Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2013

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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

Contents

November 30Edit


Mali ceasefire endedEdit

Article: MNLA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following protests over the visit of Malian Prime Minister Oumar Tatam Ly, the MNLA declares an end to the ceasefire and that it would be militarize.
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After a long-running conflict and intervention a ceasefire was signed, and now it looks like war will return. As a note, we posted FARC's ceasefire talks, here there is a result. The ABOLISHMENT of the agreement. --Lihaas (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose the blurb doesn't even make sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is obviously a important development in a notable conflict. Thue (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. A declared end to a formal ceasefire is notable, but the current blurb is not acceptable. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: has violence resumed? Or is this just talk at the moment? Also, yes the blurb is terrible. Modest Genius talk 23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment was the announcement of the ceasefire posted? If not, the blurb should remind it, I think. Egeymi (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
comment yes I agree the blurb sux and I was struggling with it too. Any alternative suggestions? That's what we can cdo instead of merely complaining..Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose as it stands. Seriously? One sentence? Someone needs to spank Lihaas for dishonestly claiming this article is updated. He's been here long enough to know such crap is beyond the bounds of good faith. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well it weas 2 sentences originally and more of an update then plenty of stuff we post (sports for eg). Anyways, you dint give a reason for support/oppose. You coiuld then just add "pending further update".Lihaas (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That's just what "oppose as it stands" does means--without further update. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Junior Eurovision Song ContestEdit

No consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2013 (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: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Gaia Cauchi representing Malta wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 in Kiev with the song "The Start".
News source(s): European Broadcasting Union

Article updated
 --BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Many countries did not participate in this contest according to the article, so I would have to wonder if this has the level of importance and/or prestige to be posted. I realize the adult contest is ITNR but this one doesn't seem to be at that level, though I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'll also add that the only news source given is by the organization which sponsors the contest. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but a youth TV contest with little outside interest isn't significant enough. Modest Genius talk 23:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not so notable and DYK has a related item. So, it would be overemphasize of an event with little significance. Egeymi (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose only 12 countries participated --Երևանցի talk 01:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Where is this related DYK item, as I cannot find anything recent connected to Junior Eurovision. I understand that this contest relatively small compared to its senior counterpart. But from what I gather this is the first time Malta has won any EBU organized contest (whether it be Eurovision or Junior). Perhaps submitting a DYK for this fact would be a better option then a ITN segment? Wes Mᴥuse 01:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I was undecided on this. But with some thought, I think we should allow our future generation share the same spotlight and news recognition as the current generation. There's so much sorrow happening in the world at the minute, that it would be nice to provide a bit of happier news, and especially giving the kids a chance to have their 5 minutes of fame. Wes Mᴥuse 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not know how this event was covered by Maltese media, but due to last night's event Ukrainian media hardly covered Junior Eurovision Song Contest in Kyiv (although Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009, also held in Ukraine, was very well covered by the national media). Probably iy is worth DYK item for Maltese victory, but this is definitely not a hot news topic — NickK (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Senior version is quite enough. What other competitions' junior versions could we also double up with?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, previous consensus has been against youth competitions of any kind being posted. Abductive (reasoning) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose contests like this have to have a winner by definition. That doesn't make the result itself notable. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: impressive page view stats for this event, even without a Main Page appearance; even the Grey Cup failed to surpass 10k views, even with the assistance of appearing in the Main Page. –HTD 19:54, 1 December 2013 (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] Rugby League World CupEdit

Article: 2013 Rugby League World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Australia beat New Zealand 34-2 to win the 2013 Rugby League World Cup
Alternative blurb: Australia beat New Zealand 34-2 to win the 2013 Rugby League World Cup 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.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R - article needs more detail on the final match itself --Bcp67 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a separate article on the final at 2013 Rugby League World Cup Final. This should certainly be posted, but you're right it does need at least a few sentences of prose on the match itself. Modest Genius talk 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2013 Rugby League World Cup Final has been updated with match summary. Genericchimera (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Have put an alternative blurb in linking to the match article. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Rugby league is a major sport in England (the country that hosted the final), Australia (the country that won the final) and New Zealand (the country that contested the final). Equivalent of, say, a World Cup final in ice hockey Hosted by Canada and contested between USA and Russia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Changed the linked article to the one re the final. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • All looks good, marking [Ready]. Modest Genius talk 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • However we should use the standard ENGVAR-neutral phrasing for sporting items:

The Rugby League World Cup concludes with Australia defeating New Zealand in the final

Thank you for that - this was my first ITN nomination, apologies for not getting the phrasing quite right - thanks for sorting it out. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. That standard phrasing has been arrived at over a long period of dealing with complaints - it avoids the plural/singular issues (which annoy speakers of different versions of English), omits the score, and allows for links to both competitors, the competition and the individual game. There's no reason why you would be expected to know it! Modest Genius talk 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose can hardly support an AU vs NZ match simply because "it's on ITNR" when other matters of actual historical import like the Ukraine EU membership protests languish here for lack of attention. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Really epic interest. Even either of the Gaelic games in ITNR pulled bigger numbers. –HTD 19:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - major sporting event, ITNR. Only opposition seems POINTy --W. D. Graham 21:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Well of course Aussie newspapers must've been pointy when most of their newspaper front pages had the NRL grand final this October while this "World Cup" was beaten by shark attacks yesterday... –HTD 12:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Pro-EU protests in UkraineEdit

Article: 2013 Ukraine pro-European Union protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Despite their demands not being met tens thousands of Ukrainians keep protesting for better European Union-Ukraine relations.
Alternative blurb: ​Anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kiev.
Alternative blurb (+suspension of the agreement): Following suspension of EU Association Agreement by Ukraine, anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kyiv.

News source(s): Seven News, BBC

Nominator's comments: This is big news in Europe and the article is in really good shape and being constantly updated. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: breaking news related to current event, widely covered in leading European media — NickK (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that blurb by Yulia Romero is not up to date anymore: protests were broken up at 1:30 UTC — NickK (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
oppose the thai protests are more notable than this in terms of the global coverage its getting.
Although if this goes up it should also have the agreement which was nominated earlier in the blurbLihaas (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Support alt blurb. Significant week-long protests, a pretty good article, and a chance to feature a long-running story which hasn't previously been posted. Modest Genius talk 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Tens of thousands marching in Kiev right now, people are calling the protest a "decisive moment" and plan a national strike. Yet it is omitted by Wikipedia editors. Strange. The situation is apparently so rapidly evolving that it is better to remain silent than change the blurb every two hours :D --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This has sufficient support to be posted, I just can't decide on the blurb. The first blurb is strange (Despite their demands not being met, people keep protesting?), police intervention is just an episode in the ongoing protests and the non-agreement was 10 days ago (though it makes sense to include it). What about "Over 100.000 people protest in Kyiv following the suspension of EU Association Agreement by Ukraine"? Some feedback on this one, please, then ready to post. --Tone 13:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • A better blurb was suggested by NickK (see the discussion above), but it is outdated now. I would agree with your proposal. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, the situation is being updated daily. On 29 November people were protesting despite their demands not being met, on 30 November anti-riot policy has forcefully broken up protests, today (1 December) between 350,000 and 500,000 people are protesting in Kyiv against bascially everything... against suspension of EU Association Agreement, against use of force against demonstrators and for the resignation of the government (Kyiv Post). The first blurb was perfect as of 29 November, the alternative one was good as of 30 November, now a new one is needed. I would suggest something like Hundreds of thousands protest in largest cities of Ukraine following suspension of EU Association Agreement and forceful break up of protests in Kyiv by the police on Friday night. Please be aware that this blurb may become outdated tomorrow as well :) — NickK (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the Kyiv Post live update link - it looks like a HUGE demonstration. Hopefully it will end up in peace. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — With an estimated 350,000 people demonstrating in Kiev on Dec. 1, [2] this story is among those conspicuous by their absence from ITN. Sca (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support notably genuine anti-government protest with arrests in context of wider story on EU membership. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, large protest, especially for an arcane topic such as EU trade partnership. Abductive (reasoning) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This should go up, it's very well updated and pretty much lacks opposition. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb Question: Articles look good, but I'm still not sure which blurb to post (none of them are exactly great or fully correct). I was thinking about the following blurb; can someone else confirm that this is correct: Following the delay in approving an Association Agreement with the European Union by Ukraine, thousands of Ukrainians protest in favor of better pro-EU relations. Or does anyone have any better suggestions/improvements? SpencerT♦C 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the third blurb is the most up to date: Following suspension of EU Association Agreement by Ukraine, anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kyiv. --Երևանցի talk 00:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
From my understanding of the article though, the Association Agreement was not in effect yet, as that blurb implies. The agreement wasn't suspended; its signing was delayed. SpencerT♦C 01:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The media calls it a suspension. [3] [4] [[5] Although the president has promised to sign it sometime in the near future, it's not clear if they will sign it or not. I think that's why the protests continue and grew larger after the summit. --Երևանցի talk 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll just use this blurb then and it can be changed as needed. SpencerT♦C 05:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

November 29Edit


[Posted] LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470Edit

Article: LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 (talk, history)
Blurb: LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470 crashes in Namibia, killing all 33 aboard.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Perhaps the third deadliest aviation accident this year and reported hull loss. Brandmeistertalk 11:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - 34 deaths is sufficiently high enough that we should feature the accident on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Mjroots. CaptRik (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support same reasoning. Jonno - (Wanna talk?) 14:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support notable event and suitable quality article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 16:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - notable. just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not quite notable in number of deaths for a passenger aircraft, and with no other special circumstances given for notability. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Glasgow helicopter crashEdit

Article: 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine people are killed when a helicopter (pictured) crashes onto a pub in Glasgow, United Kingdom.
News source(s): BBC NBC News CNN Times of India

Article updated

 --Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Undecided This is a more unusual story than first glance because the crash took place in a built up area. I'd support if (sadly) the severity increases by a decent margin. Truth is, I don't know how often helicopters crash and I guess it's more comparable to light aircraft crashes which often don't make the news. I found the nomination for the last helicopter crash that I heard of (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2013#Helicopter_crash_in_London) and that was broadly opposed. CaptRik (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I am leaning towards support now that more details are clear, but equally i'm not sure that this story and the airline crash should both be up. CaptRik (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Undecided/Wait, but this is already a little different than the prior London crash, as this was a police helicopter that apparently landed on top of a crowded pub, in which there seems to have been many casualties(more than the London crash). 331dot (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very unusual and sad, but still rather a local incident. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unusual incident and huge coverage in UK, but even if fatalities are in the upper estimate of what's being reported it remains globally a fairly minor story. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Info - Police press conference on Sky News now states 8 fatalities. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support we posted the helicopter crash in London this is similar, with more fatalities and the sad juxtaposition of a police helicopter and a busy pub. Notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't look like we posted the London one, per the discussion linked above (I'm not sure if there's a better way to check?). CaptRik (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup. My mistake, there was an urgency to delete it in fact... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but perhaps combine with the other major air crash that is in the news. "In aviation, a Mozambique jetliner crash kills 34, and a helicopter falls into a Glasgow pub, killing 8." Jehochman Talk 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - if combined with the Mozambique crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Jehochman's combined blurb idea. I'd probably also support it separately; police helicopters don't often crash into crowded buildings. I think we sometimes get too hung up on death tolls. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Rare accident, high death toll (for the particular area/incident type). Comments have been made by Scotland's first minister and the UK prime minister, and the Queen. However, the accident in the grand scheme of things is relatively small.--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
strongest possible oppose I was coming here to ask why someone hasnt created this page. Please answer what possible encypaedic worth does this have? Letys clarify that this is not a social media news sitem, nor is it wikinews, it is wikipedia "the free encyclopaedia"Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey? You ask why someone hasn't created the page then say "letys [sic] clarify this is not a social media news sitem [sic]". What are you trying to say? Can you please try to write in English? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I must say I am too at total loss regarding the point of the above rant by User:Lihaas. --hydrox (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just doesn't seem significant enough. 8 deaths in one crash is a lot for a helicopter, but not for transportation in general. The Mozambique crash was a much bigger incident and deserved to be posted. Modest Genius talk 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - its a big story with significant interest nationally and internationally --nonsense ferret 21:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It is hilarious to see news sites across the world leading with this story and the great and the good of wikipedia are debating whether it is worth a mention --nonsense ferret 23:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to ITN! Just wait until the US wakes up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
heehee, it is pure pantomime so I guess it is the right season for it. --nonsense ferret 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - now that the death toll has tragically increased to eight, it's on the front page of most international news outlets. Jamesx12345 21:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The death toll is high and has been on the news and getting attention. Miszatomic (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. We wouldn't post this if it had happened in Gdansk. Formerip (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • (to formerIP) I don't think that's true if we can post a supermarket collapse in Latvia(or its effects like a resignation). But, much like TRM implied, I await your nomination of such an event to prove it. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
          • You know very well that my pilot's licence got revoked after that time I tried to prove we wouldn't have posted 9/11 if it happened in Helsinki. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
        • It absolutely is true. The two deadlier helicopter crashes were not even seriously considered for ITN. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
          • You're entirely missing the point of the context of the crash. But never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Comment - Articles can't be considered if editors don't nominate them. No nomination = no posting, simples. Mjroots (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Getting a lot of international coverage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb per Jehochman. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Death toll is not high enough for an air crash. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Where is the "death toll criterion" please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Death toll is extremely relevant to the second criterion, significance of the event.-LtNOWIS (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
        • But it is not the be-all-end-all. Death toll is just one of many factors(which can include location, level of news coverage, reaction from prominent people, etc.). I don't mean to criticize your reason for opposing this, just FYI. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral on whether or not this is posted. My gut instinct is no, but there does seem to be an emerging consensus to post this, and it is a somewhat unusual incident. However, I beg of you, can we please not merge this blurb with the completely unrelated Mozambique crash? They have absolutely nothing to do with one another, other than occurring on the same day and involving things that fly. We don't have so many successful nominations that we suddenly need to start conserving space on the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
That seems to be the rationale for combining them (same day and things that fly). That's not enough? I don't think it's a matter of saving space so much as not bogging down ITN with the same subject matter. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Why not also combine it with the Latvia story, since both involve a roof collapsing? Formerip (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Both, however, did not involve helicopters crashing on them. Two aircraft crashing is, well, two aircraft crashing. We don't yet know what caused the supermarket roof collapse- and it was also the largest death toll for an incident in Latvia since 1950. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm opposed to posting this, but iff it does go up, it should be a separate blurb. There's no justification for combining them. Actually I didn't see anyone make a serious suggestion to do so... Modest Genius talk 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Jehochman did above on 17:41, 30 November 2013(and was also commended for having a fresh viewpoint). 331dot (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support separate blurb as-is Happened in an Anglophone country. Lowers the bar enough. Might or might not have been nominated and/or posted had it happened somewhere else, but I don't find that terribly relevant, as the ITN section is for items that are of particular interest to our readers. --hydrox (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. Contra hydrox, we should certainly not be exacerbating systemic bias by favouring items that occur in Anglophone countries. Neljack (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't fight systemic bias by reducing stories that are posted from such countries, but by working to post more stories from elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • To quote, the primary purpose of the ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." So considering that this happened in an Anglophone country and this is the English-language Wikipedia after all, it's likely that users might be searching for this article, right? Systematic bias is more of a content issue. --hydrox (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, posting this would be inconsistent with the not-posting of the bus crashes etc in Russia and China. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Apples and oranges. A bus crash is not a helicopter crash; buses crash much more frequently than helicopters crashing on crowded pubs. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Under the general heading of transport accident----------------not different. Abductive (reasoning) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Police helicopters typically don't crash. Helicopters typically don't crash into buildings. Aircraft typically don't crash in the centre of major cities. The last point alone makes this a very significant news item, and it would be news wherever in the world it happened so systematic bias isn't relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready - There seems to be sufficient consensus to post. As I'm the nominator, I'll allow another admin to review and decide if I've read the consensus correctly. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I count ten opposes and twelve supports of some sort. But with the waits and neutrals included there is certainly not a consensus to publish. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I see the need for this sort of soul searching - ITN exists amongst other things to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news - we are not responsible for why the newscasters make the choices they do - ours is simply to follow what they decide to report on, not to right their wrongs. This item has been highly covered in news across the world. Readers are clearly looking for it - more than 12000 page views. It seems pretty simple. It is unquestionably encyclopedic, there will definitely be a page or two written into the history of the country to remember the dark day a police helicopter crash landed on a concert venue full of people. Really why won't that do? --nonsense ferret 22:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You'll forgive me if I fail to see how replacing anti-Scottish English bigotry with anti-American English bigotry is an improvement, or why I should alter a quote in the first place whose relevance is clear to anyone with the reading comprehension of a 12-year-old. Fight it out amongst yourselves if this is somehow some sort of Brit-thang. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
ITN has never been about proportionally matching coverage of news topics in the world; wide coverage is a necessity for inclusion at ITN, but having wide coverage does not demand being in ITN. And this is more a case because it's happening on BBC's home turf, and they have many multi-national arms to other countries, it is getting wide coverage de facto. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Other news outlets still make the decision whether or not to run the story, it is not automatic. They run stories that they think their readers will be interested in. Wide coverage is certainly not the be-all-end-all reason to post a story, but it is an indication that it is of interest in many areas and/or that people might see it in the news and come here to learn about it. If that's not the case, then ITN should really be renamed to something else. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
there's no requirement for us to second-guess why the international news agencies have covered this story so widely - merely we have to take into account that they did. Everything else is just gravy. --nonsense ferret 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
We're not second-guessing other news sources, we're being selectivity for what we include in an encyclopedia, stories that are going to have a larger influence on the world at large to meet WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. No one has said, for example, this crash is a non-story. People died, its a major news story. But it's also just an accident, a blip on the broader knowledge of mankind. Hence we should not be considering this type of story for ITN. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Confusing two separate questions there. Those are guidelines for notability, and question whether an article should be in the encyclopedia or not. This event clearly is notable without question, as evidenced by the global, in-depth interest in the event. The question is, given it is notable, is it in the news so people will be likely looking for it? --nonsense ferret 00:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Given the vast array of evidence presented that this is (a) in the news, (b) an encyclopaedic event, (c) an event that we have an article about, (d) an event that people are looking for our article on, and (e) an event that has an article with no cleanup or missing references tags, it seems to be exactly the sort of event that ITN is for. If people don't want to post good quality articles about events that are in the news on ITN then the purpose and scope of ITN needs to be redefined. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

November 28Edit


Comet ISON does somethingEdit

Article: C/2012 S1 (talk, history)
Blurb: Sungrazing comet ISON makes its closest approach to the Sun
Alternative blurb: Sungrazing comet ISON is destroyed during its closest approach to the Sun
News source(s): (BBC News)

Nominator's comments: This is getting quite a large amount of attention and in a few hours the long range comet will reach perihelion. Now obviously it could get chewed up by the Sun, but there is a decent chance it will make it alive. The comet is being called "Comet of the Century" and compared to the great comet of 1680 as it is very rare comet in terms of its origins, its tail, its orbit etc etc. We post Solar eclipses and in my opinion this event is a lot rarer and much more suitable for ITN in terms of encyclopedic content. Also its got a decent article. Please adjust the blurb... Also the event will be captured by SDO for those that care. ---- Ashish-g55 15:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Tentative support, depending on the outcome. Falling appart will be a less attractive outcome than making it around the Sun. --Tone 15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I wish we could somehow post the SDO link so people can watch the outcome Live! Its amazing that there is technology out there that can show us these things as it happens -- Ashish-g55 15:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Numerous comets are floating around in space, but being called the comet of the centuary makes it quite distinctive. As per Tone, subject to the outcomes, my vote patterns would change. Regards, theTigerKing  16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Appears to be of scientific significance. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - fpr ITN. scientific significance.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, whatever the outcome. Appears a rare and interesting event. Has certainly been getting substantial press coverage. We should probably post an image. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Posting now for the benefit of the live link. The sort of thing that's perfect for an encyclopedia and will be of interest even if it breaks up. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the live link working yet? I can't view any videos but I'm notoriously technically incompetent. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There are various links you can find on line (just google ison live) the flyby is for the next two hours. The link I was watching had a British astronomer talking, since presumably the comet's on the other side of the sun now. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. What we have here is:
  • Headline: "Comet of the century"
  • Paragraph 16: "Whether it really will be a comet of the century is unclear"
Formerip (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Bang, and the comet was gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't meet our usual criteria for comets: 'clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it' (see WP:ITNR#Celestial_events and the several ITN/C discussions on comets referenced there). Essentially this was a case of 'it might be huge!' that turned out to be a damp squib. It disintegrated without ever being visible to anyone who wasn't already looking for it. Although it has been widely covered on social media, scientifically there isn't anything very special about it. I'm willing to reassess if the situation changes, but right now it's not significant enough. The 'comet of the century' label was wildly inappropriate hyperbole that now looks silly. Modest Genius talk 01:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of speculation as to whether it survived. SDO could not see it but seems like some portion of it made it around the sun as seen by SOHO. So still dont know if it got destroyed or some part of it is still alive -- Ashish-g55 18:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it may have survived, but in much-reduced form. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Now I would support posting if it becomes visible to a naked eye. --Tone 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Comet Lovejoy is already visible to the naked eye, and has been for several weeks. Unless you know where to look, you'd never know. I don't think that's a sensible cut-off, even if ISON does make it. Modest Genius talk 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you have a source confirming that. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support original, strong oppose alternative - as it appears to have survived, at least partly. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing to see here, Modest Genius makes a reasonable explanation as to why this is simply not that big a deal. Damp squib seems to fit the bill. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The Usual Suspects oppose this on the grounds that this is simply not a big deal, but of course it is, being a sungrazer that just travelled a light year over 1 million years, becoming one of the brightest and earliest detected new comets. It's had huge news coverage and huge reader interest. This is the perfect place to have come to look for info on it above the tabloid pablum--perfect except for the usual naysayers who keep this off the front page. Yes, there's a huge satisfaction had in saying no, and showing how above it all one is compared to everyone else. It's not a good reason to oppose a nomination like this. μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Hardly lived up to the billing, but nice whinge. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The Usual Suspects cry systemic bias on anything that happens within the atmosphere outside of Asia, yet are systemically biased towards documenting anything that comes within 1 AU of Earth. —WFCFL wishlist 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The sun is hot enough to melt ice... is not a news story in and of itself. It needs a bit of selling. —WFCFL wishlist 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

New Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan Army appointedEdit

Article: Raheel Sharif (talk, history)
Blurb: Raheel Sharif is appointed as the new Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army
News source(s): The Express Tribune

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The COAS is the top slot in the Pakistan Army and has historically been a very influential position in Pakistan, both in terms of military history and politics. Sharif is due to replace Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who was ranked as the world's 28th most powerful man by Forbes in 2012. --Mar4d (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose As per 331dot. Posting this, does not mean that we stop posting ITNRs (appointment of President/PM of Pakistan). The army chief had been historically (since independence) an influential position in Pakistan (we never posted in the past in ITN), and most likely would continue to be (we should not post it in ITN in the future). The article should be posted only if it is Encyclopediac enough and not just on notability terms (The event would garner headlines around the world as Army chief of Pakistan is as important as PM/President of Pakistan in decision making). We do not consider ,as a valid argument, posting 1st or 28th "World's most powerful person of XXXX year" as rated by several magazines annually.Regards, theTigerKing  16:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Latvian Prime Minister announces resignationEdit

Article: Valdis Dombrovskis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Latvian Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis resigns following the Riga supermarket roof collapse.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We often post every fall of a government and the reason in this case is relatively unusual. The story with the roof collapse was posted few days ago, but this is a different one resulting from it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

oppose 1. we just posted the fire (who would have though that would be landmark? (tinpot lil country) 2. we actually don't post most falls of government. This is not exceptional as we posted that recently.Lihaas (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? "Tinpot lil country"? Who made you the judge of that? AlexTiefling (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
support The resignation of a head of state/government of any sovereign nation should be borderline ITNR and is definitely the sort of material that ITN seems to routinely cover, and more importantly than anything, the target article, while a bit short, contains no obvious problems.--Jayron32 03:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Support surprised this took so long, an obvious update of the roof collapse blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The unexpected resignation of a head of government due to a scandal/incompetence/mismanagement is notable enough for ITN. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems a surprising development, potentially of interest to readers who followed the supermarket collapse story. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • support didn't see that coming. Seems very newsworthy to me. --Երևանցի talk 03:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 12:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 27Edit



Silvio Berlusconi expelled from parliamentEdit

Article: Silvio Berlusconi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is expelled from the Italian Parliament following a conviction for tax fraud.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While Berlusconi has been prosecuted plenty of times before, he usually gets off due to appeals, expiry, or because he changed the law to make him immune (really!). For a long time, it looked like his political influence would save his seat in parliament this time too, since he was threathening to bring down the government. This actual follow-through consequence is unusual and therefore notable. Thue (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose just another shameful chapter in the recent political history of Italy. Nothing really to report.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we'd be posting because of his celebrity status rather than because of a really significant news story here. Could argue that the Latvian Prime Minister resigning on the same day is a bigger story. CaptRik (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's far more important than tat surrounding Silvio. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • He is the very recently former President of Italy, and a (still) hugely powerful politician and media mogul. That is not just being being a celebrity!?! I am a bit at a loss at how anybody can not find this item notable. Thue (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Meh. He has been posted (I think) three times in the past year, roughly, and once or twice before that. We posted the really big stories; this one is but a ripple. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Berlusconi was Prime Minister of Italy, not President. I have amended the blurb to reflect that. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is significant news, given that Berlusconi has escaped this fate on so many other occasions and that it is likely to cause further political instability in a country that is in a fragile economic position. Neljack (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • But what does the expulsion of one person mean to anyone other than the individual? It's not going to change anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we already posted his August 2013 conviction. Per the article, this is a continuation of the same process, that also included a ban from public office for two years. --hydrox (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose per The Rambling Man --Երևանցի talk 22:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
support sitting/former rime mnister getting booted out of parliament (not just office) is highly notable...and more than Latvia.Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We posted his conviction, as pointed out by others. Any other punishment is just gravy. 331dot (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Question How often do legislatures expel -- by voting -- its members? –HTD 09:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Not often, for sure, but this was not unexpected as a result of his conviction. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Then the question is, how often legislators are convicted while in office, and does the rule in this case tell the legislature to expel the member once s/he's convicted no matter what or it's upon the discretion of the majority if they're expelling people. –HTD 13:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It was not expected 100%. He avoided being expelled for some time by threatening to make the government fall. Thue (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

