious that there's no real idea what's going on. Yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, every single number I got was different somewhere else. 6:15 or 6:30. 14 or 20. No-one seems to know yet. Thanks, Matty.007 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why does the nomination say 'Royal Lao Air Force' when Laos is a communist nation? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Matty.007 12:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the header, too. But I was actually interested in the answer to my question: why was it listed as 'royal' when it obviously isn't? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps because there was once Kingdom of Laos. Brandmeistertalk 14:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea, I didn't create or nominate it. Thanks, Matty.007 17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That was my fault, as it was the first to come up in a Google hit, and I forgot that there might be other ones. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until facts are clearer per others. There is no rush to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Facts are a fair bit clearer, figures seem to have stabilised at 16 deaths and 2 survivors. Thanks, Matty.007 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - now that facts are clear. I would think a plane crash that killed members of a national government should be a shoo-in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm still not seeing clear indications in the article which members of the government were killed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Added all confirmed. Thanks, Matty.007 19:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment article still contradicts itself regarding survivors. Either three, two or one.... Please fix this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a considerable number of fixes, but it should be ready to go now, so marked as such. Hopefully a helpful admin can pop by and post it... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

May 16Edit


[Posted] Colorado RiverEdit

Article: Colorado River (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Colorado River flows into the ocean for the first time in sixteen years, following a historic agreement between the United States and Mexico regarding water extraction.
Alternative blurb: ​The Colorado River flows into the ocean for the first time in sixteen years following conservation efforts.
News source(s): National Geographic, AP/ABC, New Scientist

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The Colorado River is one of the best known in the world, and this is both a very dramatic example of our effect on the environment, and a major landmark in international water negotations (although reaching the sea is really just the most dramatic and symbolic moment in this slow-burning story. This seems like the best moment to nominate though). --Smurrayinchester 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Interesting story that combines geography/geology and politics. Would recommend this should be put under May 16 as that's the date the story report this "happened". --MASEM (t) 21:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, have moved it and corrected the article. (For what its worth, the story only broke today) Smurrayinchester 21:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting and different story involving two nations. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support article quality good, and it is an important topic that we don't normally see in ITN. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - quality is good. Important.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I would have liked to have seen more popular news coverage (journal coverage isn't really in the news) but subject matter must surely count as highly encyclopedic. If it had been up for a bit longer I'd be tempted to mark ready. 3142 (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Red LobsterEdit

