Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2015

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.


November 30Edit

[Posted] RenminbiEdit

Article: Renminbi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Monetary Fund approves adding China's Renminbi to its basket of reserve currencies.
Alternative blurb: ​The International Monetary Fund adds China's Renminbi to its basket of reserve currencies.
Alternative blurb II: ​The International Monetary Fund adds China's Renminbi to its Special drawing rights.
News source(s): (New York Times), (BBC News)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Quote New York Times: "The International Monetary Fund on Monday designated the Chinese renminbi as one of the world’s elite currencies, a major milestone that underscores the country’s rising financial and economic heft. The decision will help pave the way for broader use of the renminbi in trade and finance, securing China’s standing as a global economic power. Just four other currencies — the dollar, the euro, the pound and the yen — have the I.M.F. designation." Sounds to me like the kind of major milestone event which is appropriate for ITN, even if it is a bit too technical to be top news in every newspaper. Thue (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Support. Was about to add the same. Added my blurb as alternative. --bender235 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Your blurb is clearly better. Feel free to delete my blurb and move yours up as the only proposed blurb. Thue (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually your blurb may be slightly inaccurate. The Renminbi has only been approved, not added yet. I made my main blurb a fixed version of yours. Thue (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in concept ... but I would like to ask if the renminbi article is the best target here, or should be the only target. The story is clearly appropriate for ITN but I would want to make sure the right articles are appropriately up to par. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb: Significant development in international monetary policy, something we don't highlight much but nonetheless has a wide-ranging impact. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a major milestone per NYT, and developments like this are extremely rare. -Zanhe (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Likely to be a turning point in world history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability; prefer altblurb; the article needs the orange referencing tag fixing before posting -- unless special drawing rights were used as the target? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
neutral but I lean towards the precedence of adding this for additions/removals. This is the first one since the ITN-era? Although as a non-fully-convertible currency [1] this is a notable (and rubbish) step.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though I'm agnostic on whether renminbi or special drawing rights shoudl be the bold link. Whichever gets the best update is fine with me. The decision has been taken and the item is in the news now, so there's no need to wait for it to come into effect. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with this caveat: I believe the Chinese currency is more commonly known as the yuan – it was referred to as such on U.S. TV news Monday.
Sca (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as interesting financial news. A yuan is one unit of the currency, not the currency itself. Keep it as renminbi, unless the orange tags are not timely fixed. Alt blurb 3 is preferred to link directly to the term. Mamyles (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted I went with the first proposed blurb; the altblurbs highlight an article that has more referencing issues than that one. --Jayron32 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest "the Renminbi" instead of "China's Renminbi" in the blurb, simply by convention. When we refer to currencies - say, the US Dollar, the Pound Sterling, the Euro - we don't usually use the possessives "the United State's Dollar", "the United Kingdom's Pound Sterling", or "the European Union's Euro". If it's important to keep "China" there, write instead the "Chinese Renminbi", in the style of the Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, etc. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Good point. I changed it to "Chinese renminbi", since it seems important to mention China in the blurb, as China's fortune is the real underlying story. Thue (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RD: Shigeru MizukiEdit

Article: Shigeru Mizuki (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Nominator's comments: Manga artist, Japanese Person of Cultural Merit and Order of the Rising Sun, Eisner Award; would appear to be a significant figure in the field. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support with article improvements. Some unreferenced paragraphs and not a lot of detail about his work. I think he's notable based on the awards, but some indication of how and why he won them would be appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • support - notability established through awards.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Gap in article coverage between 1957 and 1991. SpencerT♦C 01:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - influential and widely popular, according to The New York Times. -Zanhe (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Grey CupEdit

Ok, that's enough for this discussion here. Take it to a talk page if you really have to (that's not an invitation to do so, btw). BencherliteTalk 20:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 103rd Grey Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Canadian football, the Edmonton Eskimos defeat the Ottawa Redblacks to win the 103rd Grey Cup
News source(s): [2], [3]