German coalition agreedEdit

Article: German federal election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Germany’s two largest political parties, the Conservatives and Social Democrats, conclude five weeks of negotiations by agreeing to form a “Grand Coalition" government that will introduce a national minimum wage of €8.50 ($11.55, £7.11) in 2015.
Alternative blurb: ​Following the German federal election on 22 September, CDU/CSU and SPD form a "grand coalition" government.
News source(s): BBC [6], Spiegel [7]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deal also includes “no new taxes” pledge; must be OK'd by SPD members in a poll Dec. 6. Sca (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support This is big news for Europe. I'm not sure the detail about the minimum wage is appropriate, though - there was lots of guff in the coalition agreement, IIRC. GoldenRing (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
There are some exceptions but they're supposed to go away by 2017. This would be Germany's first-ever national minimum wage — in itself a political milestone. (That's milestone, not millstone — ha.) Sca (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, German politics are important. I added an altblurb. Thue (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is what's notable here the creation of the coalition, or the minimum wage? Hasn't it been known since the election in September that there would be a coalition and it was just a matter of working out the details? If it's the minimum wage then the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It wasn't completely clear that this is the coalition that would form. IMO we should wait to post the minimum wage when it passes. Thue (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks; I'll support the altblurb then. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It really should include the amount of time the negotiations took, though — it's been over two months since the election. Sca (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Adding date of the election to the alt blurb. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't spell out that talks w/SPD took five weeks, though. Sca (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
PS: NYT story says "The accord ... will introduce Germany’s first minimum wage..." (my emphasis). [8] Sca (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is largely of national importance, and as matter of fact, nothing has been decided yet: The leaders of these three parties have committed themselves to form a coalition government, but (in the SPD's case), there will be a referendum among all 400,000+ party members during the next weeks (the result will be known only by 15 December). If a majority votes against the proposed coalition treaty, the whole thing will be scrapped. The bit about the minimum wage is also not that important to be showcased on the Wikipedia front page (true, Germany is currently one of only a few Western states without one, but that lack is somewhat balanced by the highly developed welfare system and strong unions and works councils). And again, it's currently only a mere committment. If you really want an item for ITN, then you might want to wait for December 17: On this day, the Bundestag will (that is, must) elect a chancellor, regardless of what will happen until then (but there does not seem to be a snowball's chance in hell that the current one won't be re-elected).--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The CDUU/CSU & SPD have agreed to the minimum wage in writing — it's a done deal politically speaking — and their coalition will have an overwhelming majority in the Bundestag. Since the minimum wage was the SPD's primary condition for joining a Merkel-led gov't., it's highly unlikely that its rank and file will vote against the deal.
Disagree that it's merely a national story, since Germany is the acknowledged economic and de facto political leader of the EU. Sca (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Objections relating to an event being from a single country are not valid (see "Please do not.." section above).331dot (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: this should wait until after Chancellor Merkel and her cabinet are sworn into office. --bender235 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Then let's change the category title from In the news to In the history books. Sca (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
May I remind you that Wikipedia is not a news publication? By no means we're in a hurry to publish this information in realtime. --bender235 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I forgot ... wake me up next year ... and let me know what happened last year ... ZZZZzzzzzzz.... Sca (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
We do not post inaugurations/swearing in-s, we post the results of elections when they happen, which in this case is now. 331dot (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The election was two months ago, and we did post it. --bender235 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made a small tweak to the blurb - changing "minimum national wage" to "national minimum wage," which is the more usual and idiomatic term. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
support ALT blurb highly notable country and long negotations. Plus we posted aus, can, uk more than once. The grand coalition makes it more notable as all legislation will pass. Markets much be rocking
wait according to the article it will be approved.rejected 6 dec. and per the popularity of the last grand coalition on the SPD that's quite an ifLihaas (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
PPS: BBC day-after story says, "Angela Merkel will return as German chancellor for a third term under a coalition deal hammered out with her old Social Democrat (SPD) opponents" (my emphasis). [9] Sca (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Arik EinsteinEdit

Article: Arik Einstein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, Ynet, Yahoo

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: Considered one of the best Israeli singers in Israel history, called the godfather of Israeli rock, published in dozen of websites outside Israel and dozens more in Israel. the Israel gov'nt including the PM and President also published statements about his death. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Seems to be an important figure in his field. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Unsure. On the one hand, he seems to be almost at the top of the tree in terms of Israeli rock singers. But is that too narrow as a field? Is it fair to say that there are a lot of more significant rock musicians that we would reject for RD? Formerip (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'm only aware he exists because his death is, well, In The News. But he does seem to be pretty huge in Israel and we do publish stories that are country-specific (or so the blurb at the top says) GoldenRing (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be of significant interest. Both the Prime Minister and President of Israel gave remarks on his passing, and RS citations call him "the father of Israeli rock". Teemu08 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support given the reaction to his death; clearly he was notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once again, a decent shout for the few characters that RD will allow. Please, somebody, sort the references out, they're a complete mess, but otherwise good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bay Psalm BookEdit

Article: Bay Psalm Book (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 1640 copy of the Bay Psalm Book sells for $14.2 million at auction, becoming the most expensive printed book in history.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Making headlines worldwide. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, when updated. I'd been wondering about nominating this. Besides being interesting in its own right, this cluster of auction records forms an interesting reflection of the current economic climate. The article is in decent shape and probably doesn't want a disproportionate update on this sale of a single copy, though a little more referencing in the appropriate section would be useful, both of the new record and of the old auction prices. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Little more referencing in the appropriate section added! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thanks. We might mention the 1640 date in the blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A very notable auction of a 350 year old book.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Minority topic + consistency with the art record postings.Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, Making headlines, record price. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Culturally significant story to anyone on the globe. CaptRik (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted with a slightly terser blurb based on the article's wording. Stephen 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 26Edit


RD: Bill FoulkesEdit

Article: Bill Foulkes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ManUtd, BBC, FoxNews

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: ManUtd 4th higest appereances player, played for 18 years, a Manchester United captain and 1958 Munich air crash survivor. Won championships and the first European Cup with ManUtd, who is the current English champions. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose relatively speaking not that important. Yes, surviving Munich and having a decent record with Utd is notable, but I'd be surprised if this makes any serious news tremors outside of Manchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to be lacking in individual accolades. Teemu08 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] US flies B-52 bombers over airspace disputed by ChinaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 07:02, 29 November 2013 (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: Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States flies two B-52 bombers over China's newly declared East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone
News source(s): NYT, Wall Street Journal

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is a significant reaction to China's policy that echoes the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis. -- Ryan Vesey 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Fairly inconsequential military posturing.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The military posturing is not inconsequential. First, China's declaration of a defense zone is significant and is still recent. Second, the ramifications for regional politics are huge. This has strengthened anti-chinese sentiment and increased US influence in the region.[11] Ryan Vesey 19:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something going into a unilaterally declared exclusion zone is not in of itself news. If you look at prior incidents of this kind, this stuff happens, and the vast majority of the time it amounts to nothing much. As one of the articles you highlight says, 'Officials said there had been no Chinese response to the bomber run.' Only if this causes some kind of an escalation will this start to become news. Redverton (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The bombers were unarmed; aircraft confrontations are not unusual in international relations(Russia often buzzes Alaska and the US sends fighters to monitor them). 331dot (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unlike something actually happening, such as the Hainan Island incident, this event is so unimportant that it shouldn't even have an article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because the story I read had this as a routine US flight in an area that's also claimed by Japan. CaptRik (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (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] Ian Watkins trialEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:57, 27 November 2013 (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: Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) (talk, history) and Lostprophets (talk, history)
Blurb: Lostprophets frontman Ian Watkins pleads guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to a range of child sex offences including the attempted rape of a baby.
News source(s): WalesOnline BBC NY Daily News Perth Now
  • Nominated by [[User:SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)|SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BIan+Watkins+%28Lostprophets%29%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Ian+Watkins+%28Lostprophets%29&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
 SheffGruff (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sentencing not due until 16 December. Leaky Caldron 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose even with the sentencing... Given that i would oppose had the trial of the indian dentists been nominated. Regardless of how shocking it is its still a local criminal case with no effect on the law. -- Ashish-g55 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A celebrity (admittedly one I haven't heard of, but that is of course irrelevant) pleading guilty to serious crimes is notable, and this is getting coverage. We post upon convictions(or in this case, pleading guilty), not sentencing, I believe. Don't see a ton of stores from Wales, either. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This case is not strictly local as the investigation involved/involves international authorities and the band had notable success outside of the UK. SheffGruff (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support IF he gets found guilty/sentencing. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • He plead guilty; no need to be found guilty. We don't typically wait for sentencing to post the results of trials/criminal cases. 331dot (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for fear of this becoming a tabloid section. Serious crime, but just because he's a minor celeb, it doesn't provide longevity. How much of mass sexual crimes of Savile, Stuart Hall etc have we featured on ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Good point I suppose TRM... I've changed to "weak" support if he gets found guilty, but that will be another nomination another day so we'll see...--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
      • No IF about it. He has pleaded guilty to the most serious charges. Leaky Caldron 18:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has no non-local impact. The subject is an extremely minor figure. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not fundamentally opposed to featuring harsh sentences against celebrities, but Watkins is just too obscure of a celebrity. Lostprophets only had sustained success in one country. Teemu08 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Objections relating to the fact this deals with only one country are not valid: "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."331dot (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Neljack (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wow. What a disturbing story. But no, I don't think it's important enough to disturb the whole world with. Formerip (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2013 (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.

Honduran electionEdit

Article: Honduran presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Juan Orlando Hernandez is controversially elected president of Honduras.

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: Oddly no one has nominated this here as ITN. There is a disput e in the election but the electoral commission has ruled. --Lihaas (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not so odd since it doesn't seem to be in the news ("Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source.") ITNR does not override the need for something to be in the news. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm still confused why this is a requirement. Does no one read the article and check the references? There you can find the news sources you demand. This whole requirement of including another news source is ridiculous process wonkery that makes it more difficult and time consuming to nominate items at ITN/C and is basically instruction creep. SpencerT♦C 20:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I completely agree. Wikipedia is (supposedly) not a bureaucracy. Doing a Google News search takes seconds and will give you a much better idea of how much an item is in the news than a few sources picked by the nominator. And in this case it's obvious that a national election will be in the news. Neljack (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
        • The simple courtesy of providing a source also takes seconds. And it has been a problem in the past that stories have garnered supports based on a misleading nomination without sources. I think one got posted and then had to be speedily undone, although I can't remember what the story was. Formerip (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
          • (to Spencer) I'm not "demanding" anything; I'm only going by the instructions on this page for proper nominations(and I only bring it up with regular posters who should be aware of said instructions). It's not too much to ask to plug one news story in the 'sources' line of the template(that's what it's there for). It shouldn't be up to me to seek out information to support someone else's nomination, especially when we make it easy to do so. As FormerIP said, it only takes seconds. 331dot (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support though "controversially" should probably be left out of the blurb. For 331dot's benefit, here is evidence that this is in the news.[12] Neljack (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Ancient Buddhist shrine in LumbiniEdit

Articles: Lumbini (talk, history) and Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The earliest known Buddhist shrine is uncovered by archaeologists in Lumbini, Nepal.
Alternative blurb: ​The earliest known Buddhist shrine is uncovered by archaeologists at Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini, Nepal.
News source(s): [13]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No article as yet for the site, but maybe Lumbini just needs expanding. Formerip (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Significant archaeological discovery with potential implications for the controversy over Buddha's birth date. Will, I'm sure, be of widespread interest, and helps with systemic bias issues too. Neljack (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant discovery related to one of world's largest religions and one of the most famous religious figure and spiritual teachers who has ever lived. I agree with the implications that may come from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Very interesting, but the article Lumbini doesn't mention the discovery, from what I can see. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Can you think of any way that could be remedied? Formerip (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please write or edit the article before nominating. You're greatly reducing the chance of this ever being posted by doing it backwards. Jehochman Talk 12:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. I don't intend to edit the article, but that doesn't prejudice its chances of getting posted. It'll get posted if someone wants to do it. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
He is correct that an article can be nominated before an update (as it suggests here but, while I agree that this is worthy of posting as a significant development for Buddhism, I need an update or an article to evaluate before actually endorsing it. If no one does, then this won't be posted. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Great! I didn't say you can't nominate it. What I said is that doing so prematurely greatly reduces the chance of this ever being posted. I came here looking to post something, and this is the only thing here this morning, but I can't post it because there's no update. By the time an update is ready, I predict three or four comments will have appeared to the effect "Oppose, not ready", and at that point the consensus becomes muddied and can't be sorted without a couple days of discussion, by which time other, better nominations will appear, and this one will get buried. Jehochman Talk 13:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Any opposes based on article not being ready can be ignored and should not affect the consensus at all. The nomination is to decide whether this item should go on ITN... update is mandatory and should be checked at time of posting. Having said that, it should not be marked "Ready" without an update -- Ashish-g55 14:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I started the article Maya Devi Temple, Lumbini, which covers the story. Feel free to contribute. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support after Vejvančický's work. The new article is shorter than we usually highlight but adequate to cover the main facts. I have suggested an alt blurb to highlight it. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the alt-blurb and for your help. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 16:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
What about adding an image of the temple? (Posted above). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The secondary sources are very skeptical about the dating method used to support the claim that this temple is that old. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? It can be mentioned in the article, of course. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 25Edit


[Posted] 101st Grey CupEdit

Article: 101st Grey Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Canadian football, the Saskatchewan Roughriders defeat the Hamilton Tiger-Cats to win the 101st Grey Cup.
News source(s): CBC NBC

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: It's the championship of the highest level of play for Canadian football and is listen on ITN/R. Might not have been the best football game, but a great game for us Rider fans! --PlasmaTwa2 05:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I've added a very crude game summary and a few other tidbits. It's hard to get all the information so quickly after the end of the game, but it will be added as it becomes available. --PlasmaTwa2 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR. Canuck89 (chat with me) 15:27, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks to be in good shape to me, but someone should convert those bare urls. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting Jehochman Talk 02:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Could you please fix the links so they point to the respective team's season page, i.e. [[2013 Saskatchewan Roughriders season|Saskatchewan Roughriders]]. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone pay attention here? It weren't the franchises that played the Grey cup, it were the 2013 teams! --bender235 (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the convention here is to link at franchises, not the current (last since it ended?) season's teams. –HTD 08:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that's correct. Not everyone might be aware of what exactly the teams are; and if they want information about the season itself, they can get there from that article. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

November 24Edit


[Hoax] Angola outlaws IslamEdit

Appears to be either hoax or deliberate trolling. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (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: Ban of Islam in Angola (talk, history)
Blurb: Angola outlaws Islam and other religions deemed contrary to Angolan culture.
Alternative blurb: Angola outlaws Islam and starts to destroy mosques.
News source(s): onislam

Article needs updating
 [Soffredo]   23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the article Ban of Islam in Angola should be merged to Islam in Angola. Nonetheless, the article does need more expansion. SpencerT♦C 00:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This could potentially be worthy of posting, but as Spencer said the article needs expansion. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
support with a batter RS ref that's not partisan. and also support the merge orproposal above.
God knows what that idiot regime is up to in angola...stealing all the oil money no doubt [14]Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment this is certainly interesting as unusual. If it goes up it should have the mosque destruction included in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Absolutely interesting, but sourcing needs improvement. As above, mosque destruction should be included if posted, and a total ban on Islam is confirmed. Interesting to ponder the repercussions for Muslims living in Angola – a not unsizable amount, I believe? 80.241.222.107 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This all seems rather sketchy at the moment. The English language articles I've read (and there don't seem to be many of them at present) quote (unnamed) Angolan newspapers as reporting this. They in turn are quoting the Minister of Culture. If one reads the Minister's comments, it seems that the headlines are somewhat misleading. She says that "the process of legalization of Islam has not been approved by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights...their mosques would be closed until further notice." So it seems that Islam may already be illegal in Angola, and that what has happened is that the Islamic authorities' request to be legalised has been rejected and the government is changing its previous de facto tolerance of Islam. I really think we need more information and reliable sources before we can post this. Neljack (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait - Lets see some serious sourcing and a solid article first. If this turns out to be a hoax, and we've posted it... I note that nothing has been published from the The Times, The New York Times, or The Guardian yet. The "best" source I've been able to find was IBTimes, which is not very reassuring. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Needs way more English sources for confirmation, and it's certainly not clear if the proposed laws constitute a total ban on Islam, or something else. 80.241.222.107 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2013 (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] Iranian nuclear program agreementEdit

Article: Nuclear program of Iran (talk, history)
Blurb: Iran agrees to freeze parts of their nuclear program in exchange for a reduction in sanctions.
Alternative blurb: Iran agrees to a short-term freeze of its nuclear program in exchange for a reduction in sanctions.
News source(s): WaPo

Article updated

 --– Muboshgu (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, though few details of the agreement have been released yet. We might want to wait for some details to update the article with. 331dot (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It's being called "historic". President Obama spoke about it. I'm sure we'll know a lot and have a lot of reaction by the Sunday talk shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I suggest rewording the blurb to reflect that a deal between Iran and the six world powers (5+1) had been reached by which Iran is to stop its nuclear program for six months in return for relief from some sanctions.[15] Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems Iran has to stop the nuclear activities above 5% Uranium enrichment only (it's not complete freeze). So maybe we could say: Iran and the P5+1 reach a deal to halt Iran's enrichment of Uranium above 5% for six months in exchange for a decrease in sanctions. We can also remove "for six months" and instead change "deal" to "short-term deal". Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the rest of the blurb, but I agree that it should mention the lifting of sanctions to give it some context. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I added the sanctions to the blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait Barack "drone-strike Qaddafi-coup Mubarak-overthrow Al Morsi-overthrow Syrian-rebel betrayal" Hussein Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was also called historic. Let's get a little perspective first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs) 05:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Huh? Obama isn't even mentioned in the blurb. There's 6 billion other people that aren't either, but their actions are also not being called in for relevance here. Let's keep focused on this news event rather than one from 5 years ago which is entirely unrelated. --Jayron32 05:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I cant's speak for other nations, but "agreements" like this have no legal power in the US unless they are passed as laws (majority in both houses) or ratified as treaties (two-thirds of the senate), neither of which is going to happen. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is a pretty big deal. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The run-up to this deal has been in the headlines the past few days. Now that it's done, there's not a whole lot of doubt that this is ITN-worthy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
oppose "short term freeze" is the key. As such nothing hdas been made here.Lihaas (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The first agreement between the US and Iran since the hostage crisis is not "nothing". 331dot (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
1. it is NOT between the US and Iran. 2. So is the first agreement on climate change (or much else) between the divisive first worls and redst (below). 2.1. so is the first step in militarization o f a conflict.Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The US and Iran are parties to it; if neither wanted to deal with the other this wouldn't have happened.331dot (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
But its not between the US and Iran...there are a bunch of international caveats to it. (Germany for one was a strong beneficiaty of financial trade with Iran...and theyre here for some reason which adds a whole new dimentsion that bilaterlal agreements would NEVER do)Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
We can debate the semantics all day long, but the fact remains that diplomatic discussions resulting in any sort of agreement between the US and Iran have been rare in the last 35 years. It's significant. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A deal between Iran and the US & co seemed a distant prospect only a few months ago. That one has now been reached, albeit one that does not solve all the issues, is a very big deal. Neljack (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major piece of international diplomacy. CaptRik (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support although the article is very much in need of splitting. There is Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program also, although it is not very detailed at the moment. Formerip (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The separate article maybe good, but the title is rubbish. At least as it stands it indicates that nothing has happened yet if it is INTERIM.Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong supportBut I agree that a separate article on the agreement is absolutely necessary for posting. Sources: [16], [17], [18]. Sca (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support I opposed China's one child policy as it was a Governmental promise to its people. That may or may not happen. I would support it for two reasons, even if the deal fails in the short term. First, a deal like this one could not have been predicted a few months back. US says it as a historic first step. Secondly, the deal is of great interest in many regions (Middle East- Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) and others (US [Economic Sanctions], Russia, China, India (Oil relations), Pakistan, Afghanistan). The deal, could affect the oil prices in the short term, provide economic stability, may provide a sense of confidence to the financial markets and many more things. Regards, theTigerKing  16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked ready Update of Nuclear program of Iran should be sufficient, with only a yellow tag that shouldn't preclude posting. The Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program article should be sufficient if the posting admin wants to go with that. Consensus here is pretty clear, despite the opposition of Lihaas and Medeis. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know you cared. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated blurb:
Iran signs an interim agreement with the P5+1 countries limiting its nuclear program in exchange for reduced sanctions.
I've attempted to improve the blurb by reducing wordiness and identifying the other parties to the agreement. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks much better. SpencerT♦C 19:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

November 23Edit


Militarisation of Senkaku Islands disputeEdit

Article: Senkaku_Islands_dispute#Militarisation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China announces an "air defence identification zone" around, and including, the Senkaku Islands area
News source(s): Al Jazeera BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not 100% sure about this (especially compared to COP19) but it is a significant step towards what seems to be a coming conflict. And China did it first, which in a war anyone knows is more the capable. So its more dangerous now. wonder what the minds of the defence ministry are...?
I know that official vessels have been involved before, but this is now poilicy with ramifications --Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Certain events dealing with this dispute get nominated occasionally; this sort of saber rattling is not unusual with this situation. Only if weapons are fired or some similar escalation should we post something about this. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose per 331dot --Երևանցի talk 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The story is in the news internationally and is a fine candidate for an ITN blurb. The update is thin but exists, and I suggest updating the lead as well. The article itself is fascinating and well-written, and the talk page shows the article is under sanctions, since editing a hot topic like this is difficult. I thank Lihaas for this nomination. Jusdafax 22:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I completely agree with what Jusdafax says. One does not have to start a war for there to be a significant development in an international dispute. Neljack (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This saber rattling is not a significant development, it has occurred for the last year or so. In January there was an incident as well as in February. It is true there does not have to be a declared war or extended conflict to be a significant development, but there should at least be the use of force or weapons, or some other physical confrontation. (We did post an occupation of the islands by civilians in August of 2012. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
In that case where is "at least be the use of force or weapons, or some other physical confrontation" over Iran's nuclear programme? WHy the hypocrisy in the "first agreement" vs. the "first militarization"? This is not a policy decision, not just mere patrolling.Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That is the first agreement between the US and Iran since the crisis; that makes it significant. There have been many 'incidents' over these islands. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No it is NOT between the US and Iran. that is your mispereception and WRONG as a reason. it is P5+1 + we had the Obama phone call that was rejected here.
There has never been a POLICY decision for militarization in China...that is a step towards armamantisation much bigger than US-Iran as it is not the first since 79 its the first EVERLihaas (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of what you just wrote doesn't make much sense to me, but if you'll look at the links to prior nominations about this issue I posted above you'll see this isn't the first time something like this has happened. It also is not a "misperception" that the US and Iran both agreed to something, even if others were involved. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, saber rattling. Also, hardly any of the North Korean stories have been posted, and those are much more serious. Abductive (reasoning) 20:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 United Nations Climate Change ConferenceEdit

Article: 2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference#Conclusion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After extended negotiations at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Warsaw agreement is reached on all states agreeing to cut emissions
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Climate change were notoriously dysfunctional in reaching an agreement with a divided rich/poor world. Something has come out of it. Also the "Warsaw mechanism" was agreed so we could add that --Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Is this the story headlined here as Epic Fail? And is this more or less certain than the announcement of the change in China's one-child policy? For instance, will any agreement be ratified by the US senate? μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That source is dated 3 days ago (and that walkout is mentioned on the page).
I don't know about the US Senate signing/approving it. But consensus has been generated on that agreement after years.Lihaas (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In the current political environment ratification by the US Senate is unlikely; you need a 2/3 vote and that will be very difficult to get. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, we need to be globalsised + remember whatitsname TREATY WITH THE Ussr that was enforced without raticifucationLihaas (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a big story currently in the news. I'd suggest trimming the blurb a bit. Let's avoid discussing the merits of climate change, the effectiveness of the agreement itself, etc. The question is, does the story and article merit an ITN blurb? I believe so. Jusdafax 22:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news on a major international issue. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with all the walkout by ministers and NGOs, the conference cannot be (with ITN surety) said to be a success. It is hard to figure out what happened and what (watered down) agreement was reached, and I am not comfortable putting it on the Main Page. Abductive (reasoning) 17:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm, no one is saying/judging it as success or failure. The only mention is the objectivef act that the agreement was made (and after 19 years at that)Lihaas (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious, large important conference. Thue (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