No consensus to post this particular business story. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Red Lobster (talk, history)
Blurb: Darden Restaurants agrees to sell Red Lobster to Golden Gate Capital for US$2.1 billion.
News source(s): USA Today, Reuters, BBC
Nominator's comments: Business stories are sorely underrepresented on ITN. Here is a good opportunity to work on that. Deals of this size are rare, and Red Lobster is an iconic brand, not a product/company few people have heard of. Red Lobster operates primarily in North America, but is does also have a small global footprint. The deal is unlikely to face regulatory hurdles and is likely to affect consumers as the news owners will likely make some changes (of course the exact nature of the changes is unknown, but its a good bet there will be changes.) In other words, this has almost all the elements people have previously said they want to see in business stories. Article will need some work, which I will take care of sometime this weekend. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Restaurant chains are sold all the time, there's no indication this acquisition by the holding company that owns The Limited will result in any innovatory changes like a Romano's Red Macaroni Lobster Grill, just the usual managerial shuffling and layoffs. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    "Restaurant chains are sold all the time".[citation needed] Your opposition to all business stories as "routine" makes your opposition rather meaningless. Your standard may be "no business stories ever (except maybe crimes that relate to business)", but ITN's shouldn't. Elections, explosions, end of sports seasons, end of singing contests, and military moves (i.e. all current items) are routine in some sense, yet we are able to distinguish which ones are important enough and which ones are not. Yet, every business story proposed is decided to be common place. This is an unfair double standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. Business takeovers happen constantly and I think a wow factor really is needed for us to pick one out of the crowd and make it an ITN item. We post the most important sports events, elections, singing contests etc., and there's no reason why we can't do the same for business takeovers/mergers, but I don't think the case for this one being special has been made. Formerip (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't nominate routine deals - routine deals (the kinds that actually happen daily) are in the <$100 million range and mostly for things few people have heard of. And when I do nominate exceptional deals (in the multi-billion $ range, 1-2 a month at most) they are called "routine". We post upwards of 50 sports stories, 50 elections, and 50 disasters a year. Yet we are only allowed what 2-3 record-breaking business deals a year? If we insisted on near record numbers for disasters, for example, we would only post a couple a year. Somehow this "record" standard is only applied to business stories.
This is a large deal (rare) for an iconic brand (rarer). It is one of the most noteworthy (attracted the most attention) deals of the year. It is not a merger, which are also opposed as "only affects middle managers, not consumers", but a deal which actually has a very significant chance of impacting consumers (an outright change of ownership of brand consumers interact with regularly). Supposedly this is what people wanted to see, but of course now it will be opposed for some other reason ("not big enough", "happens all the time", etc.) based on personal impressions. The simple truth is that ITN regulars do not find business interesting and thus will oppose almost all business stories for one reason or another. The world, however, sees a lot of importance in business - for example, roughly 15-20% of a typical newspaper is business news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
You're making the wrong comparison. Business takeovers are a very narrow category, and there's no logic to comparing that category to the category "sport" (a very broad category) in terms of numbers. It's a category which, if allowed to run riot in practice, would also be in all probability a heavily skewed category, geographically speaking (unless you're about to tell me that the pending sale of Benelux DIY chain Brico is a shoo-in). Formerip (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope, "Business" most certainly is not a "very narrow category" and business stories consist of almost exclusively 3 things: business deals of various types, quarterly numbers, and stock market movement. I assume no one would be the least bit interested in posting "routine" quarterly numbers (even in exceptional circumstance) and IPOs are normally rejected (the only kind of stock market activity that has any chance excluding a once in a decade market crash). That leaves only deals and the rare crime story (that might actually have a chance of being posted but only because of the crime angle). If you disagree, then please do tell what kind of business stories can be posted but aren't being nominated.
Obviously no business story is a "shoo-in", but naturally if people finally start accepting big deals such deals are not confined to the US. I believe we have posted a grand total of 2 business stories this year, and both were tough fights to get through despite being record-breaking mergers (1 of the 4 companies between the two mergers was American). That is a ridiculous under-representation of a very important arena of human life. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Business stories don't consist of just three things - that's what I am referring to as "narrow". Just a cursory glance at today's news shows General Motors being fined over its recent recall, The Co-operative Group voting to directly elect its board (pretty significant, since it was the world's first co-op and now it's changing the basic governance structure on which it was founded) and Jérôme Kerviel sort of going on the run in Italy. I don't know if any of those would get consensus, but they are certainly bigger and more interesting business stories than "thing you've never heard of sells thing you've never heard of to thing you've never heard of to no net effect that anyone will notice". Formerip (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Two of those three are basically crime stories, which reinforces my point that only crime stories have a chance of passing. (Also, the fine is far smaller than one that was just opposed last month and Kerviel refusing to return to France is barely even a story at all. To suggest a huge company receiving a tiny fine or an individual pondering his legal situation has more impact on the world than a large business deal is beyond laughable.) A change in leadership has never been tried, but I can't imagine it having the slightest chance of passing. (Incidentally, I have tried a number of rarer story types, and they have basically unanimously been rejected.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: multi-billion merger seems notable, not routine. Matty.007 19:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, "multi-"? I see what you've done there. Kind of like how the human race is ruled by an odd cadre of multi-legged elites. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: very minor significance in world, and probably not that great in the US either. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppse: Not a major player nowadays. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose routine business story. --Jayron32 02:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    This is said about every single business story nominated. Please help me to understand what is a "non-routine" story (outside of criminal convictions related to business activity.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Things which have a significant impact on whole industries or macro-economies, perhaps?
I'm not familiar with the American restaurant business, does this merger have an impact across the industry? (e.g. if it's a merger of market leaders it might).
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Red Lobster is known to all through advertising, but it is not one of the big boys. It might be the largest seafood chain in the US. The List of restaurant chains in the United States really could use some more numbers. Abductive (reasoning) 15:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Remember when InBev acquired Anheuser-Busch? That was the sort of news that gave a lot of people pause. Abductive (reasoning) 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I haven't. I feel no need to help you understand anything if you feel the need to tell me that I said things I did not say. I have not said this about every business story. I have said this about this business story because it's the kind of corporate merger that happens routinely. --Jayron32 01:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    I didn't say you did, just that it said (by someone) about every nomination which makes me legitimately wonder what people consider "non-routine". The fact that you would reply to refuse to answer the question is pretty asinine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a record amount, not a large impact on the market. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a record amount; was sold due to poor performance which supports the idea of this having little significance. While I too would like to see more business stories I agree there needs to be some sort of hook or something else notable besides a sale. If they went out of business totally or even just decided to do away with the name it might be notable due to its iconic brand status. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thaddeus I'll answer your rather ad hominem "invalidation" of my oppose and list a few examples of business stories I would support after you've attacked the other half dozen opposers here. In the meantime, it's a basic principle of logic that argument requires shared basic principles, and if you hold that "Business stories are sorely underrepresented on ITN" and I deny that premise, calling me a bigot might have some visceral benefit but no cognitive one. μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    Um, there was precisely zero ad hominem. I said opposing every business story makes such opposition meaningless. If you think that is a personal attack, I don't know what to say... Telling me to attack other editors as a condition to answer my question, however, is clearly inappropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Thaddeus: "Your opposition to all business stories as "routine" makes your opposition rather meaningless" is ad hominem. You might as well say my opposition to murdering infants in general makes my opposition to this child's murder meaningless. Basing that validity of a current argument on (not even an accurate description of) personal past behavior is ad hominem. μηδείς (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
PS, some people use ad hominem to mean insulting. I didn't find your comment insulting. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Some people may use it to mean insulting, but it is actually a specific logical fallasy - attemptign to discrediut an argument by discrediting the person making it. If you mean "insulting", just say "insulting". I am sorry if you found it insulting, but my point remains valid - if one is opposed to all instances of a particular kind of story, and ITN as a whole is not, then such oposition in a particular case is not helpful in determining the relative notability of the specific story in question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
To quote myself, while you seem to have paraphrased me, :) "some people use ad hominem to mean insulting. I didn't find your comment insulting." I am beginning to wonder if this will affect the policy of Red Lobster employees giving Denny's employees free drinks in exchange for free food. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I clearly misread what you wrote. In any case, I am clearly in the minority on this one - ITN doesn't see it as a notable business deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2014 Gikomba explosionsEdit