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: ITNR; Championship game of the CFL Resolute 14:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are plenty of sports items (especially football) and of those listed at ITNR this is by far one of the least deserving ones. I would rather have see a say women's entries posted than another only-one-(small)-country-sport getting an ITRN pass. Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R, article appears to be updated and sourced. No idea why practically every ITN/R sports item attracts objections in the wrong venue for such things, when the only task here is article assessment. Griping here is a waste of your words and everyone's time. - OldManNeptune 16:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per ITNR, and article has sufficient prose on the match and results. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's ITN/R and well updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it might be the biggest sport in Canada but it hardly make a ripple outside it, the next question is should we include sports in ITN/R that have little impact outside its native countries? Donnie Park (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • ITN does not consider nationalistic issues and in fact this type of thinking is strongly discouraged. Just because it affects only one nation does not necessarily mean it is not of international interest. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • If you want it removed from ITN/R, bring it up in a discussion at that page, where it should be discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and mark as ready. Opposers should start a discussion at ITNR if they wish this to be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 17:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the enthusiasm to get this posted, but you lot were so eager to get it up there that you forgot to put a full stop at the end of the blurb!!--WaltCip (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am confused as to why was this considered ready? Last time I checked, team sports include rosters with lists of players taking part in the game, which seems to be missing here. Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    If you can point to the written requirement to do so, please show us that. --Jayron32 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    2015 World Series, which was posted at the beginning of November, doesn't include their full rosters. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    But it does have a prose update. As far as I know, the only requirement is sufficient, well-referenced text to describe the actual event being posted. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, last I checked, {{expand-section}} is orange level, and would be adequate for a completely missing section. Nergaal (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a sports editor (mostly baseball), I think it's debatable whether or not a sports championship event can be considered "incomplete" without the full rosters listed. It's certainly important for All-Star Games, but for a championship game? I don't think that's the S.O.P. for any of the major sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I was not thinking necessary of a full roster, but a roster of the players that actually did get to play. That would be around 10 for baseball, and 25 for this. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That tag is not currently in the article. However, perhaps you want to know what would happen if you were to deliberately add it to the article, just to make it "ineligible", because you (as you state below) don't like sports articles on ITN? That would probably not be advised. The article has sufficient text to describe the event, which is all that is required at WP:ITN, according to the rules. If you would like to change the rules, start an RFC somewhere to add your desired requirements. Unless and until you get consensus to change the rules, we'll continue following what is already written. --Jayron32 19:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
You should not try to put words in my mouth. I like sports as ITN items, and some of the things I would like to see don't get posted (which get way higher numbers of followers than a Canadia-limited event). However, there seems to be a bias at ITNC towards having a very low threshold for some kneejerk topics (sports, politics and terrorism to name a few), and I am trying to point out the inconsistencies with respect to other topics. As the main editor of the article I am absolutely sure you can put together a full roster in less time than what it took you to write the reply above. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I've never edited the article. --Jayron32 20:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
While I am sorry that Canada is not the United States or England, that is not something I am able to change. Also, Jayron32 is not the main editor of the article, I am. And if you would like me to add a roster list, then a polite request to do so is something I am willing to entertain. But lets be honest here Nergaal. You are not making a polite request to do so. You are making this request in bad faith to try and wikilawyer this off ITN. Resolute 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, the user Nergaal is making a point for the fifth or sixth time here, perhaps it's time to consider a topic ban should this disruptive behaviour persist. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wtf are you two talking about? Weren't non-obvious ITN entries expected to be of higher standard before publishing than items that are generally unanimously agreed upon. I am starting to wonder if TRM understands what disruptive behavior is. Nergaal (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Disruptive behavior (sic) is posting pointed oppositions with no justification other than "I don't like it" at multiple ITNRs simultaneously. Disruptive behavior (sic) is flooding the talk page of ITNR with multiple complaints about extant ITNR items and then expecting everyone else to do the job for you. Disruptive behavior (sic) is claiming editors have done things they haven't done. I don't even understand your response, what's "non-obvious ITN entry" comment doing underneath an ITNR? You don't get much more "obvious" than an ITNR. As I said, if the disruption continues, a topic ban will be in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