November 22Edit


Ukraine not to sign the EU Association AgreementEdit

Nominator's comments: Although somewhat expected, this is a very important event not only for Ukraine, but also the EU and Russia --Երևանցի talk 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support This would seem to be of considerable geopolitical significance. Neljack (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support such international political moves are quite rare. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
oppose;' this is not permanent. This could, again, easily chcange with the next administration. And the recent history of anti-incumbency in Ukraine certainly does not clarify anything. Iys mere partisan politics.
Quoting the article: "The European Parliament's monitoring mission in Ukraine stated on 22 November 2013 there was still has a chance to sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement."Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're jokoing. They aren't going to release Tymoshenko in 4 days. And Russia's isn't going to stop pressuring Ukraine. --Երևանցի talk 19:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I never said they will release her, or that this administration would. i said the next administration could reactivate it. And the EU mission said that. This however, is merely suspended (temporary), BOTH the above nominations have happened, period.Lihaas (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
For now, Ukraine has made a clear decision not to sign the association agreement. Whether they will sign it in a year or two or not sign it at all doesn't really matter. --Երևանցի talk 20:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In the same vein, "for now" China has made a policy decision to militaryise the conflict not just of the incident but a policy decision. The world has also agreed as a matter of policy "for now" to come to agreement where decade + was not able to reach one. Its flagrantly clear that there is hypocrisy on these 2 ctopics at ITNC withing the same 2 days not just historical precedence.Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is an important treaty, and while the standpoint can of course be changed later, it is an important development. Thue (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In that case, China has made a clear policy decision to militarise the senkaku dispute. How can you honestly (and hypocritically) deny one and yet claim so for the other???@@!Lihaas (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. A convenient place to post an ongoing story of Ukraine's oscillation between Russia and EU in its foreign relations. The article seems pretty good. A bit dry though. I've suggested an alternative blurb above. I suggest linking to Ukraine–European_Union_relations#European_Union_Association_Agreement rather than the other subsection, because this provides the necessary background and context. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The other part is whats in the news. background/context can always be viewed b the reader on the pageLihaas (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not a rejection of EU membership per se, but a refusal to release Timoshenko. The headline is basically, Ukraine rejects arbitrary demand by EU. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The intro says "all six motions on allowing Tymoshenko to receive medical treatment abroad were rejected by Ukraine's Parliament on 21 November 2013 and the same day a Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing of the association agreement, endangering the formal signing scheduled for a week later". So I'm having difficulty understanding through all of the politics: is this final? Or is there a final action ("Ukraine refuses to sign...") later? I'm not sure if this is preliminary media political hype or something more final. SpencerT♦C 09:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, political maneuvering with nothing actually having happened, and nothing having been resolved. Abductive (reasoning) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps the protests surrounding this (2013 Ukraine protests) are more notable? SpencerT♦C 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting the article 2013 Ukraine protests I'm a little bit surprised it isn't on the main page. It is a very important shift in the political situation in Ukraine which is crucially important also for Europe as a whole. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
We cant judge protests to be "very important" within days of it. What repercussions happened? Is it in the international media?Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
.Yes but this section is called "In the News", so we should reflect that. It is of course in the international media. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
well so are the 2 nom above..Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Maurice VachonEdit

Article: Maurice Vachon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CTV News

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: Full disclosure, I fully expect a bevy of "fake sport, not notable" comments and this to be rejected. I was originally not going to bother, but the amount of coverage his death has gotten has convinced me, so it's worth a shot. Mad Dog Vachon was a very influential wrestler (pro and amateur), especially in Quebec, where he was one of the most famous athletes. To me, that puts him over the edge (Quebec, you see, is its own distinct culture. Someone might say "Being an icon in Missouri does not mean one should get an RD blurb", but Quebec is more comparable to an entire region as opposed to one state). He had an influential 40+ year career, making his name in the Midwestern US and all over Canada. He's an icon in Quebec. And a Google News search for his name plus death gets 8000+ hits in less than 24 hours. -- Scorpion0422 23:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Interesting character. Was a genuine Olympic level amateur wrestler, with a Gold medal at the Empire Games, who later moved into the scripted entertainment industry. Re his latter career of pro wrestling being a "fake sport", it's best to just refer to our own article on Professional wrestling, which simply avoids calling it sport, saying it's "a mode of spectacle which combines athletics and theatrical performance". Nothing wrong with that. We post plenty of other "celebrities" from the entertainment industry. Just don't call it sport. So, long career, popular, well known. Hard to argue with any of that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The debate about it being a sport or not is not relevant; this man was clearly very important in his field(per the RD criteria). 331dot (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • A few years ago when Randy Savage died, a blurb nomination was turned down with many of the commenters believing that being a top name in a "fake sport" wasn't good enough. Though in all fairness, if the RD ticker had been around at the time, he probably would have made it. -- Scorpion0422 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it has happened in the past, which I daresay is those of us who have supported this have all pointed out that people's personal views about pro wrestling and its status as a sport are not relevant. I don't think 331dot's comment was aimed at you. Neljack (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
        • It wasn't. Just stating my reasoning. :) 331dot (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I concur with HiLo and 331dot. He seems significant enough - see for instance the statement that "he was the first wrestler to understand the power of television. He was the first wrestler to speak to the camera." Our opinion of professional wrestling is neither here nor there. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom: fake sport, not notable. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
If the argument was based on this person being a sportsman alone, that could be a valid comment, but it's not, so it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Whether it is a "fake sport" or not is irrelevant; this man was notable in his field. The RD criteria does not state "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field, except for fake sports". 331dot (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. We would post the deaths of highly notable actors. He seems to qualify. --Jayron32 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Highy notable actors? Like whom, Doctor Who companion Mary Tamm? I.e., Romana I, (55,000 views the day of her death, unposted?) Or Vachon, 15,000 [http://stats.grok.se/en/201311/Maurice%20Vachon views the day of his death)? At least you do have the decency, Jayron, to admit he's an actor. Although highly rated is a joke. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Two things: 1) Vachon's death was announced well into the afternoon (EST), so 15000 views within a few hours of his death is pretty impressive. amd 2) We're not talking about acting. Pro wrestling is its own industry and Vachon wasn't some supporting character on a TV show. Ignoring the "fake" aspect of pro wrestling, he was someone who was a headlining figure for 40 years and helped draw crowds of 20,000 fans all over the world on a regular basis. He's been inducted into just about every wrestling hall of fame he's eligible for, he's very famous in Quebec and wrestlers all over the world cite him as an influence. Comparing him to an actress known for a single role shows that you don't know what you're talking about and as such your opinion should be ignored. -- Scorpion0422 05:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No new argument there, hence that's just a vote, and counts for nothing because we don't count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
You have just now, after all these years, noticed people vote " per user X" when they agree with that rationale? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Noticed it years ago, first pointed out the pointlessness of it years ago, and have done so many times since. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Clearly at the top of his field (which is what the criteria actually is), what that field is/was is entirely irrelevant to the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment does this acthlete compare to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson or Governor Jesse Ventura with his public impact, or was he just one of the early pretenders in choreographed fights? μηδείς (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL. That's pathetic. YOU bring up the completely irrelevant argument that this isn't a real sport, then YOU call these people athletes? (Don't athletes participate in sport?) The nomination DOES NOT depend on pro-wrestling being a sport. Accept it as scripted entertainment, just like a scripted TV series, and judge this nomination that way. (But don't forget the earlier Empire Games gold medal either.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
HEY. hIlO, YOU ARE NEITHER SCREAMING LOUD ENOUGH NOR READING CLOSELY ENOUGH. I never used the word "athlete". μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No, you didn't, but you certainly missed the point. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if someone has edited your text, but that word (albeit spelt wrongly) is definitely in your comment above. Modest Genius talk 23:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I think "acthlete" was Medeis' attempt to combine the words "actor" and "athlete". Tricky, maybe, but not all that smart. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Just another straw man argument from Medeis. Better off ignoring it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Vachon seems to be important in his field, which is all that matters here. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support clearly notable per The New York Times. Plus RD isn't bursting at the seams. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, he just doesn't seem significant enough (in his field or anywhere else) for an RD posting. The shortness of his article is symptomatic of that. 'Popular in Quebec' isn't enough IMO. Whether or not professional wrestling is a sport (it isn't) is irrelevant to this nomination. Modest Genius talk 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
    • He isn't just popular in Quebec, he's huge in Quebec. He's very popular in Canada too and I think being one of the most famous and influential wrestlers from a country with a long tradition in pro wrestling qualifies. The reason his article is small is simple: He's from the pre-Internet era. Forgetting the POV-laden opinions, let's look at the criteria: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Let's see here:
    • 1) 40+ year career where he was at or near headline status for 90% of it. During that time he regularly helped draw crowds of over 20,000 fans and participated in 15,000 matches. And while his biggest area was Quebec and the Midwest U.S., he also main evented all over the world.
    • 2) 5-time World Champion.
    • 3) Inducted into just about every Hall of Fame he can be inducted into.
    • 4) Since his death, countless active wrestlers as well as the Prime Minister of Canada have commented on him. So yes, he was influential.
    • 5) In the words of Slam! Sports "The words 'Canadian icon' have rarely suited a better man. The love that the public had for him became even more apparent a year after his retirement when he was struck by a car while walking with his third wife Kathie in Des Moines, Iowa. Vachon had his right leg amputated below the knee. The story was carried by media across Canada, and he was flooded by letters from well-wishers." So he has had significant impact in his home province and country.
    • I'm sorry, but saying he "doesn't seem significant enough (in his field" indicates that you don't know what you're talking about and as such your opinion should be ignored. Sure, he wasn't a household name, but RD should be about more than just mainstream popularity. -- Scorpion0422 00:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
At this point I'd be much more worried about getting the article properly referenced, than arguing against opposes. The lack of references to essential claims and facts is what will doom this otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Scorpion, I'm supporting this, but be careful when claiming things like "5-time World Champion". It's scripted entertainment. It wasn't his talent that made him world champion. The scriptwriters made his character world champion. His talent gave him the chance to play that character. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. In this case, I'm saying "5-time champion" the same way someone might say "Academy Award winner". It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but his reigns (which add up to over two years) did come at a time when being a World Champion was taken more seriously than it is today. Today, being a world champion is just something to further storylines, but in the '60s it meant being the focal point of their company and being the one the fans wanted to see. So this indicates that was indeed considered a top name in his field at the time. -- Scorpion0422 00:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, did he revolutionise his field? If so, it's not mentioned in the article or nomination. If not, he isn't significant enough, especially given that his field is itself rather a minority pursuit. I don't appreciate being told that I 'don't know what you're talking about'. Modest Genius talk 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I would submit that there is no requirement that one 'revolutionize' their field in order to be posted to RD; just that they were 'very important' in it. I think Scorpion makes a very good case for that. There is also no requirement that a field be something other than a 'minority pursuit'(not sure what that means). 331dot (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You're making up your own criteria. It very clearly says "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" and I think I've proven that he has. The only knock against him is his lack of mainstream fame, but that is overshadowed by influence. -- Scorpion0422 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article could do with more, & better quality, referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree. That tag at the top regarding that is glaring. I can't support starting with that basic fact. Jusdafax 22:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the page tag with various section tags. I would guess this could be brought up to snuff with about an hour's worth of work. μηδείς (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Update I've tidied up and added more sources to the article. I'm still going to work on it, but it's definitely better than it used to be. -- Scorpion0422 01:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's better referenced (and better led!) but basic facts of family, career, and influence among others remain unreferenced, Two sentence/two ref update that he died and had grandchildren does not meet ITN guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sourced his 35 title reigns. Fake titles, sure, but that's a significant amount of prestige for a man in his field. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
Great. This should probably be marked ready if we get a source for the first sentence in early life, for the last sentence in later career, and one more independent sentence with a source in the death section. I.e., one specific factual claim and two comments on his influence. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added sources or altered or removed the things you were concerned about. Thanks for the help. -- Scorpion0422 04:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
At this point all that's really needed is a one-or-two ref expansion on his retirement and personal life section. The ITN guidelines expect something beyond the fact that he died, which is implied by the listing, and that he had grandchildren, which is not really relevant to his career. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Magnus Carlsen wins the 2013 World Chess ChampionshipEdit

Article: World Chess Championship 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Magnus Carlsen (pictured) wins the World Chess Championship.
Alternative blurb: Magnus Carlsen (pictured) defeats Viswanathan Anand to win the World Chess Championship and becomes the new undisputed World Champion.
News source(s): Times of India

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: Widely covered Thue (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per ITNR. The article is also in very good shape and every game is documented with analysis and comments.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The article is indeed very informative and interesting. Neljack (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Alternative blurb I find the proposed blurb rather short and would like to propose an alternative with similar wording as to the conclusion of the championship in 2010 and 2012.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Surely the "and become new World Champion" part of your alternative blurb is redundant and should be removed as redundant? Thue (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I have to agree with that. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Its not redundant infact it should be undisputed world champion since that is the official title. Only 16th person to get it since 1886. Huge feat -- Ashish-g55 15:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
          • When we posted Anand defending his title in 2010 and 2012, the wording in the blurb included "to retain the title" and "to win fifth consecutive World Championship". Since we now have a new World Champion, it has to be properly included to give additional information. The information we know about chess is not something that each of our readers knows and every single blurb that emerges on the main page has to be neat and include enough information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
            • People can read the article if they want to know more. I would still prefer a short blurb. Thue (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the article looks strong, but it still needs to be updated in the "Schedule and results" and "Game 10" sections. Also there seems to be no reference for Carlsen's win. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I've gone through the article and fixed what I thought had to be fixed. Please let me know what you think of it now. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I think the "seconds" section could be better and clearer explained as I pointed out on the talk page. It's a bit unclear who actually seconded Anand. And as for Magnus, it could be pointed out that the Danish guy who normally is the main seconder for Magnus recused himself from the Anand match due to longtime previousco-operation with Anand. But nothing that should keep the article from being posted in its present form. Iselilja (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
        • [To Toccata quarta] That looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. Wonderful news for Norway and the world and blurb is linked to two good articles. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull Mugshot this is the second time we've posted this guy's image for the same award. Let's at least only post him every other year. Sanger's image is available. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

US Senate abolishes filibuster for most presidential nomineesEdit

Article: Filibuster in the United States Senate#Use_of_nuclear_option_in_2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Democrat-controlled US Senate limits the use of filibusters against most presidential nominees.
Alternative blurb: ​The United States Senate votes to abolish the ability of the minority party to block action on most Presidential nominations.
News source(s): New York Times Guardian BBC Times of India CBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While both technical (which should be ok for an encyclopedia) and US specific, this is a huge change in the political process and balance of power in the US Congress. They have been dancing around this for years, but the Republicans (who promised to use the filibuster responsibly to avoid this) have basically thrown out all restraint, precedent, and promises, forcing the Democrats' hand. Thue (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. The blurb should say "Democratic" as that's the name of the party. "Democrat Party" is usually used as an epithet. 331dot (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A chance to feature an article that is already in good shape on the Main Page, especially for a significant change in procedure in the US Senate. While opposing it simply because it is a US centric story is invalid(see top of page) I am sensitive to concerns that this might not quite have enough of a worldwide impact for this page; but this is being reported around the world, and people in other nations might come here to learn about this and why it is important(or just why it is in the news), which is part of the purpose of this page. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ya gotta love democracy. Took me a while, and a read of the non-US sources, before I could get any real idea of what this was about. But it seems that by a vote of just 52-48 the Senate has abolished a ruling that required a vote of 60-40 to approve people for certain jobs. That seems just weird. I'm not opposing this, but can I suggest some attempt to at put it in language that non-Americans will have some hope of comprehending? Maybe draw on those non-US sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The alt blurb is an improvement, but is still obscure. I know what this means, but the general reader will not. Modest Genius talk 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggesting alt blurb. Open to changes; I agree it should have as global language as possible. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we wouldn't be covering this if it occurred in any other nation, and it's purely procedural to certain votes in one house of the legislature; things like senatorial privilege to block nominations aren't even being touched. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose American here, and this is really not a big story - it wouldn't have impacted the debates that lead to the shutdown a few months back, and if/when the Senate swings back to Republican-controlled, I can expect the practice to be re-instated. It's not like a new law that significantly affect the average lives of Americans. --MASEM (t) 07:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The Republicans have already said they will not change it back and some have said they might even expand it to eliminating all filibusters(in order to repeal the ACA in the future). This change affects how laws will be interpreted, both now and in the future(as more judges make it through) and agencies are run(which affects regulations) so it certainly will affect the lives of Americans. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It has no major impact now (the machinations to describe how it will affect current lawmaking demonstrate that). And to take any lawmaker at their word that they won't change it back...riiiight. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Politicians generally do not vote to give themselves less power, or more to their opponents. This isn't going away. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I would weak support it as landmark, but in light of the below commens on Monroe a nother regime can change t (heck another regime can change everything (silly comment/reason that was)). And this is highly partisan in nature.Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems way down in the detail of procedure of one house of the US congress. Are we going to nominate every change to standing orders in Westminster, too? GoldenRing (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The New York Times call it a "Landmark" change, which is thought to have lasting consequences. Comparing it with "every change to standing orders in Westminster" is just being deliberately obtuse. Thue (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm torn. This is a big deal for the proceedings in the US Senate, the biggest change in at least a generation in how they operate, and yet most Americans don't care. Like they don't care about most things they don't understand that still run their lives, but still... – Muboshgu (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I personally believe that we should post items based on how important they are, not on how interested the public is. Otherwise we would be obliged to post each time Justin Beiber got a new girlfriend. Thue (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'll say weak support. But don't be dissing the Biebs. :P – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm also torn on this. On the one hand this is BIG news in the U.S. right now; but on the other hand, this is primarily a local issue, and one with limited reach even in the U.S. One of the two bodies of the U.S. legislature has made a procedural change to its rules that applies to a limited number of votes (only those that apply to non-Supreme-Court-related presidential nominee confirmations). On the balance, I'm not sure I can support this. --Jayron32 15:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we are losing track of what the purpose of ITN is, which is (in part) the following:
    • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
    • To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events.
This story fills these purposes. This is making news, and not just in the US. People will read about this and perhaps seek more information, coming here to do so. We also have an article that is in excellent shape to feature, something which isn't often the case upon a nomination. Thue makes some good points above(which I won't repeat here). 331dot (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • If readers are coming here to learn about current events, they are in the wrong place - we are not a news service. We want readers to come here to potentially help contribute to articles on current events, hence the need for quality to assure they can easily figure out how to contribute. Just because something is big in the news even internationally doesn't mean it needs an article here, much less ITN. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
      • If that's the case then we need to change that portion of the ITN page. One can learn about current events from other means besides news reports. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am personally very interested in this (I've been reading lots of articles on it), but I'm not sure I can justify it being posted. I don't doubt that it is significant, but the filibuster remains in place for bills (and Supreme Court nominees) - for now, at least. Neljack (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm somewhat torn on this one. It is a pretty big deal here in the U.S., but I don't feel like it should be posted. As Neljack points out, the filibuster still applies to SCOTUS nominees and most bills, so that's at least partially why I'm opposing. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And the precedent set here means that those filibuster rules can be changed instantly as well. While the change in the filibuster is important, the manner in which it was done is important too. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is intriguing, and certainly of interest to those who follow US politics. But to everyone else, it's a technical issue of voting procedures for a tiny number of members of one particular government. The people who gain office because of this may become notable one day, the change in procedures is not. Modest Genius talk 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 21Edit


[Posted] Latvian grocery store roof collapseEdit

Article: 2013 Riga Maxima superstore collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: A roof collapse at a grocery store in Riga, Latvia, kills at least 48 people.
News source(s): [19], [20]

Nominator's comments: The article needs some better sourcing and the death toll varies depending on the source; the highest sourced death toll that I've seen is 16 or 17 (the article currently says 18). ----Bongwarrior (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Tentative support Support As said, the article needs work regarding better sourcing. Death toll is a crucial info, and the current figure is not backed by any source. --hydrox (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The current death toll is now backed by a Latvian-language newspaper source. --hydrox (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose and I was sure some such article like this would come into WP. What then is this legacy/repercussions of this accendent? How will this article not be an orphan? Every damn thing doesn't need to have a WP article!!!Lihaas (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There are articles for many a more minor disaster, and we have even posted them to ITN before. This having happened only yesterday, repercussions are of course still unclear, but they will most certainly be large for a small country such as Latvia (21 dead and up to 50 still trapped per the latest reports). The article is not an orphan. --hydrox (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. Accidents of such type seem notable, especially in capital cities, and the death toll is quite significant. Brandmeistertalk 08:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What on Earth has it being in the capital got to do with its notability? Neljack (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Oh really, the roof of a building collapsed? "Oh shit!" is about all the excitement I can muster, and it's a long way short of an ITN. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The death toll is now 45 and it's the top news item at BBC. That's quite "Oh shit!" even by ITN standards.No longer a penguin (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Unusual event in the developed countries with a lot of international coverage. Significant death toll for a country with such a small population. Jeanluc20 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. High death toll, unusual disaster. I'm sure this event will have a long-term impact in Latvia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support 45 deaths is no joke --Երևանցի talk 14:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support now the death toll has increased. Neljack (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The referencing needs to be improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support assuming the [citation needed] tags are resolved or removed. A new article with already 19 citations and worldwide news coverage seems wholly appropriate for ITN. Those suggesting this isn't "in the news" are clearly barking up the wrong tree, perhaps they should try Wikinews instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major event with at least 48 killed (blurb updated) and the death toll could still rise further over 24 hours later making it the worst disaster in Latvia since 1950. The article is in pretty good shape now, four citations needed but not for key elements so I have no objections to posting it now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've removed three contentious uncited statements. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 20Edit


Monroe Doctrine finishedEdit

Article: Monroe Doctrine (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ‎foreign policy, the Obama administration's Secretary OF State John Kerry tells the OAS that the Monroe Doctrine is over.
News source(s): WSJ

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: pretty big, and bold, to say hthis 200 year old policy with real repercussions in the past of the numerous intereferences is done. Its no small feat in international relations. Probably hthe biggest "change" the Obama regime has done. Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

aND to have an OFFICIAL leader say that mean nothing? Mind you Monroe was also an official lader who merely claimed this...Lihaas (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • So the news is "Politician makes ridiculous statement to grab headlines" Really, this happens every day in every country around the world. It's meaningless politico-babble and should be paid no mind. --Jayron32 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused - what's ridiculous about the statement? Are you suggesting that Kerry misunderstands his own government's foreign policy and the Monroe Doctrine is still alive and well? Neljack (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just an observation by Kerry. I also take mild offense at the term "Obama regime" which suggests he wasn't legitimately elected. 331dot (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure Lihaas meant to imply that - a regime can be democratic. Neljack (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I do AGF and assume no offense was intended- but regime typically does have a negative connotation. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Regime has no bearing on whether it was chosen or not, thats interpretation.
Also how is it just an observation. It is a matter of policy and policy is made by plicymakers of which Kerry is part of. it is as important as initiataing a policy of this magnitude as Moinroe did.Lihaas (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Word definitions are not an interpretation. Anyway, as pointed out by the WSJ, this has been the unsaid view of the US for some time. SoS Kerry implements policy; President Obama makes policy. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support News of genuine international interest. Some may dismiss it as just a politician's words, but the officially proclaimed end of an almost 200 year old doctrine that has had a profound effect on the history of the Americas is significant enough in my book. Neljack (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per Neljack, but although the update exists in the lead and in a separate section, it is quite brief. At least a paragraph more of referenced material, including reactions to Kerry's statement, would flesh out this ITN nomination nicely. Even a couple sentences more. Jusdafax 10:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Although mainly a statement of the obvious" as the Wall Street Journal puts it. Per Formerip, this is not a policy decision and could easily be reversed by a subsequent administration. As far as I can see, not listed in BBC's USA or S. America news, let alone its world news, which doesn't say much for its global newsworthiness. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The very fact that he dares say something that would have been deemed almost treasonable not so long ago is itself interesting. Whether or not it has any practical effect on US policy towards Latin America arguably matters less than what it tells us about current political mindsets in the US. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is nothing more than a throw-away statement that will have little to no impact. This is not front-page news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support pending a better update. The big story of the change in foreign policy from the United States is definitely newsworthy and should be ITN; the difficulty is that it is a long process and it's hard to pick any specific event to put in ITN. If we have to pick one event out of a ten-year-or-so change of course in international diplomacy, this seems likely to be as good as any. GoldenRing (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's be honest with ourselves; how many times has a politician said something and not done it?--WaltCip (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And Monroe proclaiming it, with ramfications?Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose a throw-away line in a speech that has no legal effect. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So Monroe's proclomation would be nothing too?Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, Kerry's exact quote was "The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over". This does not signify a significant policy change. It is not an announcement that the United States will not intervene. This is, as Medeis said, a "throw-away line...that has no legal effect". The next administration that supports interventionism in Latin and South America is in no way bound by this. Ryan Vesey 20:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Espresso Addict. The authors of the article do not see it as a shift in policy. Teemu08 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kerry essentially said 'we no longer do the things we did 200 years ago'. That's it. The Monroe Doctrine hasn't influenced US foreign policy for decades at least. Modest Genius talk 21:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The article says "Kerry misrepresented"... i think thats enough to oppose unless someone wants to change the statement -- Ashish-g55 02:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the statement as OR and a BLP violation. Neljack (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 19Edit


[Posted blurb] Frederick SangerEdit

Article: Frederick Sanger (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Frederick Sanger (pictured), the last person to win two Nobel Prizes dies, aged 95.
News source(s): BBC ABC News/AP USA Today