Article: 2014 Gikomba explosions (talk, history)
Blurb: Two explosions in Nairobi, Kenya's capital city, kill at least 10 people.
News source(s): The Guardian

Nominator's comments: Clearly a significant event. I will create the article if others agree it is notable enough have created the article so this process can work normally. --Jinkinson talk to me 00:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I will create the article if others agree it is notable enough. It's hard to agree if something is notable enough when there isn't an article to look at. That seems counter-intuitive to the way the ITN nomination process works. SpencerT♦C 01:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, alright, but I don't like people telling me I shouldn't keep creating articles on random shit because it might not be notable, so I guess this is a lose-lose situation (or maybe I'm just in the wrong place). Thus I will create the article immediately. Jinkinson talk to me 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The subject is clearly notable enough for an article, as you yourself implied. The encyclopedia benefits from having an article whether or not it is posted on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Seconded. Just because an article might not succeed at ITN, there's not necessarily a reason it shouldn't succeed at being a Wikipedia article. Create articles, it's all good! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support certainly made headlines on my national news, and serious event. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment TRM, is there a reason you use "it did/didn't show up on my online news feed" as a yardstick to measure significance by so often? Jinkinson talk to me 22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment yes there is. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could share it? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what difference that makes to either of you. You are entitled to your own opinions you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Event is notable IMO, article looks good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and needs attention. Since this has been nominated for a while and the article seems to be acceptable now and there are no opposes, this should be posted as soon as possible.Rhodesisland (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - article condition is good & there are no objections among the meager number of comments offered so posting before this becomes stale. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[Re-posted] 2014 Southeast Europe floodsEdit

Article: 2014 Southeast Europe floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Worst floods in past 100 years hit Serbia and Bosnia.
Alternative blurb: ​Several countries in the Balkans are affected by major floods, resulting in death of at least 21 people, massive evacuation, declared emergency and international response.
News source(s): https://www.google.rs/search?q=serbia+floods&tbm=nws