[Removed] Remove Paris attacks aftermath as Ongoing?Edit

Wikipedia is not a memorial site, but I'm worried about how long "November 2015 Paris attacks" will have been featured in the Main Page. The event was totally tragic, like Metrojet Flight 9268 crash, and the press still has discussed it very often. However, the article hasn't seen significant developments lately. The "Search for accomplices" section hasn't seen much updates. Reactions shouldn't be that newsworthy at Wiki-standards. I nominated "European migrant crisis" twice to be removed from the Main Page, but consensus wants to keep the event featured as "Ongoing", despite lull in editing. Shall "November 2015 Paris attacks" be treated the same as "European migrant crisis" or be removed from the Main Page for being less updated than it was when it became "Ongoing" in the Main Page? Salah Abdeslam (whose article now exists) is not yet captured but still on the run. If captured, a blurb should do in the next nomination. George Ho (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I did nominate "Syrian Civil War" to be Ongoing in response, but I'm awaiting results there. --George Ho (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Editing does seem to have lulled there in the past few days, but given that Thanksgiving has quietened much activity here, it might pick up again shortly? It is certainly not out of the news; the BBC for instance has Obama laying a wreath on its index page right now, and the fact of the climate talks being in Paris on Monday has also led to discussions of enhanced security. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanksgiving has been celebrated in early October in Canada and the United Kingdom. Americans are not the only ones frequently editing the page. Britons and Canadians and Aussies also edit the page. --George Ho (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We all know that a majority are Americans. He meant no harm.Correctron (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove. There are no longer frequent developments that would justify keeping an entry in the ongoing section. If something major crops up we could reassess, but right now this has gone stale. Modest Genius talk 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove. The major elements of the story are all contained now. Brussels is back open, and football matches even in Paris are being played in front of crowds, albeit only local supporters allowed. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove as per above, coverage import but significant updates/changes have trickled out. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

November 29Edit

RD: Eldar RyazanovEdit

Article: Eldar Ryazanov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TASS via, RIA Novosti
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Quite well-known former Soviet and Russian film director whose name is commemorated in asteroid 4258 RyazanovBrandmeistertalk 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose article is a stub and therefore I'm not convinced that it shows how he is important in the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Directed Irony of Fate, one of the most popular, if not the most popular, Soviet films. (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Popularity doesn't equate to notability, or else we'd be posting the Kardashians every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    What kind of logic is that? Of course having directed one of the most popular Soviet films equates notability. (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I wrote. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    And maybe you don't understand what I wrote. Never mind indeed. (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Probable Support pending article improvements. He certainly appears to be a notable Russian director, and the article on Русский Wikipedia appears to be significantly longer and better sourced. If the English article were brought up to comparable standards I see no reason not to RD this. - OldManNeptune 00:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. No opinion on notability, but the article is in no state to post at the moment -- no inline references, for a start! If someone is willing to translate the corresponding article, or expand from obituaries, then we can start to consider it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Davis CupEdit

Article: 2015 Davis Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Great Britain win the 2015 Davis Cup, their first victory in the event since 1936.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, the Davis Cup concludes with Great Britain defeating Belgium in the final
News source(s): BBC Sport, Sky Sports