Nominator's comments: World renowned biochemist, one of only four to win two Nobel Prizes alongside Marie Curie, Linus Pauling and John Bardeen, elucidated the structure of insulin, holder of many honours in the UK including Order of Merit. Nick (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support full blurb, once article updated. DNA sequencing is among the most important advances of the second half of the 20th century. Not to mention his many other achievements. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, as winning multiple Nobel Prizes is a rarity(he is the only one to win more than one Chemistry Nobel), and indicates someone is at the very top of their field. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD (as reasoning above), Oppose blurb. This is an obituary item, and is being treated as such by the media. Death blurbs are only for when the death (for whichever reason) makes significant news as of itself. --LukeSurl t c 14:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Except that, in practice, plenty of people have had full blurbs for deaths that are not out of the ordinary. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Who are these people? I don't recall such blurbs in the last few months, though my Wiki-presence has not been continual in that period. --LukeSurl t c 14:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It was little surprise that Margaret Thatcher passed away; she got a blurb. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Thatcher was sufficiently notable that her death was more than an obituary item, as evidenced by the presence of our Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article. --LukeSurl t c 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I respect that you might not consider this important enough for a blurb; though multiple Nobel prize winners do not pass away every day(there have been only four, in fact). 331dot (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I was actually compiling a list of RDs yesterday and skimmed through all 2013 ITNs, but sadly didn't write down the people who got blurbs. There were more than I'd realised, at least five I think. Besides Thatcher, Roger Ebert, Seamus Heaney, and some others I'm blanking on. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Blurb per Espresso Addict. I don't usually comment on this, but double-nobel should do it for me.(Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).
  • Support blurb First to determine the sequence of a protein, which is one of the most significant achievements in the last century of science (and that's not even mentioning his contributions to DNA sequencing). Several core articles (i.e. Genetics and Protein) discuss Sanger's achievements. Teemu08 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Significant scientist with a major impact on his field. However, it was his life that caused the impact, not his death. Ergo this is indeed an obituary-style item, which is what RD is for, not a full blurb. Regarding the others who got blurbs recently, most of those I also also argued (or would have argued if I had been around) for RD not a blurb. Also, please don't use 'the last' in the blurb - there could well be others in the future. Simply say he was a two-time Nobel laureate/winner. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Tone 15:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a consensus to post at least to RD, whether to have a full blurb can be decided later. --Tone 15:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb I understand the opposes, but the two Nobels in hugely important areas pushes this over the threshold, plus explaining it will be more informative to the reader. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurp, per User:Modest Genius. It's perfectly fine that he is now showcased at the RD slot on the main page, but his death (the event) is not significant.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb per LukeSurl and Modest Genius. Neljack (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb There are very few people who have won more than one Nobel Prize and thus this seems to qualify for a full blurb in my opinion. We also cannot expect that the media will refrain from using an obituary-style since it's a death story and that's the way how they use to report it with every one who dies. But if you read carefully his obituary in each of the media, you can find much information about what makes him especially notable. I would like to agree with Modest Genius and his reasoning on this, but it's unfortunate case that many people got blurb even though their death didn't make any impact at all and we cannot simply pass over it without having a clear definition on whether the RD section fully abolishes the use of blurbs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Reworded Blurb per Espresso Addict. 2 Nobels makes him one of the most significant deaths of the year. I hate to invoke WP:OTHER, but if Roger Ebert can get a blurb... (Adding) but reword to something like "one of only four people" rather than "last person" to win two Nobel Prizes, because "last" doesn't convey how rare it is. Adpete (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Adpete, the Ebert blurb was pulled after consensus emerged that Recent Deaths was more appropriate. Neljack (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Upgrade to blurb Double Nobel should be enough already realy, not to mention the fact that he developed the techniques for BOTH protein AND DNA sequencing. Without this man modern biology would not be possible. Fgf10 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. We've posted non-notable deaths of very important figures in the past, and Sanger is a critical figure in biological sciences today. Fields like genomics simply wouldn't exist if not for Sanger's work. In addition, his article is in very good shape. SpencerT♦C 16:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Support Blurb per Spencer. Also changed the title to make it easier to notice as it looks like there is consensus for blurb here -- Ashish-g55 02:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Consensus seems clear - I've upgraded this to a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sardinia flooding after cycloneEdit

Article: 2013 Sardinia floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 18 people are killed in floods in Sardinia, after being hit by Cyclone Cleopatra
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: A natural disaster in a place not known for flooding. --Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak support This is a truly rare weather event for this part of the World. That, along with the death toll, seems to make this ITN worthy (but in no way is this a serious disaster, because it isn't in the grand scheme of things).--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Somchai Sun. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, unusual disaster in Europe. Egeymi (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support highly unusual event for Sardinia, made BBC television news headlines, clearly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
opposethe number of calamity wee had recently this is tragically smallLihaas (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that these were once very rare, but now they have occurred in each of the last three years. Thanks, Global Warming! Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current article requires expansion to meet ITN guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't usually make a fuss about article quality here, but I agree that this needs more information. As a bit of a weather nerd, I want know more about this phenomenon of a cyclone in the Mediterranean. That seem big news in itself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
And please help come up with a better title than Medicane. Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see that article now. It's gruesome. Not just the title, but the whole thing! Sloppy grammar. Sloppy science. Speculation. I'll stick it on my Watchlist and see if I can find the time to work on it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Fall of QaraEdit

Article: Battle of Qalamoun (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Syrian forces capture Qara, a strategic location in the Syrian civil war.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Nominator's comments: Lots going in Syria beyond the cehcmial attack, this is notable due its strategic location. Also after Qusayr this seems indicate a tide turning as it was the next location for opposition logistical hub. --Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Territorial gains and losses happen every week in Syria. This one is not significantly more consequential than the other territorial gains that Assad has made in recent weeks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not just a gain and loss, this is a major strategeic advantage.Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Qara links to an article about Egypt. Edited the blurb to direct to the article on the Syrian town. --PlasmaTwa2 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Iraninan embassy bombing in BeirutEdit

Article: 2013_Iranian_embassy_bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A double suicide bombing on the Iranian embassy in Beirut kills at least 22 people.
News source(s): Al Jazeera BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant attack making front pages worldwide. --LukeSurl t c 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Saw and was coming to nominate it. Its notable despite the relatively low count, that said that is not the only notable Syria related incident today so im not sure about this. Maybe a combined blurb of what I will soon nominate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talkcontribs)
  • Support when article fleshed out properly. I was hoping someone would start this article. High-profile attack with widespread news coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Attacks on diplomatic facilities are notable. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support primarily because this is an attack on an embassy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support certainly notable not only in terms of death toll but also in terms of its effects on future events and conflicts in the region.Egeymi (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support not surprised that this sort of thing has happened in this part of the world and these times, but 22+ dead and 140+ injured is significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've done some improvements to the article. --LukeSurl t c 23:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Can someone please have a look at this issue please. I think with the restoration of this section Lihaas has twice deleted we would be good to go. --LukeSurl t c 11:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Restored all content and moved some per tlk(Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).
Minimum requirement is met, but it could use more.
I would add more but suddenly don't feel like these days after my work yields arguments/fights/accusations instead of complementarily adding content as in Kenya and Gunea-Bissau. But maybe someone else can..Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 18Edit


[Posted] MAVENEdit

Article: MAVEN (talk, history)
Blurb: ​NASA launched MAVEN; the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN space probe into Earth orbit in preparation for its journey to Mars.
Alternative blurb: NASA launches the MAVEN probe to Mars
News source(s): NBC NewsBBC

Article updated

 --GroveGuy (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per ITNR. I've also suggested a better blurb and corrected parts of the template above. I imagine there will be a freely-licensed launch image soon too. Edit: hmm, the space exploration bit of ITNR seems to have changed since the last time I looked at it. Launches of interplanetary probes used to be on there. Modest Genius talk 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Probes are ITNR when they arrive at their destination, or if the launch was a failure. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait Interplanetary probes from the major space agencies are becoming more regular, and I would therefore suggest waiting for the outcome of the mission (success or failure), so that the eventual posting at least makes clear why each one is significant. I would make an exception for a first-time effort, such as the Indian launch a little while ago. —WFCFL wishlist 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major mission with mainstream coverage. Should be a lot of interest in this one --W. D. Graham 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Important and interesting Mars mission, article is well developed, widely covered by the international press. These events might be more frequent but we still rarely post science/tech related items at ITN. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Fine ITN item and article. Launch is a good time to run this. Jusdafax 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I would question if we need to post this twice- once now and once when it arrives per ITNR(though that is 10 months or so away)- but I don't actually oppose posting this. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think reader interest is likely to be very high at both points, and 10 months is far enough apart. If this was a lunar probe (so only a couple of weeks) I would agree that it doesn't need to be repeated, but Mars is far enough away to be worthwhile. Modest Genius talk 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 11:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 17Edit


[Withdrawn] Henrik StensonEdit

Nomination withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2013 (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: Henrik Stenson (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Golfer Henrik Stenson completes 'historic double', the first ever win of both the US Tour's FedEx Cup Series and the European Tour's Race to Dubai, and in same season.
Alternative blurb: ​In golf, Henrik Stenson becomes the first player to win both the FedEx Cup and the Race to Dubai in a single season, officially described as a 'historic double'.
News source(s): [21] [22] It's arguably too late now, but it's described as a 'historic double' by the websites of the two relevant official bodies (the PGA European Tour website says that here and the Official World Golf Ranking website says it here).
Nominator's comments: He also just won the DP World Tour Championship, etc, and it's the 3rd year in a row that Europeans have done something similar (but not quite the same, it was the US Money List in 2011 and 2012) which may make it more notable as indicating a shift in the balance of golf power, or less notable as being similar to what happened in 2012 and 2011. But I've been told to keep it short. And besides I don't much care whether it goes in or not, so unless anybody else wants to speak up for it, I reckon it's headed for the scrapheap.

More Nominator's Comments: Complaints have been made that I don't adequately explain the significance of the double, and that these are two unrelated wins. The wins are related as they are the seasonal points crowns of the two tours. It's also what Stenson calls a 'double-double' because he also won both tour finales, the Tour Championship and the DP World Tour Championship. This source puts it as follows:

A month after winning the FedEx Cup points title in Atlanta, Stenson breezed to the European Tour’s Race to Dubai points title, too, pocketing a combined US$11 million (Dh40.4m) in bonus money and becoming the first member of both circuits to win the seasonal points crowns in the same year. He won the season finales on both tours in the process. “The double-double,” Stenson said. “That’s going to take some beating in the future.”

Perhaps somebody needs to change the blurb to reflect some of this in some way or other, but I'm not sufficiently interested to try to do it myself, and then have to listen to the new set of objections which those changes will presumably cause (and so on), as I've already explained at greater length elsewhere in this discussion. (In fact I now wish I hadn't made the suggestion in the first place, not because I think it was a bad suggestion, but because I just don't think it's worth the hassle, despite my (not particularly successful) efforts to keep out of the discussion, and I currently hope I'll never be foolish enough to give in to the temptation to make any future suggestions, but that's another story) Tlhslobus (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Official sites calls it a Historic Double: It's arguably too late now, but, contrary to claims that it's illegal synthesis or journalistic hype, it's described as a 'historic double' by the websites of the two relevant official bodies (the PGA European Tour website says that here and the Official World Golf Ranking website says it here). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw: having being corrected by User:HiLo48 (see below) I now think there is no further justification for publishing this (and it may well be there never was ) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment not exactly catchy, is it? Notable, and of mild interest, but that blurb really needs halving.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already post the Majors and the Ryder Cup, there's no need for any more stories about golf. This seems a pretty esoteric record anyway, with no indication (in the blurb or the nomination) for why it's particularly significant. Also, despite being extremely long the blurb doesn't even mention the sport! Modest Genius talk 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Synthesis the combination of these two events isn't an existing recognized accomplishment like the Triple Crown of US horse racing. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Not recognized by you, perhaps, but a simple Google of "Stenson fedex" will tell you that many major news outlets are headlining with the double victory, e.g. Daily Telegraph, BBC, ESPN and even the esteemed American outlet Fox Sports declares it an "historic double". So no, not synthesis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MG. No explanation of why this is significant. There is no specific award or other recognition for this "achievement" and neither tournament involved is one of the golf majors. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm also disinclined to support a nomination that the nominator is unwilling to stand up and defend, and also states that they "don't much care" if it gets posted; and who also concedes it is not likely to be posted. Suggest closing this nomination. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment:It seems to me that the fact that I was (and basically still am) not willing to get seriously involved in defending my proposal should be utterly irrelevant. First, as the proposer I would not be any kind of unbiased contributor to a discussion, so arguably it would ideally be preferable if I stayed out of the discussion as far as possible. Second, painful personal experience teaches me that these discussions can get very heated, very exhausting, and can be very unpleasant experiences for at least some people (such as me), so if the proposer were somehow obliged to get involved, this could be a major deterrent to many reasonable people wishing to put forward reasonable proposals. Thirdly, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, any such requirement seems to violate at least the spirit of a Wikipedia rule (somebody can perhaps remind me of what it is called) that nobody is obliged to contribute to Wikipedia. Finally, on a personal note, I rather relish the prospect of being able to bore my family and friends for years with the tale that when Stenson won what he calls his 'double-double' (FedEx Cup, Race to Dubai, and both Tour Championship events, a kind of 'mini-grand-slam' that European golf fans may well remember for generations) Wikipedia wouldn't even mention the main double (FedEx Cup, Race to Dubai) in its In The News section - obviously the more I argue for this the more likely that Wikipedia will deprive me of that pleasure by putting it into In The News :) . That said, as already mentioned I don't wish to get involved any further in this discussion, so please feel free to reply to this if you wish; I hope to be able to avoid making any further reply myself, provided any such reply by others is not too provocative (and possibly even if it is). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • If you don't wish to comment because you are the nominator, that is your privilege, but you made no such initial statement, and you stated that you "don't care" if it gets posted; if you don't care about your own nomination, why should I- and why did you nominate it? Even if you don't wish to formally vote for your nomination(a valid concern), you could still certainly answer questions about it to help others form their opinion, or at least not state that you don't care. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I shouldn't really be replying, as I just wrote that I would try to resist the temptation to do so. But unfortunately you've asked a couple of reasonable questions, which I unthinkingly answered before realizing that I had said I wasn't going to answer - so having already wasted the effort I might as well provide you with the requested answers. In answer to your question about why I nominated, I nominated it because I thought it deserved to be considered, and probably deserved to go in. I still think that. Incidentally, I didn't say I didn't care, I said I didn't much care. I still don't much care (or at least so I hope). I slightly care in the sense that all else being equal I think it should go in. And indeed I cared enough to point out to others that as I wasn't going to put up a fight, anybody who wanted it to go in would have to put up a fight themselves. But if it doesn't go in, I should keep a sense of perspective, realize that nothing very dreadful is going to happen as a result, and my attitude should then be 'so be it' (or so I hope - I am making a conscious effort not to get emotionally involved (which is what 'caring much' basically means), as I find such emotional involvement very unwise but an ever-present risk). As for your question as to why should you care, I don't think you should care, or at least not much, as I think Wikipedia would be a better less argumentative less angry place if everybody cared rather less, though I realize that's both debatable and also a lot easier said than done, human nature being what it is. There is also a problem with not caring much in the sense that those who care too much usually win the arguments at the expense of those care a lot less. But just because lunatics and bullies tend to win doesn't justify being a lunatic or a bully. So quite likely much the same is true of caring too much. But I could of course be completely wrong.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, violates WP:SYNTHESIS. If there is a Wikipedia page on this "feat" then it will be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Nope, invalid oppose, many reliable sources are noting this as a "double". The fact a page doesn't exist is irrelevant, and the crystal-balling on its deletion is simply down to the fact that this has only occurred once. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It is synthesis to claim that these two events means the combo is ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
        • No, it is not, we have many reliable sources combining the event and noting it as "historic". To claim otherwise is simply incorrect or naive. I'm not sure which it is in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rambling Man on this. [[WP:SYNTHESIS] says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This does not apply here. The conclusion C is not the result of combining sources, but of saying what was said by the European Tour's website, a reliable source for golf (quote: "(Stenson) becomes the first player to win the FedEx Cup Series on the US PGA Tour and The Race to Dubai and in the same season."). As such objections based on WP:SYNTHESIS appear to be invalid, and I suspect that is something that more neutral observers than me will probably agree. (The second source, Gulf News, was simply given in case some people are a bit confused because of what McIlroy and Donald did in 2012 and 2011). But even if the 'synthesis' objection seems incorrect, this does not necessarily mean that other objections are incorrect, a matter that I prefer to leave mainly to others, for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this discusion.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, if 331dot and TRM want to dance toe-to-toe, let them do it elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Why exactly is this significant(that someone won two unrelated golf tournaments)? 331dot (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not the question you should be asking me in this thread. You should ask the BBC, Fox News, The Daily Telegraph etc etc etc, all of whom have headlined with this man who has won two unrelated golf tournaments. Honestly, you'd think I'd made this up. If you dislike using reliable sources, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
          • I did not claim you or anyone made anything up; I simply asked why this is significant. It's not up to me to seek out information to support someone else's nomination, it's up to them and its supporters to convince me. I've been here long enough to know that an event's mere presence in the news has never been enough by itself to warrant posting an item. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • You asked a question, I gave you an answer, now get over it and move on to something else. Read the sources to discover why it's significant, we're not here to nurse-maid you through this. It's clear this won't succeed, but several people commenting here have really exposed themselves as sadly ignorant to what is actually in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • You did not give an answer, you gave your reason for not giving an answer. I guess you don't care to see this posted if you are unwilling to answer a simple question about the nomination. I don't seek to be "nurse-maided", I seek supporters to advocate for their nomination and respond to reasonable questions to do so. As I said, merely being in the news has never been enough on its own as a reason to post something. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                • Move along. I've already provided evidence as to the fact that (a) this is in the news and (b) the double is notable (because it's in the news). [and quite honestly, if you hadn't cottoned on to the fact that this was the first time ever this golfing double was achieved, per all the sources I've provided, I despair for you]. If you don't like it, do something else, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                  • I could say the same for you. Instead of arguing you could just answer my question; I would happily do the same for you in your place. Why is this "first time ever" notable? That's all I want to know. Are they notable tournaments? Have notable players? Occur in certain countries? That's all I want to know. Once more since you apparently aren't reading it, merely being in the news has never been enough of a reason to post something. If it is now, I have many stories I'd like to go back and see posted. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                    • Do your own research. It's a first. Top golfing tournaments. Notable, they both have articles, you can read them for yourself. Notable, massive news outlets have conflated the two victories as a "double". It's really not up to me to make excuses for the world's news outlets. You need to learn to do something for yourself, not rely on others. Use the internet, read newspapers, get a grip. This conversation is over. And thanks for the insight into your approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                      • It's not my job to research nominations that you support. You want it posted, you convince others to support it. I don't seek excuses, I seek answers. That's my "approach". And your opinion of it is quite irrelevant to me. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                        • Please show me where I said I wanted it posted. Please show me where I support the nomination. Please show me where I want it posted. I have simply responded to another lazy "synth" argument, sick and tired of similar lazy respondents. Remove your false assertions. Your opinions are all very fascinating but if you don't do the work, do the research, there's no hope in discussing things with you. No point in arguing with deliberate self-declared ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                          • I'm sorry, I thought since that you attempted to discredit an argument against this that you supported it. Excuse me for thinking so. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
                            • Nope, I discredited wholeheartedly the lazy "synth" arguments which all the major news outlets have done on my behalf. I have no dog in the fight other than the righteous cause. (which was another good cause to close the debate down, but hey, you insisted on continuing the bitching....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's synthesis...and not even that significant. The first FedEx Cup was in 2007 and the first Race to Dubai was 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.124.5 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Great irrelevant stats! And synth would be an easy call if it weren't for the fact that many major news outlets are talking about this particular unique/historic double. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not irrelevant that these are two relatively new tournaments; hardly long enough to distinguish them on an individual basis, let alone as some sort of significant achievement as a pair. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
        • how many times? Reliable sources etc are publishing this as a unique/notable double. Not up to us. Really now time for you to stop trying to make a point.The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
          • That's not what I'm doing; the only thing I am doing is asking why, but you refuse to answer. And I was addressing the anon user more than you. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
            • Reliable sources are stating that winning the double here is "historic" yet many here claim this nom is synth. That's obviously untrue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The events are too new for the significance of this to be clear. If next time happens is in 50 years time, and these events are still "important", we'll post it then. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Exactly. This just seems like sports writers creating some sort of significant achievement out of nothing; these are new tournaments and have not existed long enough to develop a prestigious history on their own or as a pair, or otherwise explain why they are significant. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • "This just seems like sports writers creating some sort of significant achievement" now that really is synthesis. Well played! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
        • You know what? You are browbeating people over having an opnion different from your own. Please stop. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
          • You know what? Why would I care what you think? You and the others who are screaming synth are all doing it from your own POV, this story is published in many high quality reliable sources as an "historic double". I thought some commentators here had lazy arguments, but this one takes the biscuit. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per HiLo. We have bigger fish to fry. Jusdafax 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I appreciate the explanation posted above from the nominator and thank them for it and being willing to help(unlike another person). So if I understand this right, he was tops in points in two separate tours and won their finales? I am not terribly knowledgeable in pro golf, but is that something that is difficult to do, or just lucky that it happened to this person? I'm trying to think of analogies to this situation from other sports but coming up empty; but in any event while I kinda see why this is being reported I'm still not seeing how this is significant to the golf world itself. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know anything about golf apart from what I read here and in the news occasionally, something you could do too if you're prepared to comment on these sort of nominations (although I do enjoy the Ryder Cup, for obvious reasons lately!) The fundamental point is that this is in the news and it is being reported globally as a success because of the twin wins. As to why that's the case, that's not really for you or me to justify or explain, it's for us to assess it against the criteria. I would hate to see original research being used by editors to declare that this "seems" to be a device of sports writers. Because that's even lazier than claiming SYNTH. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the tip, but I read the news plenty. I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you- and I made the sports writers comment before the nominator posted a much more helpful response to me than you have given to me. That said, I'll stop beating my head into the wall now. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Probably a good idea. Obviously if you had read the news then you'd have seen the headlines relating the significance of the twin win. But as I said, I'm no expert, so thanks for continually reminding me that I didn't give you a "helpful response". If you don't what you're commenting on, don't comment on it. I was commenting on the bullshit synth "arguments", nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks again for fighting the good fight, Rambling Man Tlhslobus (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi, 331dot. Unless you or others think otherwise after reading about the official sites calling it a 'historic double', I think that this item is arguably no longer newsworthy due to the passage of time. But, once again foolishly failing to stick to my intention of forgetting about the whole thing, I've decided to answer some of your latest points and queries (for future reference, or out of courtesy, or whatever). First, you ask 'So if I understand this right, he was tops in points in two separate tours and won their finales? I am not terribly knowledgeable in pro golf, but is that something that is difficult to do, or just lucky that it happened to this person?' Several issues there. First, I personally agree with Stenson that the 'double-double' is an astonishing achievement which will be very hard to repeat, and is quite likely to eventually acquire legendary status (at least among European golf fans). But I've only mentioned the 'double-double' as further background information, and I did not put it into the blurb, partly because I initially had only one source by one journalist for it (and that without the neat 'double-double' title), and later because, for reasons best known to themselves, officialdom (unwisely in my opinion) has so far seemingly only spoken of a 'historic double', meaning the two tour points wins (the PGA European Tour website says that here and the Official World Golf Ranking website says it here). Because I had better things to do with my time, I only found out about those references yesterday and today even though they have been available since sometime on Monday. I'm not sure how difficult that double will be to repeat (a lot easier than the double-double, I expect) but the fact that the two relevant official bodies are describing it as a 'historic double' should, at least in my view, have been absolutely decisive as regards its newsworthiness had anybody found out about those references back on Monday or Tuesday, but nobody did. So (if it's now deemed too late) I think In The News got it wrong, but hey, that's life. Incidentally, for whatever it's worth, Google gives me 23,900 hits for Stenson "historic double" and 17,500 for Stenson "double double" (or "double-double"), but I'm not sure that's of any great relevance.
    • Second, it's kind of you to thank me for my explanation and 'for being willing to help'. But, if the truth be told, my help has actually been somewhat unwilling, although maybe I didn't say so sufficiently explicitly. The problem as I see it is that people should be free to post reasonable suggestions, and indicate that they would prefer others to take over after that - otherwise, if they are expected to 'help', it can be time-consuming, exhausting, sometimes unpleasant or intimidating, etc, and the net effect is likely to be to deter people from making reasonable suggestions in the future (quite possibly including me - I'll certainly be thinking long and hard before making another suggestion). After all, if an item really is newsworthy, one might expect that once the suggestion has been made others can help improve it, add clarifications, etc. If nobody else is willing or able to do that, then this suggests that it may not be all that newsworthy, or at least that Wikipedians rightly or wrongly fail to perceive it as newsworthy.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Tlhslobus you are certainly free to believe that- but I am also free to think what I posted above. No one can compel you to do anything and you must participate at the level you feel comfortable. I wouldn't have commented on it at all had there not been the statements that I referred to in my original post(not much caring and this won't be posted). No one needs to participate- and not wishing to unduly influence anyone is a valid concern- but they at least shouldn't IMO say they don't much care. Caring doesn't make one "a lunatic and a bully"- it just means that you made the suggestion out of a desire to be helpful and improve this page. You also did not say until now that your motive in posting was to gauge support for this item- I also might not have commented if that was the case. As to this event, "quite likely to eventually acquire legendary status" kind of says it all for me- it's hasn't yet. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry, we seem to be having a number of misunderstandings, which, to save time and effort, I won't go into. Suffice it to say that User:HiLo48 (see below) has now convinced me that there is no longer any case for publishing (and it may well be that there never was and that you have been right all along, though unfortunately, the question being now academic, I haven't given that question enough thought to be sure). Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't this rather simple? If the two awards are notable enough on their own, then each could be posted, and combining is a matter of economy. But if the individual news items were not notable, no matter how rare the combination: Will Smith becomes first man to wed Jada Pinkett, buys a DeLorean, then posting them together as if alough neither X nor Z X is notable on its own, but X and Z together are, it is synthesis. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is indeed rather simple, but No, it isn't synthesis. As already mentioned ad nauseum above by both Rambling Man and by me, including quoting the relevant extract from WP:SYNTHESIS, it's synthesis when you or I make the connection. It's NOT synthesis when reliable sources make the connection, including in this case where, among others, the two relevant official bodies describe it as a 'historic double' (the PGA European Tour website says that here and the Official World Golf Ranking website says it here). But it arguably no longer matters at this stage. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Those websites are primary sources, with an obvious interest in marketing and hyping the significance of this "event". Not good sources at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for pointing that out, HiLo48. I stand corrected. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdraw: having being corrected by User:HiLo48 (see above) I now think there is no further justification for publishing this (and it may well be there never was ) Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2013 (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] Tatarstan Airlines crashEdit