Nominator's comments: These are the worst floods in more than a 100 years affecting countries with more than 10 million people, with thousands already being displaced and a number of people killed; and, they are likely to affect more countries downstream. --Nikola (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is well covered in the news, but the death toll looks minor and the article needs a lot of work. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I have merged the article with the already existing one that I have not noticed and changed the nomination. Nikola (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I support this now. The impact is pretty big. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose not well covered in the news I read, and no real notability for ITN I can determine. Having said that, we regularly see fires and tornado outbreaks in the US on the main page, and those are always expected, while this is not usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think we should always rely on the death toll as the only decisive criterion for posting. The floods caused major damages in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, emergency was declared in both countries, thousands of people were evacuated from their homes, many European countries have already reacted by sending aid to the affected region, and the prevalence of the story in the news has been rapidly escalating from the very beginning. Combining all these information is definitely sufficient for posting. I'd also like to propose an alternative blurb that more precisely reflects all the things going on.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with tighter blurb. 8 deaths is unusual/high for this type of disaster in this part of the world. Besides, this affects the entire economies of two countries. I think saying Major floods affect Southeastern Europe is sufficient. Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, significant natural disaster, reported internationally, widely covered in the news. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While not a high number of casualties(thankfully), this is affecting a wide area and many people, and is being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. High time this reaches the front page. Suggested blurb: "Disastrous floods in Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina leave dozens killed and tens of thousands displaced from their homes and towns." Vrstefko (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Ready to post, but the blurb is a bit long. Can we just go with "Major floods affect Serbia and Bosnia"? --Tone 15:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd opt for "the heaviest floods in past 100 years..." or "heavy floods..." to distinguish them from other floods that aren't posted. Brandmeistertalk 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - can someone please make the dozen+ one sentence "poaragraphs" into a few proper paragraphs and make sure the material is referenced? Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I improved the references a bit. Posting now. --Tone 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Really? Oh dear. The article is junk, effectively a list of bullet points without bullets, and pisspoor formatting/references. Too late I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of bullet lists myself. But most of the text is ok. That's why I went on with posting. Hopefully some editors will work on it further. --Tone 19:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of the references are badly formatted, I'm still not sure that the blurb is actually capturing the point of this story. Can we add some kind of context to the blurb, at least, to tell people that several have been killed, according to the article it's 21, not the "dozens" claimed above. Right now it just looks like "Floods impact "country".". Like, so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The blurb should say:"100-year floods cause at least 21 deaths, and submerge entire towns in parts of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina." Article is bad, but it is an ongoing crisis. Death toll is still unclear (probably higher than 21) due to government ban on announcing victims until the floods are over. It would probably be better to delete all the bullets about individual towns (situation has since changed for many of them), to make it readable. Vrstefko (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull it's not even written in grammatically correct English. Seriously, let's get this off quickly, work on it, and then push it back on if it's updated properly. Noted at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with TRM that the article was not ready for posting and that the blurb doesn't capture the importance of the story. These issues should either be fixed or the article pulled. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    Best for you to pull it now Thaddeus, and we can fix it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pulled sub-standard article, woeful blurb. Hopefully something can be done about all this before an attempt to re-post it is made. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Re-Post Support I corrected the disambiguation warnings and cleared some of the outdated news (bullets). With the new suggestion for blurb, I propose to re-post in ITN. The lack of international coverage, Wikipedia ITN included, is really being interpreted as sort of a snub for Serbia and Bosnia. Vrstefko (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    If you feel Bosnia is being snubbed, a good place to start fixing that would be to reference the "Bosnia and Herzegovina" section of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is now getting coverage from BBC and NDR; if the article updates are sufficient, let's put this back up. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: 2014_Southeast_Europe_floods#Affected_regions could use copyediting and some more references. There are a lot of vague statements in this section especially that need to be fleshed out with concrete details, instead of stating that "X was flooded, Y was also flooded, but Z was not flooded." For an example of what a good update would look like, see 2013 European floods, specifically 2013_European_floods#Elbe_basin. SpencerT♦C 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I gave the article a substantial copyedit & added some referencing. It's not the greatest article ever, but should meet minimum standards now. I suggest using "Major floods in Southeast Europe kill at least 20 people and lead to more than 16,000 evacuations." as the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Re-posted good work Thaddeus, I improved a bunch of the refs on the way too. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    Could the blurb be updated to "at least 40 people" per [34]? Nikola (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
      Done. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As far as the pulling from ITN is concerned, the peak wave on the Sava and the Danube in Serbia is expected on Wednesday or Thursday, then it moves downstream to Romania and Bulgaria, but hopefully with much less drama. I suggest the blurb remains on ITN at least until then. P.S. I hope I did more good than damage in writing and editing the article so far. Sorry if my skills and etiquette were not up to the task. Vrstefko (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrstefko (talkcontribs) 00:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Indian electionEdit

Articles: Indian general election, 2014 (talk, history) and Narendra Modi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance wins a majority in the Indian general election.
Alternative blurb: Narendra Modi is appointed as the Prime Minister of India.
News source(s): The Hindu BBC New York Times TOI

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: As per early rounds of counting NDA leads in the election. Will get clear results in few hours. --Gfosankar (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Have struck out the blurb for now for obvious reasons. Until we have the final result, editors please comment on the lead article and such. @Gfosanker: Don't mind, but I suppose we will be posting the blurb only after final result is settled. We won't be keeping any live scores on who is leading and who is not; only who won. Isn't that right everyone? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentLet's wait for the election results to come in. May be we can also mention the PM candidate in the blurb itself (depending on the performance). Should we mention the fact that they were the largest ever democratically elected governmental elections in history of the world in the blurb? [My personal opinion] Regards, theTigerKing  04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
obvious support as ITNR...and you stole my nom ;( JAI MATA DI! Amethi is key and that chootad is getting jhapped!

Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Yes, await the result. We may need to modify the blurb thereafter. As, the election results might establish new records and update historical parameters in number of ways after a significant period of time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment BJP on its own could also get a majority, which news channels are saying has not happened in last 3 decades (single party getting majority). Maybe the blurb could be modified accordingly. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support when the results are out. With 800+ million voters, this was the largest election in history in a world power and will very likely have a strong impact locally, regionally and globally. What more needs to be added? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, of course, in principle, but as the maintenance tag at the top of the article clearly states, it needs a really thorough copyedit before it could be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Narendra Modi should be mentioned in the blurb since the whole campaign was centered around him. Once the results are announced, the blurb can be modified if BJP wins a clear majority. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait it's the results that are ITN/R, and, as of one minute ago, only 28 of 543 seats have been announced. The initial counts show a very clear outcome, but we should wait until the results are certified. Results are here for anyone interested - I'll be keeping an eye on it throughout the day. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Strong Support All the Counting is over, the NDA won a majority, the BJP has won a majority on its own. This should be on the main page immediately. Zince34' 10:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a source for that, please? The results I'm seeing still say that there are only ~130 seats out of 543 that have been counted fully. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Although various news websites are showing different numbers, and that's very likely to happen as their updates are possibly done at different times, I would suggest to wait till we post it ahead. Btw, I don't know where you are getting your ~130 score from and at what time, this official website http://eciresults.nic.in/ is a good one. But it is kinda slow than other news sites and they update it with all chunks of information unlike the news one who only tell you who won and not with all stats. As of 6:34 PM IST, 220 of 543 seats have a definite winners announced. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the duplicate nomination and left a friendly note at the user's talk page explaining. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks likely at this stage that the BJP will have an outright majority, without need for the NDA coalition. Should we have a BJP majority or an NDA majority in the blurb? GoldenRing (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I was just about to propose that. In my opinion, I'd rather have the blurb say "BJP majority" instead, but I think it is necessary to mention Narendra Modi. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb proposed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
1. Mentioning Modi, with image is important. 2. Lets not rush to delete NDA's name altogether. BJP could easily form the government on their own now; but might very well share important posts with ministers of the coalition parties. So don't guess and write BJP alone. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
You are confusing government formation with gaining a 1/2 majority. If the BJP does get such a majority, it won't be wrong to write so. Actual government formation may take place even later. MikeLynch (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The essence of ITN is its freshness. So its better to put it now, whatever is the fact. Remember that the main page is editable and we do rephrase blurbs many times about ongoing events. If you all wanna wait then lets wait till 2019 when they would have definitely completed their tenure. The blurb doesn’t have to do anything with who is becoming PM with whose support or such. It has to do with what exactly is happening. ITN has been criticized plenty times for posting stale stuff and we can do nothing about it as our criteria for featuring articles on main page are quite stringent. In such cases, if articles are satisfactory, waiting and postponing for blurb phrasing is kinda stupid. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait. As of now, no single party has a majority. Since it looks like the BJP will get a majority of its own, it might be wise to wait till all the results come in and post that the BJP itself has gained a majority, instead of the NDA. Or if you folks have a bit more patience, we might want to wait till the government is actually formed. In any case, Mr. Modi's name should feature. MikeLynch (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The PM of UK has officially called on Modi. I believe we can go head with the word projected..[1] Here is the actual results link. BJP now has 241 in its kitty and require 272 for absolute majority. [2]
Wait for a couple of hours and you can post the real deal. No speculations on the main page please. MikeLynch (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Support We can go with the current blurb, though it looks like BJP will have a clear majority, there is no harm in mentioning NDA. We can have a photo of Modi and nominate another ITN when he becomes the PM. Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait for the full results. Modest Genius talk 16:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • ADMINS - PLEASE BAN LIHAAS FOR THE DEROGATORY WORDS HE HAS USED (IN HINDI LANGUAGE) IN HIS COMMENT ON THIS NOMINATION 115.118.20.224 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Boss! Go and check results. Congress has no say even in India and Wikipedia is American. Hehehe.... (Jokes apart, please have guts to login and comment.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • POST IT NOW The BJP has officially won 272 seats in the Lok Sabha elections paving the way for Narendra Modi, to be the next PM of India. Please use the word 'led' instead of 'ápostrophe and s'. Also, the word majority should be replaced with simple majority for the ambiguous interpretation. Though he has been congratulated by the PMs of UK, Australia, Israel, Pakistan, Sri Lanka...it would be interesting to see how Obama makes the first move. Modi has been denied the US Visa as per the 1998 US act. Super-interesting to be least. Here is the official link for checking the results online. [3] Blurb needs to readjusted if a coalition forms the government at the centre.. Regards, theTigerKing  17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Support we should post it now and can modify it later if necessary. Not everyday that a Chaiwala gets elected as head of state in this fashion--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • General note the supports from all are very encouraging and thanks to you all for your contributions. HOWEVER, the article we post must be the election article, and right now it's in a poor state. Instead of spending hours here clamouring support to post the result, please spend some time fixing the article. Whether we post it now or in six hours, it makes little difference, let's get the article quality up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    What TRM said. There is no doubt this is an important story. There is also no doubt it won't be posted with the election article in poor condition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    Manmohan Singh resigns: [35]. Perhaps should be added to the blurb. Brandmeistertalk 09:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The article looks better now, with numbers in and some comments added. While there is still room for improvement, it is ok to post. Posting. I'll go with the second blurb as it allows to add the photo. --Tone 09:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Replace image Please replace the image of Conchita Wurst with Narendra Modi's. No offence, but the image by the side of the text is looking too odd. Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • STRONGEST SUPPORT : Just POST it now with the image. it's been too long I am waiting. The article is upto date with results. -Khushank94 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support replacement of image How many days are we going to have Wurst image. The blurb is second last now. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment all good, article posted, image updated. But for future reference, instead of endless support votes, please read the article and help in improving the maintenance tags. And for future reference, a polite request to change the image will no doubt result in a quicker result than the rude and unpleasant approaches some have taken to get what they want. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it is very important to mention the fact that this election was the largest in human history. It's for this reason that the Indian elections received so much coverage all across the world - it's not everyday you get to see over 500 million people participating in a major democratic exercise. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the massive mandate. support calling it the largest ever election in democratic history.Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Surely every national election ever held in India was the largest ever? It's not like this one is special in that regard. Formerip (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite so. And while we're here, someone needs to update the lead of Indian general election, 2009. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose making the blurb even longer than it already is. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Immediate Blurb Update and PULL UP in ITN He has officially been appointed as the PM of India by the President of India. Ceremonial swearing-in ceremony to happen on 26 May 2014. [4]
    • Entirely unnecessary. We don't continually update these kinds of blurbs for every part of the event, just in an attempt to keep it on the main page. It's a done deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