Nominator's comments: This is not one of the ITN/R items for tennis, as it is not a grand slam, but it is a bit unusual. Basically Andy Murray breaking another (laughably) long GB tennis drought. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's currently two lines of prose, one ref and alot of tables. Maybe support if expanded. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with expansion. Notable end to a lengthy sporting drought. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The article as it stands is woefully inadequate. Also, do we normally post Davis Cups, since it's not at ITN/R? If not, why should be post this one? Fgf10 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have expanded the article significantly since the comments by @Lugnuts: and @Fgf10:. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many sports-related entries at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    That has nothing at all to do with this individual candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    @Nergaal: By using that as your oppose rationale you seem to be conceding this otherwise meets the criteria for posting; us that the case? If you feel there are too many of one type of event posted, please nominate other events more to your liking. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
See the section right below this one. Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Bummer, you picked a lemon. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only reason why this event is getting so many coverage now (in the UK at least) is that the long gap it had between winning and what about other countries and what about the other years as I've never seen any of it being headline news in comparison to the Grand Slam. Donnie Park (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is the UK supposed to win this cup, or why would this be notable? (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, but according to our own article: "The Davis Cup is the premier international team event in men's tennis." so the nomination seems reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question The article on the Davis Cup has this to say: "The competition began in 1900 as a challenge between Great Britain and the United States." So I can see the angle for posting, but I'm not sure if the notability of this isn't purely a regional thing given how many other countries now compete. My question is: do any of the other countries competing care that GB broke their drought? I mean this seriously, not as rhetoric; if popular international reaction says this is a big deal, then maybe it's worth examining, but if not then it seems to me it would fall squarely under regional news. - OldManNeptune 00:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 2015_Davis_Cup#Final adequately updated now. SpencerT♦C 02:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support as the top competition between nations in tennis. It's hardly our fault if some years it gets a better update than others - what matters is whether this year's article is up to scratch. I don't think we should mention the drought, as that's a trivia quiz statistic. Modest Genius talk 11:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added an alternative blurb that uses our standard phrasing (to avoid ENGVAR issues). Modest Genius talk 11:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Update is good, Davis Cup is IMO the biggest event in tennis outside of the slams. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Update is good, and the Davis Cup - while not a major (and therefore not ITNR) - does get sufficient world wide coverage and notoriety. In this case, I'm willing to extend a support vote due to breaking the long drought. Resolute 14:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe its the "biggest" in Wikipedia but it hardly make headlines except the finals, the next question is in the last few years, how much of it became headline news because until this year, it hardly did in the UK. I also doubt the ATP is going to lose sleep having its attention taken away from their Tour Finals, neither will Kobe Bryant with his recently announced retirement that is making waves in sports news. Davis Cup seem to have now as much prestige now as the post-feminist Miss World, I personally think all sport ITNs should be those that make headline news worldwide and this only has in the UK because of it plus I've not seen any of it in, neither in NY Times. Donnie Park (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Huh? "I've not seen any of it in, neither in NY Times". Maybe you should look harder? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it's "in the news" and I would have aslo supported had Belgium won. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb, as it is the standard format we usually use for posting sporting events. --Jayron32 21:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Could we add a picture of Andy Murray to the hook, because there's no picture in the ITN section right now? (See Talk:Main Page#No picture in ITN?.) Eman235/talk 06:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Before seeing this I suggested a picture of captain Leon Smith at WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I've added the Smith image, but have no objection to someone replacing it with one of Murray. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Could we change the image to File:Leon Smith.jpg, which is a better image of him?. January (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 25 (Adele album)Edit