Article: 2013 Tatarstan Airlines crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fifty people are killed when a Tatarstan Airlines Boeing-737 crashes in Kazan
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant aeroplane crash, the worst of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support once the article is expanded a bit (I may join). High death toll plus it's Boeing-737. Brandmeistertalk 17:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support due to high death toll. Egeymi (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
came here to nominate it too. It fits the precedence arguement. Just needs a bit more of an updae.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support High death toll and reported on globally. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as a widely reported air crash, clearly in the news. Article needs a bit more detail before posting though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - i hope nobody minded I updated the blurb. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - 50 fatalities, hull loss and widespread coverage. Probably the worst air crash this year. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support worthy of mention --Itemirus (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 20:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Libyan fightingEdit

Article: Post-civil_war_violence_in_Libya#November (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 45 people are killed in fighting between militias from Misurata and Tripoli protesters.
News source(s): Al JazReuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: High death toll (even for the region) and has been termed the "biggest show of public anger over militias in months." There is a lot of instability there now (Egypt, Tunisia (slightly less) and of course Syria, then we have a notable individual incident like this) in Libya), so I think its worth having this on ITN. The general instability in the region is notable to be in the news (and indeed IS in the news) (Wonder what the US embassy cables are saying?) --Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DoneLihaas (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, significant violence that is getting international coverage. Perhaps we could mention the declaration of a state of emergency in Tripoli too? Neljack (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - significant enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Before it gets stale...(and theres been no opposed yet..)Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clashes like this are not uncommon in Libya. Also the article has a significant amount of problems. The orange tags should be dealt with.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not unusual. Sadly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
But 45 deaths IS unusual. Its not everyday this happens even though iolence happens. That was the pt. In Iraq bombings with many civilian deaths are till tragically commong (maybe you are conflating the two on some level), but in Libya civilin deaths at one go is still not as common as Iraq/SyriaLihaas (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As for being NOT unusual deadliest day in Tripoli since Gaddafi's toppling. Protests also still ongoing..Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Doris LessingEdit

Article: Doris Lessing (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC; Guardian; New York Times

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel-prize winning author --Espresso Addict (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Nobel Prize for Literature demonstrates importance in her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Judging by her BBC tribute she is sufficiently notable in her field to warrant a place on RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support certainly (if not she, whom?). B-class article, in good shape. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Hard to be more RD-worthy than winning a Nobel. Not sure how much updating needs to be done, since her death itself is a simple enough matter; guess that just leaves some touch-ups on the legacy stuff. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Nobel laureate of literature. Essentially, a no-brainer. Not sure if much can be written about her death, since it was apparently natural and due to old age. --hydrox (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Reactions/legacy. Thats whats generally considered an update.Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Not a requirement. The article notes her passing and is reasonable besides that, exactly what hydrox is saying above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support significant author, update adequate, article sufficient, go to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a very well-known author, certainly notable. Egeymi (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
note- User:SusanLesch refactored thios comment (which is grounds for a block itself!), but I undid that.Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, th article is NOT updated. All it says is "Lessing died on 17 November 2013 at her home in London"Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It'll be fine soon.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas, that was a highly suggestive statement. She changed the ITN-template. People do that more often (adding [ready], specifying details etc). Refactoring a comment is generally used to indicate someone changed the text in a discussion, which she didn't do…. Please be a bit less trigger happy in suggesting things about blocks, as it doesn't help in keeping a cooperative atmosphere; there are better ways to indicate that something doesn't go the way you like it…. L.tak (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It happened when i first joined. Nevertheless she did change his comment without atribution of hers. and making it look like she said it.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
"Look like she said it"? No way. I don't like being misrepresented. On the bright side, Lihaas turned around and made contributions to the article and it is posted. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You might also try not miscegenating "she" and "whom", Susan. It's either "she" and "who", or "her" and "whom". μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, a notable author. As has been said many, many times, for Recent Deaths the basic change of tense and date of death is pretty much adequate for an update. It's all the details that a standard obituary includes and RD is an obituary section. Everybody dies, and let's not unbalance articles on remarkable people by over-focussing on one of the least remarkable things they do. --LukeSurl t c 19:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. The ITN guidelines say an update noting the mere fact reported in the blurb (in this case a death) is never a sufficient one. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops, try again! Wikipedia:ITN/DC#Deaths if that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Unanimous support, article has minimum required update and is in good shape. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Obviously - one of the most important writers of our time. Good to see this posted so quickly, with the article looking good. Neljack (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. She's not even listed in the readers' or critics' list of the top 100 novelists of the last century. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That is a list of novels, not novelists, and a rather idiosyncratic one at that. I'm not sure why we're supposed to take it as gospel. Neljack (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No one said gospel; it's just a very notable list by critics and readers. I was required to read Lessing for my undergrad honors English class in the 80's. (You'll note I didn't vote against her here.) Something about a post-apocalyptic world full of windy, doorless buildings. It might have made a good short story; as a novel it was a waste. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This list is of no use at all for this question. Just from looking at the top 20: they are all dead, most of them for decades. --RJFF (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And since when did that particular "list of top x" become the de facto standard for what's worth including in Wikipedia? If you go by the readers, there's no other author than Ayn Rand. A little like suggesting Coldplay should be top of the best music charts ever. Or Hirst should be top of artists. Utterly pointless POV and nothing to do with the nomination. Please waste time elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And have you appraised yourself of the recent ITN/RD guidelines Medeis? Please, it's important so you stop making so many mistakes in the ITN/C noms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Having some very hard time taking seriously any list of "best novels" of the 20th century that has four Ayn Rands and three L. Ron Hubbards in top-ten, or even any publisher that cares to publish such rubbish. Meanwhile, the Nobel prize of literature is a very well-acknowledged achievement in the field of writers. --hydrox (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you neglect to mention the critics' list on the same page intentionally, or by error? The fact she appears on neither list of 100 at any spot is telling. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It's just as easy to find lists not featuring her as it is finding other lists which do feature her. "ALL-TIME 100 novels" by Lev Grossman and Richard Lacayo (they saw The Golden Notebook among the 100 best English-language novels published between 1923 and 2009) or The Guardian's "Top 100 women: writing and academia", ... ---Sluzzelin talk 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the famous Grossman and Lacayo. I have them on my bedstand. (Apologize for the sarcasm--the Modern Library list is slightly more broad and notable.) μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Point isn't whose list is better. First you write that Lessing is not "not even listed in the readers' or critics'" list by Random House, mentioning readers first and not giving any reason what is so special about that list. Then, when someone pointed out the amusing fact that it lists four Rands and three Hubbards among the top ten, you suddenly shift the focus toward the critics' list alone. Then when you are provided with two other "top 100" lists featuring Lessing, you only comment on one of them, criticizing its authors' breadth and notability. All of this in view of the fact that Lessing is on a list that certainly beats Random House's in terms of notability, that of Nobel Prize laureates. I don't understand what you're after. I do remember that you like Ayn Rand. Now we learn that something by Lessing you had read in the 80s didn't impress you. What's the relevance? Anyway, it's been posted, so I won't comment here anymore. Sorry for having added to the clutter. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Chile electionEdit

Wait for run off in December. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2013 (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: Chilean presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​is elected president of Chile.
Alternative blurb: ​, both candidates for President of Chile are elected for a runoff in December.

Article needs updating
 Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This nomination seems premature. Judging by the recent polls listed in the article, it appears likely that the election will go to a runoff (to be held on 15 December). Neljack (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Need some evidence this is in the news; should the blurb mention that she was President once before? 331dot (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No, its ITNR...
Not sure we need "former" there but anyhoo...
also seems like shes winning, of course if its a runoff then this wont be posted.Lihaas (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
An event needs to be in the news in order to be posted in the In The News box; ITNR does not get around that fundamental requirement. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggesting a blurb, but if there is a runoff this should not be posted until then. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Bachelet elected? It's most likely there will be a runoff in December between her and Matthei or Parisi, but she won't be elected now. Küñall (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait for the run-off, per all precedent and WP:ITNR. An inconclusive first round does not qualify under ITNR (so I've corrected the template). Modest Genius talk 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait As I predicted, this was premature - the election is going to a second round. Neljack (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2013 (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.

Jimmie Johnson wins NASCAR championshipEdit

Articles: Jimmie Johnson (talk, history) and 2013 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In auto racing, Jimmie Johnson wins the 2013 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship.
Alternative blurb: Jimmie Johnson wins his sixth championship title as the 2013 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series ends.
News source(s): [23] [24]

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.

 Xxavyer (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • On ITNR, so this should go up once the article is ready. However, the paragraph which describes him winning this year's championship is entirely unreferenced, and could do with being expanded. It should be mentioned in the lead as well. Modest Genius talk 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • In principle we could bold the other article, but that's just as bad - most of the races have no references. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 16Edit


[Posted] Maldives electionEdit

Article: Maldivian presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Abdulla Yameen is elected president of the Maldives, amidst controversy.
News source(s): BBC; Guardian

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Added controversy to the blurb as the re-run and international pressure were there. Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Needs updating with the run-off details. I don't like just adding "amidst controversy"; perhaps a mention that a previous election result was annulled? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that should worl. "amidst an anulled election" or something?Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "...after an earlier election is annulled" perhaps?Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Okey: "...after the first round was annulled and re-done"?Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed with Espresso on amidst controversy. Do we really need it? If yes, then linking it to some section of the article would help. Else. please remove it. Regards, theTigerKing  08:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Need some evidence this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned before (by others) its ITNRLihaas (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It still needs sources. To show it has actually happened, if nothing else. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas, I don't think you understand what ITNR is for; it establishes notability for recurring events, it does not establish that a recurring event is indeed in the news. If a recurring event is not in the news, it should not be posted, ITNR or not. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Au contrairem, (an dothers have said so too before me), the fact that its on ITNR means ready to post subject oinly to an update. (which when sourced will shot it is in the news...hence read the article will get that)Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"Au contraire"; that is just not correct. ITNR only addresses notability of a recurring event. It does not address the fundamental fact that this section is called "In the News" and not "Things Lihaas finds interesting". Something must be demonstrated to be in the news in order to be posted, otherwise, calling this "In the News" has no meaning. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
In the same vein, this is not "things 331dot likes". Others have said this before and I am reiterating what they have saaid. YOU may have a different perception of ITNR but until you get consenssu that doesnt hold.
Further, as ive said the source covering an update indiacted it is in the news. That is the same source that is posted here. So perhaps instead of bickering see the updates or/and get consensus for that view that you alone holds.Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Things on the "in the news" page need to be demonstrated to be in the news. That isn't my opinion or a judgement call; that's a fundamental aspect of this page. ITNR does not override or cancel that. The instructions on this page require that a verifiable news source be included in the nomination. If you want that requirement removed, then propose it. Otherwise, it is not hard to post a source in the nomination. It isn't up to me to look for sources to support your nomination.331dot (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've linked a couple of UK items; the BBC article links several others which have covered the long-winded electoral process. Reading the Guardian analysis this seems a significant change. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
sworn in already (which is a bit dubious)Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR, but please drop 'amidst controversy' from the blurb, which adds no information and is discouraged by WP:LABEL. Article is short but looks good enough to post. Modest Genius talk 22:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Willing to post when I see some more support. --Tone 11:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have seen ITNRs being posted even with one or two votes. Why not this one? Why waiting? [Got curious to know the reason] Regards, theTigerKing  18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
ITNR items only require discussion regarding the update and article quality; support is presumed for ITNR items and is not needed when they appear on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
UI agree,but did you just contradict yourself on ITNR? (youre not saying im that convincing, alternatively?) ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the article could do with covering the complex history of this election process in more detail, as well as the reaction to the rather unexpected outcome, both within and outside the country. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per ITN/R --LukeSurl t c 12:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll skip the controversy, as said above, it is discussed in the article. --Tone 18:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
BUt that's the notably bit...or rather the ESPECIALLY notable nitLihaas (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
BTW- you dint update the timer?Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the timer, though it certainly wasn't worth getting your panties in a bind over. Oh, and the word is spelled "didn't" with a "d" and an apostrophe between the "n" and "t". --Jayron32 03:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Panties in a bid? I was simply informing, where was aI angry???Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 15Edit


China changes one-child policyEdit

Article: One-child policy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China announces its decision to relax the one-child policy.
News source(s): NYT BBC

Article updated

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, though I wonder if we could incorporate the announcement of the end of re-education through labour camps, which I think is equally significant. They were announced together and are being widely reported together. Neljack (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when the one-child article is better updated, and support Neljack's suggestion re labor camps with the same condition of update. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, especially with incorporation of RTL camps.   — C M B J   19:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support an item based on this document when the relevant articles are updated; in addition to the labour camps, there appear to be a number of other important reforms announced, including changes to capital punishment. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose til its more inth e news...dont see thatLihaas (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and comment China has been relaxing its one child policy bit by bit for years. Isolating a single, obviously politically motivated announcement from many in a 22,000 word document seems shallow. And I am concerned at the motivation of those who want to mention one of the other three changes mentioned in the article, but not the others. Any hint that editors here are trying to score political points themselves must be avoided. It's all four, or none, surely. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in part per HiLo48. The very article linked in the nom says "most of the changes have already been tested in parts of the country" so this isn't really some watershed moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per TRM- this has been building up for some time. These sorts of meetings where these policies arise from are mere formalities. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This seems a little confused. The issue is in the news now, mentioned at news aggregators like Drudge and RealClearPolitics (over half a dozen mentions at their World section). Saying this is not a watershed moment ignores the fact that we do publish all sorts of incremental developments in things such as crimes, or Voyager leaving the Solar System--twice. Unless this has already been posted, it's fully eligible now. As for HiLO's objection, all we need do is say China announces a series of reforms, including on Banking, Labour Camps, Yatta, Yatta, Yatta, and the One-Child Policy. I don't think any would oppose a well-worded blurb on those lines. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is that this has been happening for months. It's not new[s], nor (surprisingly) per Lihaas, is it "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Some Chinese people I know have told me about aspects of this as it has happened over the last several years, and I have seen reference to parts of it in the news over that time too. It's a trickle effect (the one child changes) and no surprise, nor is it new news now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In the News Claims this is not in the news and should not be posted are nonsense. See: The Diplomat, Privately Owned Banks, China to Abolish Labor Camps, China Also Needs Political Reform, Is Confucius the Voice of Reason China Needs?, China Eases One-Child Policy, China unveils boldest reforms in decades, shows Xi in command. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely big news. Agree with Neljack and μηδείς that the abolition of labor camps should also be mentioned. -Zanhe (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm bemused by the opposition to this. As Medeis points out, suggestions that this isn't in the news are wrong - I found no fewer than eight articles on the announcement on the BBC World Website. Reforms are often trialled in particular areas before being introduced nationally - that doesn't mean that aren't significant. The media and experts on Chinese politics are treating this as an important announcement, and I doubt editors here have a better gauge of its significance that they do. Finally, I agree with Medeis's suggestion regarding the blurb, which addresses HiLo's concern. Neljack (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Slavery had been outlawed in many states prior to 1865, but we still posted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.97.81.161.12 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when article has been substantially updated (as of now the update is only one line). Perfect candidate for ITN, will affect a large portion of world population directly, has got widespread media attention and definitely qualifies all wiki notability criteria.LegalEagle (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable - Yes. But can we trust the governments? In a democracy - NO, in China- Don't know! Lets wait for the plan to be made available like China takes back it policy formally, I would say.Regards, theTigerKing  14:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Of all the major news agencies that reported the development, not a single one has questioned China's will to implement the policy changes. If they didn't plan to implement the policies, why would they make such high-profile announcements? They could have simply kept silent and maintained the status quo, as they had done for 30 years. -Zanhe (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Also I don't think it would be desirable to start judging nominations relating to governments based on our trust of them. It would just inevitably lead to political arguments. Our political POV should not be relevant here. Neljack (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
At the end of the day, they are just plans and announcements. Just mention a baby step taken by the Government of China, which would mean actions or steps taken in layman terminology. Nevertheless, it was not my POV. Just a generic behaviour of Governments around the world. I read somewhere just following the announcements made by China may even take even a decade to implement. I believe the nomination is too early. I wouldn't mind turning my vote to Support. Till then, I would treat it as a rumor. Thoroughly agree with Lihaas. Regards, theTigerKing  08:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support China's one child policy has been the center of controversy for years, and with the relaxing of the law, it definitely has some significance. Baseball Watcher 09:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's "announced plans to relax", it has't actually done it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is updated and the consensus is for support. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Not true, the supports appear to think this is actually happening while the opposes have acknowledged that this is simply an "indication" that something "might" happen. It's not actually going ahead yet. Not news, not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Your personal opposition is not a reason to remove a ready tag. Support is 9-5 in favor, the article is updated, and there are no other technical objections. At this point one accepts consensus and awaits an admin either posting or giving a good reason not to post yet. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps when you learn to count, we'll take your comments more seriously. Moreover, consensus isn't gauged on pure vote numbers, it's argument-based, and most of the arguments positive seem to assume the law has changed rather than the Chinese stating they may now look into changing it. Get your facts and numbers straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This is absurd. You say counting doesn't matter, but you say my count (8 supports plus Nominator vs 5 opposes) is wrong. What is your count? Please give a technical reason why this nomination is not ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You still can't count. And once again, the "technical reason" is that the support votes don't present a suitable argument. I'm deeply shocked that someone with your "experience" here thinks that posting ITN items is simply a numerical exercise. How revealing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant news story with worldwide coverage. I have added a sentence to the ending of the lead to reflect the section that updates the article. Jusdafax 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
    • No, significant news would be that the Chinese government does relax the law, along with the other things discussed in this nomination, not that it announces plans to do so.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Wrong. In China, a government announcement is tantamount to changing the law. If any law needs to be changed, it would be merely a formality. The announcement itself is the big news and reported worldwide. No news agency will report the event if/when the National People's Congress rubberstamps the change in the legal code. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Per the article " They distributed a second report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.[7]". Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This info is from 2009 and clearly outdated. I've deleted the sentence from the article. -Zanhe (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Still Ready the article is updated, and consensus is 9-5 in support, with only edit warring by one editor to obscure the fact. If an admin finds it's not ready, please post the reason why so it can be addressed. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose My gut reaction was support, but oppose per the sentence by The Rambling Man above "They distributed a second report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.[7]" It appears that China has been planning to relax the policy since at least 2009, so no, this is not news. Once the actual policy is actually relaxed, we can post it. Ryan Vesey 04:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems you didn't read my rebuttal of Rambling above. China does not work like democratic Western countries: when the government makes a policy announcement, it is as good as the passage of a law in democratic countries. When do you ever see the rubberstamp National People's Congress make the news? There will no more news to post if we don't post it this time. -Zanhe (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready please comment: we still have a 9 to 6 consensus for support, the article is updated and in good shape. Can an admin either post this or address what technical matter needs fixing for it to be postable? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Not ready, most of the supports ask for the inclusion of the removal of labour camps. That's not in the suggested blurb at all. But worse than that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing has actually happened yet. This just a plan.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is still updated, still not tagged, and still in consensus to post. I cal on an admin either to post at this point or say what further work is needed. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Please explain what "still in consensus to post" means. I hope you're not counting votes. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 CHOGMEdit

Article: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet begins in Colombo, Sri Lanka, amid partial boycotts over the allegations of human rights abuses.
Alternative blurb: ​The Prime Ministers of Canada, India and Mauritius boycott the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka over allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses.
News source(s): BBC USA Today Sky News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This summit begins amid boycott call from human rights groups over allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support but change blurb Several countries have confirmed their boycott - namely, Canada, India and Mauritius (BBC source). I've added an alt-blurb that explains that something has actually happened beyond just "calls" for boycotts. Smurrayinchester 12:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. The meeting itself probably isn't notable enough to be posted every time, but the controversy over Sri Lanka and the resulting boycotts are major news here. Modest Genius talk 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • To clarify, by 'here' I meant 'in this case', not 'where I am'. Modest Genius talk 22:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - but suggest another alternative blurb: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting begins in Colombo, Sri Lanka, amid a boycott by some nations over allegations of human rights abuses. GoldenRing (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb or something like it. The boycott is the big news here. Neljack (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with first alt blurb, when article fully updated (lead still in future tense). I think we should mention which nations are boycotting. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. As above, the boycott is the real news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. It's only occasionally that these talk-fests discuss anything of substance. I think they tackled the issue of Fiji's naughty military government a while ago, and suspended it from the Commonwealth, or something. But nothing like that is on the agenda this time. Maybe if it was being held anywhere but Sri Lanka, that country's behaviour may well be on the agenda, but it isn't and it isn't. So, no major items on the agenda. The boycott IS the news. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. On reading beyond the lead I'm not sure the article is ready yet. I've toned down some of the language in the article and asked for some citations. More and more-reliable citations generally are probably still required. The posting admin should also note that none of the three countries have completely boycotted the meeting, they have merely not sent their prime ministers, so some wording to that effect needs to be retained in the alt blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Updated blurb poer this. The section on the summit is sourced. The end if tomorrow, so we could wait for that to post the final communique. Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article is read to be posted. Regards, theTigerKing  14:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Marked eready, final communique issued (and why is that a redlink?
Final communique was issued today 17 November, so this can go on the top of ITN.)Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we mention the significant parts of the final communique in the blurb? That's a rhetorical question. If we did, it would highlight how non-newsworthy this event was, APART FROM THE BOYCOTT. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