May 15Edit


[Posted] Sinking of the MV Miraj-4Edit

Article: Sinking of the MV Miraj-4 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The MV Miraj-4 capsizes, resulting more than 50 deaths.
News source(s): Time Bangkok Post Huffington Post Bellingham Herald Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I started the article but it is a very short stub. I will try and update it more if I get the chance but if anyone else is willing to update it please do. Andise1 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment looks like we need more news on this, and it certainly looks like it happened yesterday, so this nomination is in the incorrect location. As a two-sentence stub, the article is nowhere close to being main page quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Death toll is now at 54, with the finding of further survivors unlikely.[36] The final death toll will likely exceed 100 people. Article work is underway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    Article is now in decent shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Thaddeus for updating, it looks good and ready to be posted. Andise1 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support nice article, thanks to ThaddeusB, large death toll, should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and needs attention. Since this has been nominated for a while and the article is acceptable now and there are no opposes, this should be posted as soon as possible.Rhodesisland (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess I will have to post this myself if no uninvolved admin steps up... --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] [RD] Jean-Luc DehaeneEdit

Article: Jean-Luc Dehaene (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): RTBF, Le Soir, De Standaard, Associated Press, Fox News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Long-term prime-minister of a key European country (Belgium) with a career in influential positions outside politics in business and in UEFA too. He was once considered as candidate for the President of the European Commission. After his retirment, he remained fairly prominent and played a big role in attempting to resolve the recent political crisis in Belgium. It's also worth noting that a constant 7-year term as a Prime Minister in Belgium is virtually unparalleled! --Brigade Piron (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; meets DC2 as a head of government. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support what 331dot said sounds good. DC2. I don't know what it means but I'm sure it has something to do with him being an important figure. Belle (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I should probably have linked to the death criteria, of which the second one is "very important figure in his or her field". 331dot (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • DC sounds nicer than death criteria though. [Shiver]. I'm hoping to avoid the death criteria for quite some time. Belle (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is almost completely unreferenced and has a poor lead. These issues will need fixed before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    Lead is now much improved. The referencing, however, still is pretty weak. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Referencing is much better now, and about as good as it ever will be!Brigade Piron (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
This should be sorted now. But if you believe the referencing is particularly bad on this one, I'd invite you to look at other similar biographies...Brigade Piron (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware that there are other articles with poor referencing too. They shouldn't feature on the main page either. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
There are still large areas of text without references at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support His important involvement in constitutional reform at both the Belgian and the European level means that he meets DC#1 for a significant impact on both the country of Belgium and the region of Europe. The article will clearly need more work, though. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly meets RD2 and I think the referencing is now good enough to go. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Referencing now in good shape. SpencerT♦C 00:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

May 14Edit


[Closed] Jill AbramsonEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jill Abramson (talk, history)
Blurb: Jill Abramson is fired as editor of the New York Times, with Dean Baquet scheduled to replace her.
News source(s): Businessweek
 --Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Change in the editorship of one newspaper is not significant, even if it is the New York Times. We don't usually post changes in corporation/company boards or other personnel. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - is there a back story here? The merely replacing of an editor seems like very small potatoes, so if there is something more you better explain what it is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It is big news when they change editors at the big newspapers/magazines, and usually means there has been some sort of disagreement. But this cannot rise to level of ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the reason for the change is significant enough to warrant a paragraph at minimum in at least one relevant article. At the minute there is barely a sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. Not to be a sensationalist, but there needs to be more to the story to make this ITN-worthy. AgneCheese/Wine 23:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. fired her, possibly because she "confronted the top brass" (more info here). Just thought I should mention this in case it makes this remotely ITN-worthy. Jinkinson talk to me 00:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Apparently, according, [37] to the storied Ken Auletta, she was fired for being "pushy" (as the first woman editor of the Times to be replaced by its first black editor) for questioning why she made nowhere near as much as the white man she had replaced. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "overpaid" person is removed from their position and replaced with another overpaid person. First overpaid person will walk into another overpaid position elsewhere. Not news. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Apparently she was underpaid.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm sure she must struggle to get by. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm reading she quit due to the pay disparity. As a woman, she was being paid less than her predecessor, who was a man. If there's legs to that, I could reconsider, but as it's as gossipy as Jay Z vs. Solange at this point, I opppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who cares if she steps down? The name of her successor on the position has been already revealed and the change will not likely exert severe problems in publishing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] UEFA Europa LeagueEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 UEFA Europa League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Sevilla FC defeats S.L. Benfica in the 2014 UEFA Europa League Final.
News source(s): (The Guardian) (USA Today)

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Might not be as significant as the Champions League but it is a major annual event in football (soccer) between two major European clubs. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the nom that this is not quite in the same league (pardon the pun) as the Champions League final. Plus we will have the 2014 FIFA World Cup starting soon and will probably encounter quite a few ITN-worthy soccer blurbs being nominated. AgneCheese/Wine 23:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a consolation prize--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a competition for teams who aren't good enough to get into/progress in the Champions League. That's just not significant enough. If you want a football story on ITN, I suggest working on the 2013–14 Premier League nomination below. The Champions League will of course be posted once that happens (and the article is updated...) Modest Genius talk 03:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a pity one of the most viewed articles in this Wikipedia won't get an ITN appearance. This has tons more page views than the likes of the Heineken Cup, which is almost certainly to be posted... wait, there's no Irish team in the final, so there's a chance no one's gonna update that... –HTD 13:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soccer is already plenty well represented here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a consolation tournament. The winner of this is effectively gets the the 77th place trophy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.222 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] RD: Stephen SuttonEdit

Article: Stephen Sutton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Stephen Sutton dies after raising over £3m for charity.
News source(s): Independent, BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian, The BBC, Sky News, The Scotsman, Reuters, New York Daily News, Ouest-France, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde, El Pais, New Zealand Herald

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: Not completely sure about this one, but his death has just been announced and it's worth a discussion at least. I don't think he would meet the RD criteria, unless charity fundraising while terminally ill is a 'field' so this is probably a blurb or nothing. His health progress has been heavily featured in the British media of late and so I have no doubt that his death will generate more coverage. --Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • While clearly notable enough for an article, I'm not sure this matter rises to the level of a blurb, so I must reluctantly oppose a blurb but (see below). 331dot (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I think it's fair to say that Sutton was at the top of the field of individual charity fundraising overall, rather than just among people in his situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not convinced he was significant enough. "Individual charity fundraising" seems like an artificially narrow field to me. Neljack (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I really don't know what to make of this one. On the one hand, I think it's pretty clear he doesn't meet the RD criteria. On the other hand, the subject is clearly encyclopedic and this is very much in the news at present, at least in the UK. I would lean towards support RD as an exception to the rules, but it's not a strong lean. GoldenRing (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. He does meet the criteria. I don't see what wider field could be proposed than "individual charity fundraising" (after all, groups are not going to qualify for RD anyway). Formerip (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support for RD, certainly it'd be unusual to find a single individual responsible for the collection of three million pounds in a matter of a week or so, he has also featured heavily in UK news outlets for the past few weeks. The article needs some help, too much reliance on Twitter and the charity website, there should be plenty of third-party sources available to update it satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is synthesis. Neither the fundraising nor the being ill is grounds on its own for posting. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support for RD does not meet the RD criteria, per TRM. If a full blurb was suggeted I would oppose based on this not really being front-page material. Somchai Sun (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - He has been a contributing force to get this fundraiser to the high amount. He has recieved international coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD His death has been front page news outside the UK. He definitely made a "significant impact on the country" in the recent past. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD significant impact. `--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - his campaign (for want of a better word) has been massive news in the UK and, as shown above, has received international coverage too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD, support blurb. - Subject is known primarily (or exclusively really) for the time period\events that led up to this death and the fight against the cancer that caused it. To me, this is a textbook case where the death (broadly understood) is the story, not the life of the person. (He was famous for less than a month, if I understand correctly.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • And he meets RD criterion 1, or, if you disagree, please demonstrate how. Somewhat bizarre now that we have two ITN regulars, one saying "yes to RD, no to blurb" and one saying "no to RD, yes to blurb". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • If he had died 5 years from now, it would have barely been noticed. If he raised a lot of funds but wasn't terminimally ill, it would have barely been noticed. (I am quite sure many people raise multiple million pounds for charity each year.) I'm not saying he didn't have a wide impact, I'm saying he had a wide impact because of his then-impending death. Thus, to me, the death is the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Well either he does or he doesn't meet the criterion, which is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
            • He had a wide impact because of his (then-impending) death. It isn't an "either/or" situation, but rather a "meets because" situation. That suggests a full blurb is best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Excuse me but what kind of argument is that ThaddeusB, "if he had died 5 years from, it would barely be noticed" do you own a crystal ball? It is a non argument as he died today, at best speculation.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Again, my point is that he is notable because of his illness and resulting death, not the fund raising itself. Many many people raise that kind of funds - Sutton had a special impact because of his plight, a plight that cannot be separated from his death. That suggests a full blurb is the best option to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
          • @The Rambling Man: you are misunderstanding ThaddeusB's point. Just because someone is eligible for RD does not mean they cannot have a blurb if that is justified - for example Margaret Thatcher got a full blurb even though she also met the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, but support RD I can see ThaddeusB's point and it is a heart wrenching/heart warming story. But, to me at least, the "I'm dying so let me leave a lasting legacy by raising millions of pounds for charity" angle is more DYK-worthy than ITN-relevant. That said, the kid was certainly 100x the person that most of us could ever aspire to be and clearly meets the RD criteria. AgneCheese/Wine 23:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb mostly - though used widely in the news reports "dies after raising £3m for charity" sounds odd because it has some hint of implicit causation similar to "dies after a high-speed crash". Belle (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 01:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 13Edit