November 14Edit


[Posted] Sachin TendulkarEdit

Article: West Indian cricket team in India in 2013–14 (talk, history)
Blurb: Sachin Tendulkar (pictured) retires from all forms of cricket, and would be conferred with the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award.
Alternative blurb: ​With his 200th Test match, Sachin Tendulkar (pictured)retires from all forms of cricket.
News source(s): Official Announcement of Bharat Ratna NYTimes, BBC, NDTV [25] [26]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Retirement of "the God of cricket" is a huge event in India and covered globally by all cricket fans. The planned event is followed by series of celebrations and felicitations going on since few days now. The subject Test match is scheduled from 14th to 18th November. --§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Alternative blurb 2: Sachin Tendulkar (pictured) retires from all forms of cricket with his 200th Test match, and is announced to win Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award. (Skipping Rao's award as its only in news because of Sachin. Also, its only announced and not awarded. Also, its not "co-awarded". Both will receive their one full medal and prize money and won't split it.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment Technically, he is already awarded. He would be getting the artifacts in a ceremony. Click on President's Secretariat -> Press Communique. More of a technical language 'pleased to award' and 'decided to confer'. Confusing statements. :) Regards, theTigerKing  14:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Can't find where such discussion happened. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Found it at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2013#Sachin_Tendulkar_retirement. But can it be reconsidered given how much its in news now? Announcement was different; now its actually happening. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I will Oppose this primarily because I oppose all retirement nominations as such, and secondarily as stale. But there's nothing wrong with you renominating it if it is in the news. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not stale. The first day of his final match is currently underway. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, if you need some help with linking to specific page instances, just let us know, your link above is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely someone who has performed at the highest level. The very highest level. For 24 years! (Tomorrow.) The greatest Indian player, and best of all for the time he was playing. If we ever post a sports retirement, this has to be the one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Wide international coverage, almost every country - Ninney (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per previous nomination; sports retirements shouldn't be posted, and athletes do un-retire too (e.g., Michael Jordan, also in the top of his field); do we post the second time they retire too in that case? SpencerT♦C 07:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Right. Let's clarify this once and for all. Do we post sports retirements, ever? (If we do, this is a shoe-in.) I have initiated a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It could be undone is no reason to not post. That's a bad speculation just for the sake of speculating. Why do we post world records then when they can and most probably are broken? I also don't see why "retirement" is something that you oppose. The topic here is "Sachin's retirement", not sportsman's retirement. His retirement is making big in news, has series of other events clubbed to it, is vocalizing numerous luminaries. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've just been reminded in the thread at Wikipedia talk:In the news that we posted Alex Ferguson's retirement. This is obviously bigger. That overrules any claim that we shouldn't post sporting retirements. Precedent is set. So Spencer's oppose is completely negated. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose struck; I will discuss retirement-related noms at WT:ITN rather than clogging up this nomination. SpencerT♦C 07:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Even if Geoffrey Boycott says "he's always been rubbish" (sic), he's a legend. End of. And the Test series article is coming along great too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely. Hard to imagine a bigger figure in sport and his retirement is big news for a considerable fraction of the Earth's population. Would suggest that it come at the end of the match, though. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as Tendulkar is one of the most famous sportsmen worldwide. But we should wait until this Test actually ends before posting. --LukeSurl t c 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Although he is known as God of Cricket in India, he is not notable worldwide. Athletes do un-retire too. It has not been given enough coverage in the international media. Faizan 12:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Please name a sports person who is MORE notable worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Usain Bolt. That being said, I support this nomination. Resolute 20:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine a current sportsperson more notable worldwide.GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It was Matthew Hayden, Australian cricketer who said "I have seen God, he bats at no. 4 for India". Sachin isn't God of cricket only in India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
And hey, Indian media is saying that Pakistani media said that "Game of cricket will be poorer without Sachin Tendulkar". Don't you read "Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper" Dawn back home? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes Faizan, please name a sports person who is MORE notable worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant development outside of cricket. Retirements should not be posted, unless its an abdicating monarch or resigning politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Aren't the majority of news it's not significant outside of the field they relate to? The MotoGP world championship is not significant outside of motor sports, the ECB interest rate is not significant outside of finance and economics, the Bangladesh Rifles Revolt is not significant outside of Bangladesh... but they're all in the news today. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
You wouldn't say that if you had read the article before writing. See how the "society outside of cricket" of non-professional cricketers is reacting. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Doesn't have to be a "significant development outside of cricket", as long as it is in the news- but that doesn't seem to be true anyway. This is in the New York Times, and cricket is not very popular in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support One of the greatest cricketers of all time. Plus it is hard to think of any sports star whose fame and adulation in their home country matches that of Tendulkar in India. This is absolutely huge news in India, which (let us remember) is a country of more than a billion people. It is also big news throughout the cricketing world. Neljack (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support as I did when it was nominated before here. As I pointed out there, we posted Yao Ming retiring as well as Ferguson; maybe a couple others from reading this man's prior discussion. If this is the tip-top greatest player of cricket ever (which is what people seem to be saying) then I could understand posting it. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Second greatest probably. Don Bradman is almost unanimously considered the greatest cricketer of all time. --LukeSurl t c 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, not only is Tendulkar much more than a household name in India (referred to as the "god of cricket"), he's well known as one of (if not the) greatest cricketers ever. Not only is this being reported in English-speaking cricket nations (England, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, Kenya, New Zealand, etc etc), but it's being reported in non-English-speaking non-cricket-playing nations (e.g. Spain)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Interesting that there's no Spanish Wikipedia article for the greatest cricketer ever... –HTD 14:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thinking deeper, Tendulkar is probably third if you count 19th-century master W. G. Grace. But most would probably agree he's the greatest living cricketer. --LukeSurl t c 13:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: I don't think that's true. I'd say that most people who know their cricket would agree that Garry Sobers is the greatest living cricketer. A surprising number of distinguished former players and other good judges consider him the greatest player ever, even ahead of Bradman, and he usually ranks second when these lists are being made. Neljack (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Just google "greatest cricketer poll", and see how often Tendulkar comes up top. It's really neither here nor there, mind you, it's clear this is "in the news" and is of interest to millions of readers. Tendulkar's article has received over half a millions page views this month alone.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Spain? Must be some very confudsed people there./..
Sobers is definately good (6 6s), but he doesnt have as much to back hima s Bradman adn Sachin. Those 2 stand aprt by far.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Guys! Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view. Please discuss on posting of the blurb rather than comparing cricketers. Typical cricket fans! Always ready with stats.   §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It is objective, im using that as a reason to show he is top of game other than Bradman which makes him number 1. Sobers being the best is subjective. Hes good yes, but not technically THE best.Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Timing comment, Test matches can go on for up to five days, so Tendulkar isn't going to retire today. --LukeSurl t c 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
agreed to wait/ post it day after tomorrow when the match will end (a this rate)...or at most day 4.Lihaas (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it should have been posted the last time it was nominated... it was bigger news then, but since we have delayed it then might as well wait a couple more days for him to actually retire -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The hook doesn’t say "today" or "3 hours ago". If nothing at all happened in the world for next whole week, the blurb would remain just there. With a slow week it could linger longer. (I remember seeing Thatcher like for ever. Maybe i accidently visited the main page quite often in those days.) I hate it when Wikipedia posts news after all actual newspapers have long behind left it and moved ahead. With a five day slot that we have, we actually have a good chance to catch up with the real world by not delaying till the end of match. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – Statistically speaking he is the greatest cricketer of all time. Definitely ITN worth! Vensatry (Ping me) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news, and not just for a billion+ Indians. The New York Times--regentspark (comment) 15:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support... but shouldn't Tendulkar be the bolded part, not his 200th test (which doesn't actually link to an article about the match any way)? That's what people are more likely to care about, that's the big new story, and his article is of better quality. Smurrayinchester 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind that. Let me know if Tendulkar is to be bolded and that article will then have to be updated a bit more. And the article does link to the actual match. Its in the sections under West_Indian_cricket_team_in_India_in_2013–14#Test_series. Should that section be linked rather than the article? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm, it DOES link to the last match/series he is playing in. And there is prose about it too.Lihaas (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Tendulkar's article should be updated and boded, given that this is specifically about him, though I suppose if both articles are updated we can have them both bolded. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Its not about being abou thim, the update needs to be there. That is a good few sentences about it (the retirement specifically)...which by the size of the page is not worth putting there.Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support forgot to add this. Of course, this is exactly what ITN should be about. A popular story, thousands of page views, meets the criteria, away we go! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above. This is one of the very few retirements worth posting. The baseball equivalent of the retirement of Joe DiMaggio.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – It doesn't matter to me whether it's a birth of a baby, death of a (oded?) TV actor or a retirement of big sports star, it should be "in the news". It's very surprising that there's no Spanish Wikipedia article for Sachin. Anyway, they don't even have article for the Don, so there is not much to surprise about! I should spend more time there. — Bill william comptonTalk 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but agree that his bio should be the bolded article. Bolding the article for the tour is just confusing. Formerip (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as I did last time. I don't see any reason in principle why sporting retirements should not be posted, though I think we should aim to set the bar very high (no more than one or two a year on average). Agree the bolded article should be Tendulkar's biography. Normally I'd say wait till the end of the match, but progression is glacially slow here at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and agree that his bio should be the bolded article. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support greatest cricket batsman of his generation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
comment WHY should his article be bolded? Not for the sake of it. Its not about the article being about him or confusing, the update needs to be there. That is, a good few sentences is needed about it (the retirement specifically)...which by the size of the page is not worth putting there. The series page has plenty of an update about himLihaas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This definitely needs to be added to the main page for all the reasons given above. Btw, how many supports do we need more? Are we going to post this once the test match is over? One day is already down and he has also made a half-century in the meantime. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously going to be posted, but I presume we are waiting for the end of the match, or test, or whatever it's called. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That way when its no longer "news".   §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support He is the most notable athlete of Indian Subcontinent. This whole series was planned just to make sure that Sachin plays his last match in India. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already posted the hundred centuries record, there's no need to post him again so soon. He's a significant cricketer, but that doesn't justify an ITN blurb IMO. Besides, there's an absolute requirement for a suitable article update, which will be very difficult to do beyond a simple statement that he has retired. Modest Genius talk 13:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Whether an article update is "suitable" is relative; some articles need more of an update than others. There is no hard and fast rule that lengthy updates are required. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Quoth Wikipedia:In_the_news#Updated_content: "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient". I cannot see how this could meet the minimum update criteria. Modest Genius talk 13:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The article on the series has 2 paragraphs about it (and one about the latest match). That DOES meet the update.Lihaas (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
More updates in the bolded article? There is so much in it already. Are people reading or not? This is 3rd guy. If anything more goes in it, it will be ball-to-ball commentary trivia. And whats the logic with we-posted-him-just-now? If there was earthquake in a country, won't we post any unrelated happenings again for few months? And last ITN was on 16 March 2012, 517 days ago.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The news story is Tendulkar's retirement, not the current match. Ergo, the bolded article should be Tendulkars, which is the one that needs a proper update, not the match. Modest Genius talk 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Please suggest what more would you like to see. I think the current info in the biography is enough. All forms of celebrations, like balloons and masks and gold coins are trivial in such a vast biography. Look at the size of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
For those obsessed with numerical updates, the article has three sentences and five references regarding the retirement specifically, and a bit at the end of the lead as well. The update is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Notable event in the lifetime of a notable person in the world of sport He is Time's magazine Person of the Moment. Gifted a Ferrari by Micheal Schumacher and Federer meeting his idol at the Wimbledon. Definitely known outside the world of cricket. An end of a Moment. The event is covered worldwide and is notable enough. Recipient of India's second highest civilian award (his name is already doing the rounds for the highest civilian award) for the profession he is synonymous to demigod. Type in the google Sachin Tendulkar and popular english daily in your region, you would find some pointers to his retirement.Barack Obama once commented India's factory output decline to him playing cricket. I see no reason why it can't be posted now. An exception can be made to the retirement criteria of ITNR PERIOD

Another Blurb: Sachin Tendulkar(pictured) retires from all forms of cricket. Update: Match over. #CrickerWillNeverBeSameAgain

Regards, theTigerKing  06:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Let's make that clearer. Tendulkar's final match has finished. He HAS now retired. There is nothing more to wait for. Post it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I have removed "cricketer" from the blurbs, since it is redundant when we say "retires from all forms of cricket." As noted above, the test has finished, so we are good to go. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could someone finish the match summary in the West Indian cricket team in India in 2013–14. Whether or not it gets bolded, it's going to get a lot of hits. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Which "somebody"? We really do need a better system than this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  Done somebody=me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Another developing update, alternate blurb updated Sachin Tendulkar is awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, by the President of India. Breaking Story [27] [He would recive it in person on Republic Day 2014] Regards, theTigerKing  10:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Just Wow! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • comment - retirement can be considered for ITN but Bharat ratna does not really qualify as ITN (do we post articles when countries bestow highest civilian honour on any person like say Legion of Honour‎ or knighthood), would suggest suitable alt blurb. LegalEagle (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
We aren’t posting separate blurb for award. (heck! We aren't posting anything at all.) It can be made a subordinate clause here itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
How about Sachin Tendulkar (pictured) retires from cricket, and is co-awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award. Prof Rao needs to be dropped (as I said earlier ITN is not for Bharat Ratna, which is incidental, but for the retirement). Hope this issue is sorted before final posting on main page.LegalEagle (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • ATTENTION required the match has concluded so the retirement should now be posted. Not sure the award is needed, that's not what's got the support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Fine without award. Who updates ITNs? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Uninvolved admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Haha! We have some 9-10 admins already involved. Doubt if anyone is left out there who checks ITNs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support IMO both the retirement and Bharat Ratna are notable. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 12:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until the day he is conferred the Bharat Ratna (which is clearly the more important facet). --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
almost 200k page views (and you can bet from non-Commonwealth countries..Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No, don't wait. Bad call. There is near unanimous support for his retirement. The award is interesting, but not what most of the support and discussion was about. If the award needs to be added later, do it then, otherwise this will become a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
His retirement is more significant. He being bestowed with the award, is merely an end result. An interesting read...Mick Jagger, RF and the legends tweeting Regards, theTigerKing  15:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Award will be given on 26 January 2014. Its stupid to wait till then. Plus it wont be "news" then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted tired of waiting. Overwhelming support for the retirement to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
& where do we stop? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Damn! Why was this posted without discussion ;) Anyhoo, kudos.
Seriously though, now how to judge if the article got high views or there was teh ITN-effect..Lihaas (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Would be interesting. The page view tool is showing 1/3 million hits in the last two days but it would be interesting if that could be broken down into hours.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. This is definitely not front page stuff. Majority of people have never even heard about this feller (like me). The nominator is suprisingly Indian, clearly looking for some attention for his country. Th4n3r (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Where of course, you'll have heard of the head of state of Chile and The Maldives. Sorry, we cant account for your own ignorance. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Objections relating to an item being from a single country are invalid("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."); every story could be said to be posted by someone looking for "attention" for their country. Further, not having heard of something is not a reason to avoid posting a story; every event is "never heard of" by someone in the world(even US Presidential elections); in fact, not having heard of something is a reason to post an item, as you will then be enlightened. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Further, Th4n3r, there are over 1 billion Indians, many more than the population of the US or UK, I think they deserve to get a story now and then(even if only a small percentage of their population uses the Internet, still a lot in raw numbers). 331dot (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, i fI post to get my country some attention, then which country am I from? ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You may all take a look at this edit by Th4n3r to get some idea where the guy is coming from. (I tried to read it as irony, but with no success. Maybe he is an Indian trying to impersonate an arrogant xenophobic American in order to make Americans look bad, who knows?) --Hegvald (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Off Topic DiscussionIf you have not heard the name before, type it in Google or read the Wikipedia item. Regards, theTigerKing  08:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not exactly "off topic", as it is that users' rationale for opposing this item, but it is an invalid reason to do so. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
His oppose = his opinion (COI is not handled on ITN/C) - however personal attacks are not tolerated here. The comment "The nominator is suprisingly Indian, clearly looking for some attention for his country" comes dangerously close to voilating WP:NPA, if it doesn't already. The user should be asked to retract this if anything. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Note to all: Tendulkar's article has had nearly one million hits in four days, including a spike of over 1/3 million yesterday. Worth considering for those who consider that this kind of nomination is not of interest to the reading public who are, after all, our target audience. Sniff all you like about sporting retirements, this piece of "in the news" has smashed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Never heard of him but you're welcome. -- 98.23.51.52
Well, if 98.23.51.52 has never heard of this person, that must mean it should be removed. If we removed every subject from ITN that someone hadn't heard of, ITN would be blank. Instead, you could read about this man and learn something (the purpose of ITN). 331dot (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Just as we have all learnt something about 98.23.51.52. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

November 13Edit


[Posted] 2013 Chapramari Forest train accidentEdit

Article: 2013 Chapramari Forest train accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A herd of 40 elephants is struck by a passenger train in Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary.
Alternative blurb: ​A herd of 40 elephants is struck by a passenger train in Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary.
News source(s): Sky Economic Times Der Spiegel Voice of America The Independent The Huffington Post The Times of India The Voice of Russia

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An unusual but major transportation accident that embodies a broader, ongoing issue.   — C M B J   18:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Are there any more details that can be added to the article? I would like to support and think this is unusual enough and covered enough in the news to do so, but the article is slim at the moment. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Working on that at the moment.   — C M B J   19:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I now support as the article has been much expanded. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in present format. The coverage needs to be expanded to put this into context and explain its importance. I'm not sure a separate article for the incident is merited; it might be better to merge it into something else, perhaps Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary, though that is very slender and poorly referenced, or the railway line if it has an article, or some more-general article about the effect of trains on elephants/wildlife. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support Awww, poor Elephants :( ...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the only objection to this nomination is that of curation style, let's defer that discussion to preferable venues and get this posted while it's still relevant.   — C M B J   06:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you mean by "curation style". I just don't, on consideration, think the incident merits a separate article, which is borne out by some of its expansion being non-encyclopedic detail. We certainly can't link to 2013 Chapramari Forest train accident while it is at AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't view AfD as a dealbreaker (particularly because that would encourage weaponization) but we can just as well link to the natural reserve's article for temporary until AfD closes. There are no other expressed objections here, so again I'd like to move for posting in either original or alternate form.   — C M B J   19:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • CMBJ pinged me to reconsider this. I don't have as strong an objection to the Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary section being linked; however, as I said at the outset, that article is very poorly referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed.   — C M B J   10:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Still more citations needed. Also the number of elephants killed needs to be clarified; the New York Times is stating 5.[28] Espresso Addict (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll get another couple refs up if possible. The NYT tally is inaccurate, though -- the more direct sources don't report 5.   — C M B J   20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is a unique event that will be long remembered. If 17 people had been killed this way we'd post it. The fact that it's at AfD is irrelevant, and the vote is going toward keep in any case. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - unusual event. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've struck my above oppose per improvement to the wildlife sanctuary article's referencing. But... As the article states, this is (sadly) not an unusual event. Five elephants appear to have been killed in the latest tally [29], with a total of 17 this year in this area. Seven seem to have been killed in one incident in 2010.[30] I don't quite understand why this has caught the imagination of the western press, though I don't deny that it has. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. ALT SpencerT♦C 20:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Did you see the artile? There is a deletion tag on it? That is not a requisite to post?!Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The alternate target was used until the deletion discussion concludes.   — C M B J   23:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Well then let me say to me: did you bloody see first ;)
Incidentally, this would then be the perfect posting and admin tooLihaas (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Pink StarEdit

Article: Pink Star (diamond) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At an auction in Geneva, the Pink Star is sold for US$83.2 million, setting a new world record.
News source(s): BBC Guardian NY Daily News WSJ Today Show/NBC

Nominator's comments: Is this noteworthy? --Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 12:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No strong feelings. Another auction is ITN at present, Three Studies of Lucian Freud, so that might count against it a bit. The diamond has been renamed Pink Dream but the various redirects haven't been done yet. Thincat (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll come down on the weak support side as this is getting coverage and people might come here to learn more about it, though I share Thincat's concerns. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've no idea how often these records are broken and so how noteworthy this event might be; however, I don't think the presence of the artwork record should prejudice posting -- if anything it's actually an interesting double. The article could do with some work, especially adding inline citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

November 12Edit


[Posted] Three Studies of Lucian FreudEdit

Articles: Three Studies of Lucian Freud (talk, history) and Francis Bacon (artist) (talk, history)
Blurb: Francis Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud sells for a record $US142.4 million at auction in New York City.
Alternative blurb: Francis Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud sells for US$142.4 million, the highest price attained at auction for an artwork.
News source(s): NY Times

Nominator's comments: Record breaking price, pushing past the The Scream that sold last year for $US120 million and was featured ITN. --Helixer (hábleme) 06:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. We seem to have had some kind of an edit conflict that deleted my slightly earlier nomination: [31]. I don't care who nominates, but the article creator PinkAmpersand should be acknowledged. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • In case it's unclear, support with the alternative blurb in the header; I don't mind whether the Koons record is also posted or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a rule against a page's creator supporting it at ITN/C? If not, support. User:Espresso Addict has turned my initial stub into a more sizable article, and I've added an infobox and image. It's far from finished, but I'd humbly consider it to be of sufficient quality for the Main Page. As to suitability, I agree with Helixer and Espresso Addict that records like this are newsworthy; plus, they offer a rare opportunity for the arts to be represented on ITN. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above and the article has an image too (could this be used on the mainpage)? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be a very interesting art news. Any record breaking price at which an art piece is sold is very significant regardless of the frequency for setting up new records.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the List of most expensive paintings, there were at least two more expensive pieces. It if posted, it should be mentioned that this is an auction record. If this type of record is enough for ITN, then ready to post, the article is in a good shape. Otherwise, DYK is also possible. --Tone 13:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added User:Espresso Addict's proposed blurb, deleted in an edit conflict as he noted above, as an alternative. I agree with your comments, and support the alt over the primary blurb, though I'd personally prefer "a work of art" to "an artwork," as a matter of style and flow. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe last year's The Scream record was also just for sale at auction; it appeared at ITN last May (with a blurb that failed to make that distinction clear). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Two records were broken at same auction. Jeff Koons broke it for price paid for work by a living artist. Both should be posted together. There is a pretty decent update for it right in the prose of koons article. -- Ashish-g55 16:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment First off, sorry about the edit conflict! Second, it makes sense to mention that Koons also broke the record for a living artist with his Balloon Dog (Orange). The Koons article, however, only mentions the record auction price in the introduction, not in the article itself. Helixer (hábleme) 17:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats ok... introduction is also in the article :) i dont see the need for it to be repeated. Atleast its updated -- Ashish-g55 19:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Alt2: "Francis Bacon's Three Studies of Lucian Freud sells for US$142.4 million, the highest price attained at auction for a work of art, and Jeff Koons's Balloon Dog (Orange) becomes the highest-priced work sold at auction by a living artist."
Could do with shortening, but it needs to be clear that both are only records for auction sales. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Something along the lines of "Jeff Koon's Balloon Dog (Orange) sets the auction record for a live artist's work, while Francis Bacon sets the record as a dead artist" ? μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The article that's been created is Three Studies of Lucian Freud; I don't believe there's an article for Balloon Dog (Orange). Neither Bacon nor Koon's articles discussed the respective works at all, when last I looked. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Were I championing this, I'd argue the artists, not the works, are the important articles. Of course either way a suitable update will be difficult--although three sources per item isn't a lot to ask. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could an uninvolved admin determine whether some formulation of this item can be posted? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've posted only the Bacon record, for three reasons: most of the supports were only for the Bacon painting (although nobody opposed the inclusion of the second item), most of the discussion was only about the first item, and I was having a hard time including both items without ending up with a long, awkward-sounding blurb. None of this precludes the Koons painting from being added to the blurb in the near future, but I thought this was the best course for the time being. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John TavenerEdit

Article: John Tavener (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: British classical composer John Tavener dies at age 69.
News source(s): BBC News

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

Nominator's comments: A world famous composer of classical music. --Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 18:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, but needs more of an update. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Should probably add that I'm not supporting a blurb. Formerip (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Sufficiently prolific and influential in his field (*cough* unlike the other John *cough*) Somchai Sun (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, update is fine, top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even in the same universe as Prokoviev, Rachmaninov, Khachaturian, John Williams, Gershwin, Miles Davis, or anyone anyone actually listens too. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Medeis, I am pretty tired of seeing your snarky comments here, and your total inability to judge a nomination in its right without going all apples-and-oranges. Cut it out. And actually read about this guys career. Somchai Sun (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, who are you? μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, please assume good faith of Somchai Sun. Additionally, John Williams, George Gershwin, Miles Davis, Henry Mancini and Danny Elfman can hardly be described as composers in the same sense as Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff and Khachaturian (and, perhaps, John Tavener). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty tired of seeing such self-righteous comments here, and your total inability to refrain from lecturing editors on etiquette when they express themselves to a nomination, not other editors. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems important in his field, given his body of work and recognition. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - a significant composer of the last 50 years. Bob talk 22:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - world class composer. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support exactly what RD is for. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with Medeis here. Tavener was basically a pretty minor figure in classical music who for some reason achieved a certain popularity in some non-classical circles. His impact on classical music was negligible. Britain has produced plenty of truly important classical composers in recent times: Peter Maxwell Davies, Harrison Birtwistle, Thomas Adès and James MacMillan, to name a few. Tavener was not one of them. Neljack (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not John Tavener's greatest fan, but have to recognise Neljack's very tendentious recent editing of the article using the specious basis of WP:BLP, which he/she repeated here. I have now reinstated the material with citations. Neljack does not appear to be using WP:NPOV. Alfietucker (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Without regard to Neljack's specific edits, BLP is held to apply to the recently dead, even up to a year or so, according to the written policy. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody disputes that, though - as you tacitly admit - Neljack's edits had little or no support from the policy. Never mind, Neljack has stopped making those edits since I reinforced those perfectly innocuous sentences with citations. Alfietucker (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have explained on Alfietucker's talk page why I believed the material to be contentious and therefore contrary to BLP. A bit of AGF would not go amiss. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Hugely well-known figure in the popular end of classical music, certainly better known than most of the composers named by Neljack and belonging to an entirely different school. To compare him as Medeis does with a group of composers/musicians most of whom died long before Wikipedia was born is utterly pointless. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The reason I am mentioning dead composers (And I left out Orff by accident--look at Henry Mancini and Danny Elfman for more importnat recent composers) is because the self-named genre "classical music" is moribund, and its modern pretenders are usually postmodern mediocrities at best. This is Howard Goodall's opinion, not just mine. Only the scorers of film themes are writing today in a classical mode that reaches the people. To nominate Tavener, about whom I have read more than enough, as at the "top of the field" is to describe him as the least rancid fish in a very small barrel long past its sell-by date. Listen to Tavener's The Whale. It came out at the same time as the Beatles' White Album (with Ono's Revolution 9), and Pink Floyd's Ummagumma (Grooving with a Pict), both of which were far better. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The Beatles themselves signed Tavener and released The Whale, so clearly they thought it was up to snuff... Smurrayinchester 10:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of that, which shows the Beatles were important and influenced him. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops! Try again! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, please read I just don't like it. This nomination will be assessed on its own merits, and not simply your insistences about the state of classical music. I hasten to add that Mr Tavener's music does not appeal to me greatly, but I remind you that it is important to view these issues impartially (see neutral point of view). If you are unable to follow these guidelines, then perhaps this page is not for you. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering how long it would take for that to come up. Francis Bacon is someone whose work I dislike. I won't be opposing that nomination. Tavener's work simply isn't influential or at the top of its "field" in any way, and saying so is entirely valid. AS FOR THE ADVICE TO EDIT ELSEWHERE, bug off. I support and champion a lot of nominations here for subjects I don't find particularly appealing, much more so than the average IP driveby. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You mean this Tavener who transcended classical music and who was knighted, won a Grammy Award, whose work was recorded by The Beatles' label, twice nominated for the Mercury Music Prize, whose works were commissioned for the Proms, and used at Princess Diana's funeral, whose music ended the 20th Century in the UK's celebrations... yeah, his work "simply isn't influential ... in any way". Utter crap. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the "transcended classical music" laugh. I am cognizant of consensus here, that doesn't bother me. There are still some CN tags though, and a section needing serious attention. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for exposing yourself, once again. You managed to ignore all the other notes which prove your assertion to be utterly false. There are no CNs and which section needs "serious attention"? By the way, as for your laughs, try reading sources like The Guardian and The Financial Times. Perhaps your personal tastes are really clouding your discussion here. Such a shame for such an eclectic editor.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Much of the article is currently unreferenced. Neljack (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree it might be best to hold posting for a few hours to give editors a chance to add citations from the obituaries. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as recent death I don't think he was such a world-leading figure that he needs his own blurb, but an RD mention seems fair. WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding, most music critics seem to think his death is a big deal (The Guardian app even sent me a breaking news notification about it). Smurrayinchester 10:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. He was a very significant figure in his field. Whether you like him or not and whether you think he deserve the status he had is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A very significant figure in classical music and his death is being widely reported in the news media. I'm not clear on why μηδείς personal opinion of his music is relevant to this discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The existing references indicate that Mr Tavener is both important and influential. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready, this has overwhelming support and the opposes amount to absolutely nothing beyond IDONTLIKETHIS, which is somewhat embarrassing for those editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It's an open question whether the article is updated, since the death section has only one sentence (although, it does have almost a 33% expansion, mainly in new refs for previously unreffed statements). Leaving that aside, there are still several citation needed tags, and a section brimming in them. That should be addressed. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It meets the current RD criteria. It's been updated sufficiently, one sentence is now adequate. Perhaps you need to re-appraise yourself of the current guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, TRM, I do like Tavener's music - I'm listening to Song for Athene as I write, and it's very beautiful. My vote is based on my evaluation of Tavener's critical reputation and influence. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I see the article has had its uncited claims cited or removed, so there's no reason to prevent posting on that basis. Could TRM please provide a link to where it says that a one sentence update has been approved by RfC? (I am not opposing this on update grounds, given it's gone from 15 to 20K bytes. But I don't accpet the precedent and want a linkto the formal decision TRM implies exists. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe this is ready. I've added some tributes to provide a five-sentence update on Tavener's death. Material I highlighted as needing citations has been cited or removed. I don't think there's anything else needed? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, hopefully there will be no further delay. I would still like to see the link to where policy has changed to TRM's one sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I do think we need to discuss in detail what updates are suitable for RDs and get general community agreement that is broader than ITN. (The quotations in mine have all just been removed, with an edit summary referring to "not a memorial".) But here is not the right venue for a general discussion. I'm minded to post this anyway, if no-one objects. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I restored the comments, and was about to come here to encourage EA to post, μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I really don't see why ITN has been used as a justification for this cruft, an as such the discussion belongs here. The fact that there were tributes may have some weight and more than sufficient to establish the notability as far as his death is concerned, but the quotes themselves are typical eulogising in nature, which is why I removed them from the article. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It's an artifact of the existing ITN requirements. We should have an RfC to change this. There has been discussion of it, but the last RfC related to ITN/RD in Aug 2012 required that RD not have any different criteria than ITN itself--a one sentence update is unacceptable, and a five sentence update with three refs is always enough. TRM has alluded to some change in policy, but until we have a link to that RfC it remains a myth. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "not a memorial" applies to someone whom no-one is arguing isn't notable? They do get a bit crufty in big clumps – and in retrospect, I think we could do without Peter Maxwell Davies's not particularly elucidating words – but the others are essentially summarising Tavener's life's work and its significance. If there's ever time in all this to-ing and fro-ing on the article to actually expand it, they could potentially be moved to other sections. But perhaps we could discuss this on the article's talk page... Espresso Addict (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that what I did is contrary to the ITN requirements, which states nothing about eulogies. We merely need to demonstrate the subject's importance to his field. And if one is seriously aiming to establish his importance to his field of endeavour, the rightful place for such recognition would have been made during a person's lifetime in the relevant section of his biography, and not merely upon his death in the "Death" section. We get a lot of cruft when a person dies that is often eulogistic and seriously distorts the truth. For example, I've seen comments after Hugo Chavez's death about him being a great supporter of Bolivarian ideals. People comment because they are asked to, and they often say what's expected of them, no wishing to insult the dead. They would tend to seek to elevate a mediocre to a saint, and I believe we would be doing our readers a disservice for including such junk. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, please, please stop claiming that any update recommendations are policy. As you have been told on a number of occasions, they are simply guidelines, there's a distinct difference. And no, there is no RfC, nor does there need to be one. There was a discussion on the removal of the arbitrary numerical update guideline on the talkpage here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, you (Personal attack removed) won't link to where a one-sentence update became policy. Please stop telling people to please stop doing things. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, try again, look closely!!!! (And for the fifth time, there is no policy, it's only ever been a guideline....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
At User:Medeis's request, I have to continue the discussion over her incorrect edits, incorrect terminology etc here. So, as such...
For the sixth time, this is not a policy. There is no RD policy. There is nothing demanding an RfC to change the wording of the guideline. I do suggest you get to grips with terminology: a policy is something that must be adhered to (in Wikipedia terms), RD updates are subject to guidelines. You must learn to use the language of Wikipedia appropriately or else your point will be either missed or ignored. If nothing else, please redact the personal attack, and redact the point that I didn't link to the discussion. (a) the personal attack is most unusual for you, perhaps you were having a bad day (b) I did link to the appropriate discussion, you could have participated but didn't. Since this is a discussion about your behaviour with regard to my edits, the ITN talk page is not an appropriate page to continue discussion, and as such, the discussion will continue here until resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Stuxnet aboard ISSEdit

Story now found to be probably untrue; nominator is only supporter, and he does not seem to object to closure (Pikolas, feel free to revert me if I'm mistaken). (non-admin closure) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:39, 13 November 2013 (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: Stuxnet (talk, history)
Blurb: Stuxnet, one of the most sophisticated computer worms ever created, is found to have infected the International Space Station.
News source(s): Originally reported in http://www.timesofisrael.com/stuxnet-gone-rogue-hit-russian-nuke-plant-space-station/
 --Pikolas (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose; reading the story, this seems a little stale- the article does not state when the virus got aboard the ISS, but it does seem like that it wasn't recently. That said, it is intriguing to me that something as internationally notable as the ISS was affected by such a virus, and I could understand posting it. Perhaps this would be better as a DYK item? In any event, thanks for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ISS has had computer viruses before [32]. This seems more trivia than ITN material. --LukeSurl t c 16:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This is apparently now not true and has been retracted [33] so I suggest closing this nomination. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Nice, thanks for the info. Pikolas (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2013 (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.

Saturn-Earth Cassini Photo ReleasedEdit

Article: The Day The Earth Smiled (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA releases a new Pale Blue Dot-style image of Saturn and Earth taken on July 19th by the Cassini spacecraft as part of an event known as The Day The Earth Smiled.
Alternative blurb: NASA releases a new Pale Blue Dot-style image of Saturn, Earth, Mars, and Venus taken on July 19th by the Cassini spacecraft.
News source(s): Multiple locations including The New York Times CBS News, The Atlantic and NBC News

Article updated

 --Girona7 (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose It's very cool, but it's not the first time Cassini's taken a picture of Earth. If we do use this, it might be a good idea to shorten the blurb - perhaps "NASA releases a photograph of the Earth taken by the Cassini spacecraft from Saturn orbit." Smurrayinchester 11:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
True, but it's the first time it was done with people being aware their picture was being taken in advance. And NASA announced yesterday that more than 20,000 people observed the taking of the pic... I do like your revised blurb - thanks! Girona7 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Revised Alt Blurb: NASA releases a unique image of the Earth, moon and other planets taken by the Cassini spacecraft from Saturn orbit." Girona7 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. This is getting widespread coverage, and amounts to the combination of science with a great work of art. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
In order to show this as updated we could really use a paragraph on the significance of and reaction to the image. Technically we want five sentences of update within a three paragraph article. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Good call, μηδείς. I have added a bunch of additional info to the Day The Earth Smiled article, which I believe should be sufficient. I will also now go ahead and add NASA's "Wave at Saturn" mosaic image. Girona7 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The (as of my writing) alt-blurb mention of "this summer" does not apply to the southern hemisphere. I would suggest it not be posted like that. -dmmaus (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have editted the altblurb per this comment, and cannot imagine any objections thereto. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This really is a spectacular photograph, which includes Saturn as well as the three inner planets and various moons. See BBC. Girona7 should be commended. Not to mention a great free picture for the front page. Some more comments would be nice. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, science-art collaborations are welcome in every culture. Hard to believe the quality of these long-exposure composites. I like the new blurb. – SJ + 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm a fan of science-related items and the image is gorgeous, but it seems to me that the trouble with this as news is that it's essentially inherently stale, as the image was taken in July, which was when the associated events happened. I also feel that the "fanfare" used in the article to describe the photo's release is accurate -- it has a bit of a feeling of a press junket for NASA. I'm not necessarily opposed, especially given how slow ITN/C is at the moment, but I'd like to see other people's views on this. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Whilst this is undoubtedly a beautiful image, it is not a news story. There is no scientific breakthrough and no substantial impact. 'Nasa releases a pretty picture' is neither unusual nor particularly notable. I suggest you nominate the image as a Featured Picture and get it onto the Main Page that way. Modest Genius talk 13:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I have just now added additional detail to the article that speaks to the newsworthiness of the image. Indeed, there was some scientific information gained from this mosaic in addition to a couple of notable imaging "firsts". Girona7 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say there was no science at all. However, this image is no more scientifically notable than many of the thousands of others taken by Casini. Modest Genius talk 15:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well, because there really is nothing newsworthy. I'm a fan of this kind of thing, but it's being posted in the wrong section. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 11Edit


[Reposted] Preah Vihear Temple resolutionEdit

Article: Cambodian–Thai border dispute#Arbitration (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Court of Justice unanimously rules that the land around Preah Vihear Temple is a part of Cambodia and that Thai forces must withraw from the location.
Alternative blurb: ​The International Court of Justice unanimously rules that the promontory at the Preah Vihear Temple is part of Cambodia and that Thai forces must withraw.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unanimous international court rulign over a long-dispute (ibelieve we posted earlier). JUST happened so not that many sources yet. Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Reasonably notable internationally: there's nothing higher than the ICJ, and the dispute has led to clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces. If we want to have a picture, I think this one of the temple looks best at low resolutions. BBC and ABC (via AP) are also covering the story. I've changed the blurb slightly - the temple itself was not disputed (it was assigned to Cambodia in 1962), but the land around it was. Smurrayinchester 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable step in a long border dispute. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. This seems to be a conclusion of a story that has been going on for a long time. Making the blurb a bit shorter, though. --Tone 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The posting was rather premature. The interpretation of the 1962 ruling was explicitly worded to point out that it covered only the promontory of Preah Vihear, and not the rest of the disputed 4.6 square kilometres. Analysts have pointed out that the ruling in a way falls in the favour of both parties. (It clarifies the extent of the promontory and reaffirms Cambodia's sovereignty there, but leaves the rest of the disputed area for both parties to bilaterally settle.) the The full consequences of the ruling are yet to be known, but it by itself in no ways ends the dispute. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Cross-posting from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Preah Vihear ruling: The currently worded blurb is inaccurate. The ruling (that the land around Preah Vihear Temple is a part of Cambodia and that Thai forces must withdraw from the location) was made back in 1962. The news is that the court made an interpretation of the 1962 ruling, which reaffirms Cambodia's sovereignty over the Preah Vihear promontory and clarifies the extent of the promontory itself. (Some news reports oversimplify the issue; the official verdict is available here. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull this was posted in 2 1/2 with two supports, and it is still unclear how accurate the blurb is. (Compare Haiyan, which was delayed in posting by 13 hours after landfall.) I am not opposed, but I don't think I have my hands on whether a ruling on a prominence is accurately reflected by the blurb. Also, since the total issue is not resolved, this seems less notable than would be a full resolution. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull per Medeis and Paul 012. Bold posting is one thing, but posting in a couple of hours with barely any discussion is another. Disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulled Primarily due to issues regarding the accuracy, although the speedy posting doesn't help matters. Stephen 21:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Opposed what would be really helpful at this point would be a really good, detailed source from the nominator or a supporter giving facts upon which we can judge both the importance of the ruling and the exact territorial details. From what I read, it seems like only a promontory (of possible military significance?) was judged on? I don't even know if that's an accurate assessment. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just finished reading the judgment, and I agree the blurb is problematic. The Court's decision was expressed in the second paragraph of the dispositif (para 108):
Declares, by way of interpretation, that the Judgment of 15 June 1962 decided that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, as defined in paragraph 98 of the present Judgment, and that, in consequence, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, that were stationed there.
However, the Court rejected Cambodia's argument that the hill of Phnom Trap was also covered by the judgment (it made clear that it was not making any pronouncement on whom it belonged to). So it was a mixed bag, really.
I'm not sure how the judgment could be accurately explained within the confines of a blurb. I suppose we could say: "The International Court of the Justice unanimously rules that all of the promontory of Preah Vihear is Cambodian territory, but declines to rule on who has sovereignty over the hill of Phnom Trap." But that's rather long. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to state I'm not opposed to the pulling. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm fine with the pulling now that the additional issues have arised. Still, it is a rare story and would fit on the ITN (and we're slow with news these days, that contributed to a rather speedy posting). Any better suggestions about the blurb then? --Tone 12:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Simple way to solve the crisis is to state the fact:
"The International Court of Justice unanimously rules that the promontory at Preah Vihear Temple is a part of Cambodia and that Thai forces must withraw from the location."Lihaas (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting with Lihaas' suggestion, have added with minor changes as the altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Any more feedback here? --Tone 13:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The altblurb looks good and seems to match with the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The revised blurb seems good enough for me, given the space constraints. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there are any standing objections, so this should go back up with the altblurb if that's the case. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Per Medeis dozens of unreferenced sentences as a result of dead or dubious links. Presumably she'll be asking for these to be resolved before supporting the re-posting of this item. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Then tag them already. They are not tagged now, and following every link is not a prerequisite of an ITN nomination, nor is clairvoyance on the part of editors. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready the updated section is fully referenced, the blurb issue is addressed, pointy objections aimed at one editor and beyond the actual ITN criteria are irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe there's consensus to repost this. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

November 10Edit


2013 TippeligaenEdit

Article: 2013 Tippeligaen (talk, history)
Blurb: ​in association football, the 2013 Tippeligaen season concludes with Strømsgodset IF winning their first Norwegian league titles in 43 years
News source(s): [34]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Doesn't look like there are many candidates for ITN currently, so I'm adding this one to have more to choose from. Even though it isn't one of the "major" association football league, I believe the 43 years wait-time is something that is noteworthy, and we don't have many of the football blurb at this time of year. I believe I've updated the article to a standard that is good enough for ITN, but it might need some copyediting, as I'm no native-English speaker. --Mentoz86 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. UEFA coefficient#Current ranking (source) shows the Norwegian league is ranked 25th in Europe. It has very little interest outside Norway. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, just because it's slow doesn't mean we should start posting low-quality stories, nor setting bad precedents. Not a major league, and even posting the English Premier League has been controversial in the past. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Assassination of Safdar Rahmat Abadi‎‎Edit

Article: Safdar Rahmat Abadi‎‎ (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iranian deputy minister Safdar Rahmat Abadi is assassinated in Tehran
Alternative blurb: ​Iranian Mines and Trade Minister Safdar Rahmat Abadi is assassinated in Tehran
News source(s): BBC; Al Jazeera; New York Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Despite escalating violence in Iran, the NYT states this is "the first reported assassination of a senior national official in Iran in years". --Espresso Addict (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, political assassinations in such an environment are notable. Article needs work. Possibly should be renamed Assassination of Safdar Rahmatabadi, as most of the article is going to be about his death. --LukeSurl t c 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • We usually use "death of" formulations for people who would not have merited an article aside from the manner of their death, which is not the case here. Presumably sources exist, though perhaps not in English, for his political & ministerial career. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As regards the spelling, my understanding is that transliteration is quite often ambiguous. Al Jazeera seem to be going with Rahmatabadi, and I would consider them one of the most reliable sources for this region. --LukeSurl t c 09:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason I went with the split name is that I saw a correction to it [35]; it also has higher Google hits and appeared more common in the more recent news stories. I agree Al Jazeera is a reliable source in this context. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
oppose there are a whole host of political assassination in Af-Pak that are not alwys posted here. Though depending on who carried it out it may be notable in the light of iti happening the same day as a nuclear agreement came about
Note hes a minor ministerLihaas (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Other stuff exists. If you want to see other political assassinations similar to this one posted, you need to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Assassinations of national political figures such as cabinet officials ("minor" or not) is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait this article is a stub, newly created, and not meeting the three full-paragraph requirement. This seems to have been a very monir official. It is being called an assassination only on the basis of his holding office--we have no motive and no identified suspect or claim of responsibility. As far as we know this could be someone's jealous husband or to deal with some private dispute over money, etc. We need a fuller aricle, and without motive and suspect there is no proof of notability. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "deputy industry minister"? Not all that I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I missed the "deputy" part of the title in the article; not the actual head of the department. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Close there's been no updation of the article, no motive, no suspect, no claim of responsibility, and insufficient support for a post. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it's a shame that Wikipedia's systematic bias has led to the death of this nomination; if a similar-level person had been assassinated in many other countries of the world, I suspect it would have been posted very swiftly. News searches come up with much material that is translated from Middle-Eastern sources, but I do not have the expertise to ascertain whether these sources are sufficiently reliable and therefore have not added them. I have appealed for assistance to the relevant WikiProject but it does not seem to be active. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
But that's just the point--we don't know he was actually assassinated, just shot. Could have been a boyfriend or a loanshark or a random serial killer. We could post this if it weren't a stub and if we had a suspect or a motive or a party claiming responsibility. We don't. All that leaves is "minor official shot". Not posting "minor official shot" has nothing to do with bias, systematic or otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In case it isn't clear, the systematic bias I'm referring to is not in whether or not this item is posted at ITN, but in the fact that for a number of reasons, the article has not found editors able to develop it to a level where it would have been suitable for posting. I believe we have detailed articles for every current UK member of parliament, yet can't muster anything worthwhile for a deputy minister who's been in post for (I believe) years. However, this is not the forum for discussing the general issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose it's just semantics, but I take systematic bias to be a polite word for editor bias--50% under 24, more than 80% male, homosexuals over-represented. Not language bias (which is the reason for separate wikis.) That's why we had that Glee RD listing up so quickly and why for years every other featured article was some edition of a video game. In this case Abadi doesn't even have an article in Farsi, Arabic, or French, let alone English. If he'd been covered in the Farsi Wikipedia but not here that would be a different issue. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't fit the average demog, I'm not personally all that bothered by over-representation of video games/television episodes, at least until the disk space runs out. But while en-Wiki is widely seen as the flagship encyclopedia, I believe there's a problem with under-representation here for whatever reason and under whatever name. When one regularly sees editors here opting to delete articles on clearly notable subjects because English-language sources aren't readily Googleable, the language bias here seems important.
On Abadi, I do wonder if the surname used on other wikis is Rahmatabadi. I don't know whether the system for appending interlanguage links is clever enough to deal with redirects. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 MotoGPEdit

Articles: Marc Marquez (talk, history) and 2013 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorcyling, Marc Marquez wins the 2013 MotoGP championship
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: He's also the youngest ever champion. Not sure if Marc Marquez or 2013 MotoGP championship should be bolded. --LukeSurl t c 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Genuinely impressive, international achievment. This guy was in his first season at the top level and is only 20 years old! HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, Marc Marquez has a bit of a "fan writes a huge amount of prose without citing anything" problem at the current time. --LukeSurl t c 14:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
So fix it. It's a world championship. I'm sure there is plenty of material. I'm off to work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the bold-linked article is appropriately updated, and the item is ITN/R, so this should be posted as soon as possible. If someone would like to update the other linked articles in all the ITN articles, that'd be sweet. If someone would like to make it part of the posting criteria, I'm all for it. If none of the above, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the season article is ok - too bad the Marquez is still in a poor state. Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN POSTED? HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Partly because the Marquez article is an embarrassing mess, I suspect. Also, pushing Haiyan off the top spot for a motorcycle race feels a little disrespectful. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't just "a motorcycle race". It was THE world championship, comprising 18 races, in 18 different countries. It's in ITN/R. And we had two articles linked, not just the usual one. One was already great. This posting can trigger improvements to the other. Disrespect is not an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Seeing a motorcycle race (or any kind) atop Haiyan looks lopsided and awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.18.215 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
What a moronic post. See my post above re "a motorcycle race". And if you want to change the rules, take it to Wikipedia talk:In the news. (And for those concerned about the word "moronic", I reserve the right to so classify any post that totally ignores the one immediately before it.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
And another question: Can anyone explain the date/time stamp on LukeSurl's nomination of this item? HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
ah, I copied and pasted a template I keep in my sandbox. I must have forgotten to erase the old signature and put in a new one. --LukeSurl t c 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That'll do it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 9Edit


November 8Edit


[Posted] RD:John Cole (journalist)Edit

Article: John Cole (journalist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, Belfast Telegraph

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: Probably the most notable British political journalist of the 1980s-90s, chief political editor at the BBC, Journalist of the year 1991 --Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Hard in the UK to get a sense of the international notability, if any, of the BBC's political editor. Are any non-UK sources available? There are a lot of tributes available to fulfil the update criteria if need be, but with such a short article they'd be a bit overwhelming... Espresso Addict (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Support. If being top of UK journalism is sufficient, then certainly. The article has been improved by myself & others. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support International notability is not required. A person may only really be well-known in their own country and still meet the criterion that they are "widely recognised as a very important figure" in their field. I believe that criterion is met here. The Guardian obituary says that he "revolutionised the routine broadcast reporting of politics."[36] The briefness of the update is not an issue, per the recent consensus that for RD listings we should focus on whether the article covers the person's life and significance well, rather than how long the update about the death is. Neljack (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the Guardian can be regarded as an independent source for the importance of their former deputy editor. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well then, The Independent's obituary describes him as "the most recognisable and respected broadcast political journalist since World War II" and says that he "not only did more than any single figure to create popular understanding of the turbulent 1980s, but pioneered the best in modern political broadcast journalism."[37] Neljack (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
In a remarkable display of synchronicity, I've just been working through that one! Espresso Addict (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack. I found this source which lists quite a few tributes. Probably could be used to update the article. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Right now I'm just seeing UK sources, nothing beyond that. We post enough UK deaths as is. Wizardman 23:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is a US source from Raw Story: [38] Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not updated, although someone had marked it so. There is absolutely nothing in the article to indicate his importance like David Frost or Bob Woodward. No awards, no great achievements. Fully update the article to show his topofthefieldness or influence on others and I'll swiftly reverse my stand and fight for the listing. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis; also willing to change my opinion should notability be demonstrated. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to hold on a !vote for now but I'd echo the concern of Medeis that the article itself does little to suggest that Cole is particularly notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Per Neljack, international notability is not a requirement (and would never even be raised as an issue in the case of an equivalent American). Within UK journalism, he was about as notable and recognisable as it is possible to be. Formerip (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've updated the "later life" section. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support now that awards have been posted(and the fact he turned down a CBE). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready I think consensus to post has emerged (more than 2 to 1 in favour). The article is in really good shape now, and there is a sufficiently large update by anyone's standards. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is certainly updated as of this. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem that important to me, at a global level - and I'm one of the people who has been updating the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Global significance isn't a criterion, being at the top of one's field is. Political journalism is by its very nature a very national rather than international field. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
      • "National" significance in any country? Or just those where most editors happen to live? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support millions of BBC viewers over the past 30 years know who he is. And for two words, or nine characters (including the space) on the main page, which is currently bereft of RDs, it seems absurd to disallow this nom which has also had a good update. Posting this would encourage more people to update RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The secondary sources are not reliable in this case since they are his friends and coworkers. They cannot be expected to be unbiased. No evidence has been presented by the nominator that people outside of Britain and outside of the field find his death at age 85 particularly noteworthy. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Firstly, whether his death is noteworthy outside the United Kingdom is explicitly irrelevant (although sources have been provided by others above). Secondly, see the sources provided by others above - he retired in the early 1990s so the journalists of today are hardly coworkers and tributes have been coming in from senior political figures who were most certainly not his coworkers. Anyway, the criteria is that somebody is at the top of their profession (which he very much was) not that he was notable outside it. By your standards, no journalist could ever make it to RD which is a systematic bias I really do not want to introduce. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Nothing really new to add apart from what's been offered above by Rambling Man, Thryduulf and FormerIP; save that anyone with their own Spitting Image puppet surely passes the notability bar. GRAPPLE X 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentI am not rescinding my oppose, but the consensus is 7 to 4 in favor, and the article is updated. I do think Ghmyrtle's concern should be addressed by an admin considering posting this. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to recent deaths. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed side discussion completely unrelated to this nomination.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment and Question It's good that this has been posted. Why was Keith Dunstan's death two month's ago not posted ? HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No idea whether it should or shouldn't have been, but it looks like the reason was basically article quality. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't rejected. It just wasn't posted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Same thing. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No. It's not. It died through nobody caring enough. Anybody could have fixed the article, and nobody did. It was our systemic bias that caused it to not be posted. I was incredibly busy at the time, and didn't have the time myself. Postings here must NEVER depend on whether people care enough about items that are not about their own country or area of interest. I'll openly admit to being on a campaign to draw the attention of as many editors as possible to this problem. I'll stop now (unless somebody says anything constructive or silly to continue this conversation). HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I routinely update (1) articles I myself nominate or would have nominated, and (2) minority topics with few English sources, like last year's Vietnamese folk singer listing, Pham Duy. I'll be damned if I am going to work on some anglophone mediocrity nominated or championed by a regular here who insists SOFIXIT when he's told the article needs a little work. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame you didn't properly read what I just posted. Oh, and who was the last Australian posted to RD? HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I pretty much lump all youse guys and the Irish together as "Brits", so I am not sure. The number should be about 1/15th the rate of us Norte Americanos. The solution would seem to be nominating more? It's no shame Australia is only just larger than New York, and has a shorter period of modern development. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not even important within UK. Note they no Wikiproject even rates the importance of this journalist above mid level. Are we going to post every BBC reporter or news reader as they die? I hope not. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It didn't push anyone else off the ticker, but I think it should definitely be taken as an indication the bar has been lowered. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it obviously doesn't mean we'll post every BBC journalist - that's a straw man. We'll only be posting the really important ones. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This was a newsreader whose awards were an honorary degree, and winner Journalist of the Year in the year he retired from the BBC from the Royal Broadcasting Something. He's a darling of a certain set who loved his sticking it to Queen and Country, even though he didn't turn down any awards with the word "royal" in their title. Other than that he was an influenceless international-unknown. So I do indeed suspect the next journalist we publish will be a real, I mean "importanter" one. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
But probably not an Australian one. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Get over it, all of you. This place has become an insipid pit of systemic bias and consequential backlash. For nine characters on the main page, this is a decent shout. As mentioned above, the article was well updated, millions of English speaking readers will understand why he's an RD. Honestly, this is why RD has become a complete waste of time. If we updated RD three times a day it'd be a good thing, but we twat about for days on end arguing the toss over trivial crap. And usually it's "he was big in the US" vs "he was big in the UK" vs "he was big [somewhere most people in the US have never heard of]". Come on folks, get with the programme, let's just encourage editing, encourage turnover, encourage actual interest. If John Cole's entry disappeared in a day because two or three other entries passed through, so what, at least we're still trying to be "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You'll notice I said above that at least posting this would not be pushing any actually worthy nominations off the front page. HiLo can take comfort in the fact that when notable Australians like Robert Hughes finally die they will get a chance at posting. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
LOL. That's if the nomination doesn't just fall off the bottom of this page, as usual, through a systemic bias driven, lack of interest in a non-American or Brit. PS: I have no problems with this posting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles that fall off the bottom of the page do so for two reasons: lack of advocacy and update. That is for the supporters to provide. You will note that although I oppose this nomination I was happy to verify its supporters had updated it. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Our systemic bias guarantees that there will often be insufficient supporters for non-Americans or Brits at RD. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
HiLo, you are more than capable of advocating for a nomination, as I have seen you do so on numerous occasions. It's up to supporters of an article to make other people care and support it. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No. that's not good enough. When I nominated Keith Dunstan and Chopper Read for RD, I was incredibly busy in my off web life. (I didn't choose the times they died!) I didn't have the time to do all that. Systemic bias meant that not enough others cared. If you cannot see that, you're part of the systemic bias. Such items either deserve to be here or they don't, irrespective of what I'm doing. Their posting must NEVER depend on the availability of a local person to push their case. That IS systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Post posting support. Per TRM and FormerIP.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Don Valley StadiumEdit

Consensus to not post. (NAC) Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:58, 8 November 2013 (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: Don Valley Stadium (talk, history) and Sheffield City Council (talk, history)
Blurb: Sheffield City Council announced plans to start the demolition of the Don Valley athletics stadium on 21 November 2013.
News source(s): [39]
 --SheffGruff (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems an issue of mostly local concern, not appearing on international news sites as a top story, from what I can see. --Jayron32 15:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Failing to see the signficance. I think the potential demolition of the Astrodome would have greater reach. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If this does get posted, the demolition (Nov 21) would make more sense than the announcement of the demolition. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2013 (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.