2014 California wildfiresEdit

No consensus to post, now stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2014 California wildfires (talk, history)
Blurb: California governor Jerry Brown declares a state of emergency in San Diego County due to the 2014 California wildfires.
News source(s): ABC 10 News
Nominator's comments: I'm less confident this is the most notable aspect of the fires than I am that the fires are themselves ITN-worthy. --Jinkinson talk to me 18:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait for further developments; wildfires are not an unusual occurrence in California or the Western US in general, especially in recent years. Has there been large scale evacuations, significant casualties, a dollar amount put on property damage? Something like that would be better to hang our hat on, I think. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"Carlsbad alone issued 23,000 evacuation notices." [38] That large-scale enough for you? Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
In a state of 38 million, not really, to be honest. As I said, these sort of fires are not an unusual occurrence. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. However, we are having more this year than usual: "California's firefighting agency has responded to more than 1,500 fires this year, compared with about 800 during an average year." [39] Jinkinson talk to me 22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing abnormal, and certainly nothing special from the perspective of news for English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree, this isn't really that uncommon, Wildfires in the western US happen every year, and often come very close to urban areas. When I lived in Nevada I considered California's two largest exports to be bad drivers and smoke. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Question (And this is a serious question, since I'm not very experienced with ITN as many of you know) What did the tornadoes last month have that these fires don't? Jinkinson talk to me 22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Tornadoes are unpredictable as to where they occur and how much damage they cause. California and the West have fires on a regular basis(just see the See Also links in the fires article). The tornadoes caused $1 billion in damage; we don't yet have a dollar figure for these fires, I think. We also have limited casualties as of right now. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, the tornadoes and subsequent flooding had 36 deaths as I recall. Have there been any reports of deaths attributed to the fires--one maybe? I seem to recall mention of a presumed homeless man being killed.Rhodesisland (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)182.173.212.21 (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait. per 331dot and my own previous vote regarding the tornadoes. The story needs more development before we post. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs attention. Do we have a way to rework the blurb to include a damage dollar amount and/or death count? (Wow, that sounds harsh when you put it like that, eh?) Rhodesisland (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)182.173.212.21 (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
We could just talk about the one in Carlsbad, which was estimated to have caused at least $22.5 million in damage. [40] Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Camille LepageEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Camille Lepage (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The body of photojournalist Camille Lepage was discovered in the Central African Republic amid ongoing conflict.
News source(s): The Guardian The Washington Post BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I understand that she might have not been sufficiently notable in her field to be here, but I believe the death itself gives more light on how serious the Central African Republic conflict (2012–present) is, which at the moment appears to be the deadliest in Africa. In one of her interviews she was quoted as saying: "I can’t accept that people’s tragedies are silenced simply because no one can make money out of them. I decided to do it myself, and bring some light to them no matter what." She herself reported in her last tweet that six people had been killed two days before her trip to a site where 150 were killed by Seleka rebel attacks,[41] something we obviously don't hear about anymore in the news mostly because of Ukraine among other things. She was also the first Western journalist killed there since the conflict began.[42] Her killing was strongly condemned by the UN (UNSC and UNESCO), while the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists and the European Federation of Journalists called for an immediate investigation. The French presidency's reaction was to call her death a murder, hinting that she was deliberately targeted.[43] --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: I think the nomination should be dated the 13th since that's when her body was found(though we don't know what day she died). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm waiting for the opinion of other editors as to whether it should be an RD nomination or a full blurb. In my opinion, an RD won't reflect the conflict in which she was killed, but in the same time I feel some editors will think it isn't notable enough for a blurb. What do you suggest? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd be shocked if this could make a blurb, but there's no problem with making a nomination for either. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Shocked' is probably too big of a word but I understand what you mean. However, I must point out that it certainly is notable and is widely being covered in the news. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I mean "shocked" in the normal sense because I've seen other journalists (including Pulitzer-prize winners) who have been killed in theatres of conflict, who didn't even make RD. Just wanted you to know that up front. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This could often be related to the article's quality and whether it is updated or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD per nom "I understand that she might have not been sufficiently notable in her field to be here". RD is for situations where the death itself is not notable, but the person's life clearly is. Neutral on full blurb for now, since none has been proposed at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blurb proposed. Let's see how this goes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose current blurb/RD but if more sources pick up on the outrage of the French Presidency and (more importantly) if the French government authorizes some sort of action or intervention in the Central Africa Republic, I would support a blurb focusing on that angle with a mention of Camille Lepage's murder being an impetus. AgneCheese/Wine 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • France is already involved militarily in the CAR [44] but even if it wasn't, I don't think they would deploy troops in a war-torn country because of a journalist they probably don't care much about. I've never heard of any country doing something like that before, but here is the French government's reaction exactly the way it is written down in the article → The Élysée said in a statement that French President François Hollande had ordered the immediate dispatch of a French team and police from the African force deployed in the country to the scene. "All necessary means will be deployed to shine light on the circumstances of this assassination and find the killers of