November 7Edit


Taliban leaderEdit

Article: Maulana Fazlullah (talk, history)
Blurb: Maulana Fazlullah is appointed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban.
News source(s): [40]

Nominator's comments: This can update the blurb about Hakimullah Mehsud too.
But also non-state actors are increasingly potent and a form of "head of state" change is notable (prob should be ITNR, but the statist emotions would say no) --Lihaas (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. No opinion on whether or not this should be posted, but the article is currently tagged as requiring referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sources are saying that he is not in full control. More of a reactionary move by the committee, it seems. Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? ewhih? As that is notable itself.Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon Haiyan (2013)Edit

Article: Typhoon Haiyan (2013) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Haiyan, the strongest tropical cyclone on record [1] enters the Philippines.
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Haiyan, the strongest tropical cyclone of 2013, makes landfall in the Philippines.
News source(s): CNNstrongest of 2013

Article updated

 --Exec8 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support once some effects are known, such as damage, that the article can be updated with. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This looks like a monster. I'd support posting this as soon as it makes landfall, then updating it when deaths or damages are known. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
"Looks like" is clearly CRYTALBALL. We don't presume round hereLihaas (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You obviously haven't seen a picture of this thing, or its measured windspeed. That's not crystal ball-ing. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is already on the List of the most intense tropical cyclones of all time, and could end up at the top of the list. It should make landfall in about 3 hours. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. Let's face it, it involves wind so it will get posted one way or another, along with a satellite image. But let's at least maintain the pretence of some standard by waiting until it has happened before deciding that we absolutely must post it. Formerip (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
wait depending on how damaging it is. MOnetraily or casualtiesLihaas (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, the news right now is its mere existence and its threat to the Philippines, its record breaking strength makes that so significant that it is already a breaking news event. We're not talking about any damage that may happen in the future. If that happens that will be another news story which is separate from ths particular news story. Count Iblis (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support wide international coverage, strongest storm of year. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support/wait - Certainly a historic tropical cyclone, being the first since reliable records began to have been warned at with winds of 195 mph. I'd opt to wait until the storm actually makes landfall to post it, but this is definitely worth posting (and updating once word of its impact starts coming out)
  • Update Has now made landfall, very likely as the strongest tropical cyclone ever to strike land. In the next hour the eyewall will strike the coastal city of Tacloban with winds of 200 mph or more, and subject the $22 billion San Juanico Bridge to winds that may be even stronger. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready -- Iv'e replaced my altblurb with cyclonebiskit's. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Typhoon 'Yolanda' has made landfall over Guiuan, Eastern Samar," according to the Philippines' PAGASA weather agency's most recent advisory, issued at 5 a.m. local time." Sustained winds of 195mph, gusts of 230mph--NPR. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Not ready yet. No objection to posting soon, but the article is not up to date (still future tense in lead) and references have been requested for the intensity claims. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, still dubious. 4 supports and 3 waits till there is something out of it. Were not Crytal BballingLihaas (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready the article has no citation need tags and no future tense as of this edit. The tense is irrelevant anyway, the article has the required three full paragraphs and support for posting when it hits. Lihaas' objection is not surprising, nor does calling the second worst pacific storm in history a matter of crystal balling make sense. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead still says "which is expected to cross the central Philippines as a very powerful typhoon on November 8" and does not mention that landfall has occurred. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Id rather see the Alt blurb used since it is not clear that it is the strongest tropical cyclone on record since its based on the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Centers records and not the Japan Meterological Agencys who are the World Meterological Organization's RSMC for the region.Jason Rees (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but I don't think it is the strongest, so it needs a fix. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's the strongest tropical cyclone to ever have made landfall in recorded history. So, there have been stronger tropical cyclones but they either didn't make landfall or when they did, they were not as strong at the moment of landfall. Count Iblis (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as Ready - lede now in current tense, no major problems that I can see. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 17:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we need to be conservative until firmer figures are available. The BBC is stating only 138 confirmed deaths at the moment.[41] The Red Cross estimates are estimates. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • 10,000 people feared dead, according to CNN. Count Iblis (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion under main-page errors on how to proceed, could we centralise there? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Update blurb At this point, it's probably fair to say that "thousands" have died. Suggest changing blurb to "Typhoon Haiyan, the strongest tropical cyclone of 2013, kills thousands of people in the Philippines", and updating accordingly when more exact figures are reported by RS's. --hydrox (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Updates/errors should be reported at WP:ERRORS where I think you'll find a discussion ongoing about this (as noted above). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurozone bank rateEdit

Articles: European Central Bank (talk, history) and Eurozone crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: The European Central Bank cuts its bank rate to 0.25% to aid recovery from the eurozone crisis.
Alternative blurb: ​The European Central Bank cuts its bank rate to 0.25% to prevent occurence of deflation (or: as inflation in the Eurozone remains low)
News source(s): BBC, WSJ, NYT

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This is the historical record low for the ECB's bank rate. The previous rate of 0.50% was also a historically low rate, but markets were expecting the ECB to retain that rate for now. --hydrox (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

support. this is a surprise and news worthy. The comments seem to focus however on the low inflation rate, rather than crisis recovery; and inflation organizing is also the formal function of the interest policy of the ECB (in contrast to the US), so I suggest to amend the blurb accordingly. L.tak (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The recession was one component of the crisis, and per ECB this measure is to strengthen the recovery (from the recession), among others. But you are right that sources mostly highlight the fact that ECB is controlling inflation with this, which is pretty much business as usual, since that's the core mission of the institution. --hydrox (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is a significant move, and one that has certainly taken the markets by surprise. Since it is a bit hard to adequately characterise the reasons for the decision in a brief blurb (in other words, you're both right), I suggest that we replace that stuff with the words "a record low", which is one of the reasons it is so notable. Neljack (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
oppose the finflation nonsense, no reason to give those Keynesian terrorists any more credibility. Tthat theory is discredited. Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Your personal view of Keynesian economics is not relevant to whether this should be posted. Neljack (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@lihaas; I don't agree; it just does't work well when implemented by politicians, but doesn't mean it doesn't work…. But anyhow, I have the feeling we are featuring terrorists quite a lot in ITN, so I don't think your argument is disqualifying the nomination…. L.tak (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Could someone propose an alternative blurb that everyone can agree is valid? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted with the short version. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks terrible--can't something be done? Add "a historic low" to the blurb? Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I suspect every formulation will displease someone, but I have gone with your suggestion. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This should never have been posted. The two supports are not sufficient--four beside the nominator when unopposed are usually taken as sufficient. The topic, given the worldwide depression and rates in the US and elsewhere is about as newsworthy as saying the temperatures in Liverpool are comparable to those in Birmingham. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep posted, but I would prefer a more clear update. Nergaal (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 6Edit


[Closed] elevated levels of polonium found in Yasir Arafat's corpseEdit

Closing; valid nomination of new reporting, but no consensus to post until/unless a legal or other official determination is made. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2013 (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: Yasser Arafat (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Tests of Yasser Arafat's remains by a Swiss laboratory find concentrations of polonium "at least 18 times" normal; the scientists say the results "moderately support the proposition" that the Palestinian leader was poisoned.
News source(s): Time, Times of Israel, UPI, Guardian, VOA, Al Jazeera America, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, Press TV, Reuters, Der Spiegel (German), Bild (German)
 --—rybec 18:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This story has been rattling around for some time. We need to wait for more than an accusation from the wife of the deceased. If somebody gets indited, or if an official action is taken by a government, that might be a milestone. Jehochman Talk 19:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The information isn't coming from his wife, but from forensic scientists in Switzerland. —rybec 19:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The widow released the results. It is a repeat of prior stories -- sensationalism and conspiracy theories. There's nothing new or factual about it. Jehochman Talk 21:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You nominated this a few weeks ago. I'm not seeing any new information since then, although it is in the news again. It looks like the exact same story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Are we seriously looking at this again? If you have undeniable proof, we'll consider it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The previous story, which was not posted, was about forensic tests on his personal effects. This is about tests on his corpse. This is likely as good as it's going to get. —rybec 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The fresh media attention means this is worthy of consideration as a new nomination. --LukeSurl t c 20:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The report says its findings "moderately" support a hypothesis that Arafat was murdered. That's not quite a smoking gun. Perhaps we should wait to see if there is any stronger statement from the French investigators. Formerip (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Close for the same reasons as the last nomination. μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FormerIP. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Close Even if poison was found, it's an investigative detail that can be only interpreted by a court of law. We can not publicize such findings per se due to WP:OR. Also, repeatedly nominating the same story is not helpful. --hydrox (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2013 (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.

New ligament discovered in the human kneeEdit

Article: Anterolateral ligament (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new ligament of the human knee, Anterolateral ligament, is discovered by doctors in Belgium.
News source(s): Time Huffington Post National Post Science Daily

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A new ligament of the human knee seems notable enough to be included on In The News. Andise1 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Tentative support. I don't have a clue how common this type of discovery is, but it seems interesting especially given its possible involvement in ACL injuries. "Described" might be better than "discovered", as it seems to have been first discovered in 1879, but only described in detail now. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The main thing is not to make a knee-jerk reaction to this. Chortle. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
What are you in-sinew-ating? Formerip (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I think personally that this is a story for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Support IF updated to show a famous first.v v Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale, first discovered in 1879 by Paul Segond. Present news is about a fuller characterization of its prevalence in the population. Abductive (reasoning) 00:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It sometimes takes time to figure out what exactly something is or what it does; that's what happened here. This seems a notable conclusion and is being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • That is simply not true. It helps hold your knee together, and Wikipedia has had an article on what happens when it is damaged, the Segond fracture. You have no secondary source to support your claim that it took 134 years to figure out what this ligament does. This is a classic case of a bunch of dumb-ass science reporters being taken in by a press release. Wikipedia is not obligated to be suckered by such stupid hype. Abductive (reasoning) 05:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • "Though French surgeon Paul Segond proposed the existence of an additional ligament in the human knee as early as 1879, the structure evaded classification for many years." Someone said it might have existed 134 years ago, and they now are saying it is classified(i.e. they know where it is and what it does). Calling those reporting this "dumb-ass science reporters" is just IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for it is not widely reported as a top news story. Jehochman Talk 12:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that a story be "a top news story", only that an item help "readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.", which this clearly is. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Adbudctive. The blurb is misleading in that the existence of this ligament has been known for over 100 years. The fact that it was only now described in a scientific paper does not mean it was only now discovered. Also, the journal article was published already in October with pre-print publication in August, but the news press got wind of it only now. But I would probably still support if this was an actual discovery. A news item does not need to be a breaking story to be relevant for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Tajik electionEdit

Article: Tajikistani presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Incumbent Emomalii Rahmon is re-elected president of Tajikistan.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article needs updating

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

 --Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • No sources to demonstrate this is in the news per the instructions on this page: "Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source." 331dot (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Added Al Jazerra as a source. However at the moment they just report the election in the present tense, it being an expected victory for Rahmon. --LukeSurl t c 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
iTS itnr, that means ITN credentials are estavblishedLihaas (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nominations still need a reliable source to back up the blurb. And slow down Lihaas, try to type more accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
ITNR establishes notability, but not presence in the news. An ITNR event shouldn't get posted if it isn't being covered adequately. 331dot (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This is getting international coverage eg [42] but even preliminary results aren't due till tomorrow, so the nomination is premature. Suggest close and renominate when results are in and article is updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Results now appear to be in, but are not filled in in detail. Does anyone have access to the full results list? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

November 5Edit


[Posted] M23 surrenderEdit

Article: M23 rebellion#Congolese army offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After a Congo DR government offensive, the March 23 Movement surrenders.
Alternative blurb: ​The Congolese army defeats the M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Re-nom as now we have the offensive AND the movement calling a ceasefire (on the backfoot). I'm not sure about precedence, but we did post FARC last year and MINUSUMA. --Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Highly significant. Neljack (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support given each side has stated the conflict is at least temporarily over. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support seems a significant event in a long-running conflict, which would be good to cover on the MP. However, the blurb should include the name of the country! Otherwise 'government' is meaningless. Modest Genius talk 21:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Done.v v?Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I wasn't sure about the first nomination because the end of hostilities was being proclaimed by one side, but this update is clearly a form of acknowledgement from M23 themselves. Teemu08 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral it needs to sort the bare URLs out, but I'm still not seeing this represented in news around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a DYK not ITN requirementLihaas (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Then you don't need to worry and you don't need to fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an update is due. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
dONE, ITS finished now and acknowldged. Should definately be posted under "November 5" as it happened todayLihaas (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support after latest developments, once article is fully updated and properly referenced. Agree 5 November should be the associated date. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, I don't consider this "ready" yet. The referencing in particular in the recent addition is very thin. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The end of a deadly war definitely deserves to posted. The article looks good and updated.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready I have no opinion on the subject, but technically this looks ready to go. If there are specific claims that still need referencing, they should be tagged directly on the article so there's no question as to what needs addressing. Otherwise this looks like it should be posted ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted I've reworks the blurb (see alt blurb) to eliminate redirects, and to more closely follow Reuters and Al Jazeera's reporting. Please suggest further improvements. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Moved your post per chronology.
but ThanksLihaas (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Toronto mayor Rob Ford admits to use of crackEdit

Closing; purely local issue. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2013 (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: Rob Ford (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Toronto mayor Rob Ford admits to the use of crack cocaine while in office.
News source(s): South Morning China Post Chicago Tribune The Telegraph Al Jazeera

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I figured I'd go out on a limb and try this. It seems to be making news all over the world, as evidenced by my selective choice of international sources (there is endless Canadian coverage). Floydian τ ¢ 00:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but this is just an admission by a local elected official and carries no criminal penalty; it seems he isn't even at risk of being removed from office until the next election. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Surely using cocaine does carry a criminal penalty? I don't think Canada's quite that liberal. Neljack (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I know a nice penalty would make it more interesting, but it is still in the news internationally and I figure that's the angle to approach it from. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but my experience is that merely being "in the news" has never been considered sufficient by itself to merit an event being posted. If it was, we would post a lot more stories than we do. :) 331dot (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the nomination itself is a borderline BLP issue, not even to mention posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • How is it a BLP issue, given that he admitted it? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • His actual statement is that he may have used it about a year ago. A blurb with the term "admit" implies wrongdoing, it's not neutral. You might also read defamation per se to see how a sloppy headline is problematic. Given this is going nowhere we shouldn't even be discussing it. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I just tossed up a blurb. I figured I was nominating an international news story where the article is updated and sourced and without other issues. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
        • "Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine" seems a pretty definite admission.[44] Neljack (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Indeed. This headline is not remotely close to a BLP concern. About the only thing Medeis has right is that the discussion is moot. Resolute 15:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless this led to his immediate ousting from office, this is a interesting tidbit that may be making the news rounds but has very little impact. The equivalent of "local cop saves kitten" news-story on a slow day. --MASEM (t) 01:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per 331dot. --LukeSurl t c 07:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as even less significant local news than the new mayor nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Less significant than the NY mayor being elected. If he lost his job that would be bit more significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose local domestic politics with no far-reaching consequences. Plus it's tabloid fodder. Modest Genius talk 15:11, 6 November 2013 (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] Bill de Blasio to become New York's next mayorEdit

Closing; subnational elections generally are not posted. 331dot (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Bill de Blasio (talk, history)
Blurb: Bill de Blasio to become New York's next mayor.
News source(s): Reuters
 Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry but local or national story at best.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post municipal or even provincial elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose nominal post, local interest, no wide-ranging impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would require something extraordinary to warrant posting a local election. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the population of New York City is larger than that of many states and several nations as well, it is still fundamentally a local election, which we don't normally post, and I see no special reason to do so here (such as the first (fill in category here) Mayor). 331dot (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2013 (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] 2009 Bangladesh mutinyEdit

Article: 2009 Bangladesh Rifles revolt (talk, history)
Blurb: Bangladesh court gives death sentence to 152 people for 2009 Bangladesh mutiny.
Alternative blurb: ​A court in Bangladesh sentences 152 people convicted of mutiny to death.
News source(s): USA Today Daily Mail

 --Gfosankar (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support with alt blurb. 152 is a large amount of death penalties. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think either of the current blurbs reads naturally. I would suggest: "A Bangladeshi court sentences 152 people to death for involvement in the 2009 Bangladesh mutiny. Neljack (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why? since we dont vote countLihaas (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I have tweaked the wording of the altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
You can very well tweak the blurb but ITN is not vote counting and you havent said anything about the reason for support.Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
oppose the odds of this being carried out (as in elsehwere in South Asia) are negligble. If and when it is then thats more monotable. HOWEVER, there are protests/strikes there in the lead up to the election which are more notable to post. support Bangladesh protestsLihaas (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - very few courts have ever sentenced more than 150 people to death at a go. The mutiny itself was quite notable because in South Asia since 1950s there have never been such a bloody mutiny, yes there were coups in Pakistan and Bangladesh, there have been atrocities by army but paramilitary recruits killing their officers in large numbers is quite unheard. Though the ITN nomination is for the sentence we should also remember the back story. LegalEagle (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per LegalEagle. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable incident though I don't recall it at all. :O From a quick perusal this page needs a lot of copy editing. Even the update needed some tweaking, which I have just done. The lead has such gems as "the unruly soldiers...". Later on it has "The Army's heavy weapons were enough to make the rebels feel frightened." with no source. There are many more examples of fractured English on the page. It may not be tagged presently, but it should be. Apologies if my oppose is invalid, some long time since I last came to ITN/C. :-\ 220 of Borg 23:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting, 220 of Borg. Fresh perspectives are good. The problems you note appear fixable with copy editing. If that is taken care of we could potentially post this article. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hadn't intended to get involved but some other editors weighed in so I fixed some of the problems I noted myself. The 148 deaths (actual ≈74 by recent sources) was ridiculously old, like just after the event. The page is far better now. 220 of Borg 13:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless it actually happens. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: mass sentencing unheard of in recent times. -Zanhe (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose sentencing is one thing, carrying out the sentencing is another. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Startling development and ITN worthy, as I see it. Jusdafax 20:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is continuing to make BBC news as international reactions come in. The BBC state "The case is believed to be one of the largest of its type in the world"[45] Espresso Addict (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It has been the consensus that the sentencing is the time to post. Claims that such sentences are not carried out in South Asia are not backed by any secondary source, and are not valid in any case since the secondary sources are exclaiming at the scale of the event. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the sentencing consensus, where is that? Worked out really well last time round, for Alexei Navalny, didn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: We post sentencing of 2012 Delhi gang rape case. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there's consensus to post this. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Mars Orbiter MissionEdit

Article: Mars Orbiter Mission (talk, history)
Blurb: ISRO launches its first Interplanetary mission to Mars successfully.
Alternative blurb: ​India launches the Mars Orbiter Mission, its first mission to Mars.
News source(s): BBC Hindustan Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Mission scheduled to launch at 9:08 UTC --Gfosankar (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Support with alt blurb, which I have added to the template. For the record this is not ITNR, but it seems significant and high-profile enough to post anyway. --W. D. Graham 09:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. It is not ITNR yet; it will be when it arrives at Mars (arrival of probes at destinations is ITNR) or if it does not make it (launch failures are ITNR as well). That said, this seems notable enough to post now. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. An event like this is of international importance. I would suggest "Mars Orbiter Mission, India's first mission to Mars, is launched from Sriharikota." to be another alt blurb. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The blurbs need to be cleaned up. It will be about 12 hours until the next update. Is this India's first interplanetary mission, or its first mission to Mars? Jehochman Talk 12:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it will be India's first interplanetary mission to Mars. But i think the term "interplanetary" can be dropped. Its pretty obvious when we say "first mission to mars". The blurb can be changed to "India launches the Mars Orbiter Mission to planet Mars, its first interplanetary mission." And i also think the word "successfully" is inappropriate at the moment because the mission is not yet successful. They have completed the first stage of setting the probe in an orbit around the earth, the probe still needs to slingshot and reach Mars. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted I'm doing this early because the last update was rather late. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Its the first Asian mission. That could go into the blurb. AOr even first non-Western one (?)(Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)).
No on both accounts. The Soviet Union was half European, half Asian, and not "Western" in most commonly used senses of the word. Fram (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Melbourne CupEdit

Article: 2013 Melbourne Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Fiorente, ridden by Damien Oliver, wins the 2013 edition of the Melbourne Cup
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.

Nominator's comments: Article is a little light right now, but this is ITN/R, so beef it up a little and we're good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: Just wanted to point out that this is the first time a female Australian trainer, in this case Gai Waterhouse, has had a horse win the Cup. I'm not sure if any non-Australian women has done it as the source [46] specifically said "Australian woman". It may be good to point this out on the blurb though. COI admission, I updated her page to include this info. 220 of Borg 14:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify... I understand that way back in the 1930s a New Zealand lady trained the winner, but Victorian Racing Club rules required the official trainer to be male, so she wasn't officially acknowledged. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone supporting the fact his has been updated? It's an ITN/R so all we need is confirmation that the update is adequate. Perhaps a passing admin can take a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support that the article is updated - contains an accurate list of runners, a brief description of the result and is adequately referenced. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

November 4Edit


[Closed] Recent Deaths: Walt BellamyEdit

Article: Walt Bellamy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN NBC Sports New York Daily News NBA Sports Illustrated

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: He had a fourteen year career in the NBA, first pick in the 1961 NBA draft, won Rookie of the Year in 1962, had a 31.6 points per game average in his rookie season, which is the second highest (Wilt Chamberlin is the highest), led the NBA in field goal percentage in his rookie season, had twenty-three points and seventeen rebounds in the 1962 NBA All-Star game, which was his first NBA All-Star game, had over twenty thousand points and fourteen thousand rebounds at the end of his career, and was elected to the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame. He was also the starting center on the 1960 American olympic basketball team that won the Gold Medal for that years Olympics. Andise1 (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - this would entail a lot of more recent players going on there. And the standard today is much higher then back thenLihaas (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per precedent. If a two-time Hall of Famer(one of only three such people) with four titles, eight All-Star Game appearances, and other notables isn't ITN worthy then I don't think this gentleman is, either. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    • There was not consensus for that to not be posted (nor was the nomination closed as such); thus there really isn't a "precedent" that was set. Looking back at that nomination, it appears as though an updated article also kept it from the Main Page. Not arguing for or against posting here, but I think using the old nomination as a reason to oppose without examining this subject's merits is doing a disservice to the nomination. SpencerT♦C 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      • There was not consensus to post it, either. Same difference. If you don't wish to consider the lack of consensus on a similar nomination a "precedent", I can accept that, but my point was that another basketball player with similar, if not greater credentials did not make it, then this person shouldn't either. I did examine this article and its merits before arriving at my opinion. A Hall of Famer versus a two-time Hall of Famer(only one of three such people), for one. It's not a disservice to make a comparison to a prior situation which occurred. A nomination does not have to be formally closed in order to draw such a comparison. 331dot (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree completely that a previous nomination that had no consensus either way should not be used as a reason to oppose. Precedent should used as a reason to support/oppose very carefully.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I could agree with that. Was just using precedence qua precedence argument ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually 331dot, I believe there was consensus to post Sharman - it was 8:4 in favour. I presume the problem was that the article had a orange-level tag for needing additional citations. Neljack (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I'm undecided on who was better: Bellamy or Sharman. Like