No consensus to post at this time. Potentially worth renominating if it breaks the all-time sales record at a later date. SpencerT♦C 02:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 25 (Adele album) (talk, history) and List of fastest-selling albums (talk, history)
Blurb: Adele's 25 becomes the album with the largest opening week of all time.
Alternative blurb: Adele's 25 becomes the album with the strongest selling opening week of all time in the United States.
News source(s): MSNBC, BBC, CNN, Forbes
Nominator's comments: Music items at ITNC are very are, and this album actually seems to have surprised even those in the field by how well it sold. I think this is one of these rare commercial news about breaking records that actually works for ITN. Nergaal (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A well referenced and comprehensive article that deserves spotlight on the main page. However, the blurb should reflect that it speaks about US sales. Have proposed alt-blurb. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The album did break the UK sales also, and I am pretty sure it set other records too, just by looking at the List of fastest-selling albums. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, but we cannot be sure it does so everywhere or world-wide, so the blurb cannot simply say "fastest selling ever". Listing the countries is also not practical if there are too many. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I rather not give weight to fastest album sales as I prefer it to go to all time sales but Wikipedia gave ITN to GTA V for the fastest first day sale in videogame sales 2 years ago but that was for all medias. Donnie Park (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, advertish vanity fair. If it becomes the first or second best selling of all time worldwide, I'd reconsider. Brandmeistertalk 18:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - well referenced and a news definitely for ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The announcement is today, but the ending week was 27th. Shall we move it to earlier date? --George Ho (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Generally we post results when they're announced so I think it's fine at this date. SpencerT♦C 02:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'd prefer a more global aspect of this, but it seems notable by itself. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Love Adele, but this seems to be an artifact of the ease of online-downloading and a change in Billboards sales metrics in December 2014 which added in online sales for the first time. This will necessarily have the effect of front-loading sales for newly released works by established artists. No going to the mall to see the album is out-of-stock, just download from your cellphone as you drive on the interstate. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced of the notability of first week sales, especially since the world ain't getting any smaller, and content delivery is getting dramatically faster and easier - but if what Medeis says is true and there has been a change in how sales metrics are obtained, then that more or less nullifies it for me. Not sure how I'll feel if this turns into an all-time sales record, but I see no reason it couldn't be renominated if it does. - OldManNeptune 20:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As said, even when record-breaking, I don't see how this something "special" meets ITN standards. Anyone can download the whole album from Google Play or Amazon or any other website, making it most downloaded album of all-time, but that's nothing compared to owning a physical copy. We can wait for either CDs to be dominant again as it was before downloading came along or a newer physical format, i.e. something innovative, to compete downloading and streaming. Or perhaps we'll find a non-Western fastest-selling album of all-time to counter this "special" news. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support In general we have too few cultural-related stories on the front page compared to sports events; there is practically always one sports event included, while much more seldom anything related to music. This is a very good example of a relevant music-related events; it's nice to sometimes have something a bit different from just the awards events. And the interest and coverage of Adele's album has been extraordinay and the sources for the record sale appear valid as far as I can see. (Billboard), (New York Times) Iselilja (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is actually of little surprised based on the performance of "Hello", and also what I consider vanity as other !voters have suggested. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia, would make a great DYK. P.S. Why single out the US as the country where it had the most sales ever in the first week? The same happened in the UK.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - So what? As per editors above. Furthermore, no reason to mention the US records, but not the records in other countries. Also, IMNSHO Adele is the most overrated singer in recent history, but I digress.....Fgf10 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 28Edit

[Closed] Japan to resume whalingEdit

No consensus to post at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Whaling in Japan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japan to resume whaling next year in Antarctic despite ruling of ICJ.
News source(s): (BBC)
 Jenda H. (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose Iceland and Norway never stopped.Lihaas (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose if what Lihaas has said is true, can it be referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Got a quick search showing it still happens in Faroe Islands. [4]p[5] (dated last year).Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because nothing has actually happened yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the fleet actually leaves port. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose What Lihaas says matches with what I know of the subject, but I believe Iceland and Norway refused to sign the 1986 IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, while Japan is bound to the moratorium and has allegedly circumvented it via scientific harvesting, so it's not directly comparable. Nevertheless, I don't think it's significant unless some kind of action is taken against Japan. If sanctions or some other significant action is taken, I'd likely support posting that. - OldManNeptune 20:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Azawad attackEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: November 2015 Azawad attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An UN-MINUSMA base is attacked in Kidal, northern Mali.
News source(s): Econ Times CNN

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Casualties reported but its also ongoing. All in light of the World War now underway. We can change the blurb as time goes by.
Before ya'll comment "not updated", that's preculuded. It depends on the updates coming in, but im working on it. Lihaas (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
comment at least 3 killed. While that's low for ITN, the target is notable.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement; attacks on UN facilities/personnel are notable. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a minor skirmish in a much larger war with thousands of dead. The UN force has been attacked multiple times, with 44 soldiers having been killed in the last two years. (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An attack on an UN base is notable, no matter how low the casualty count is. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - While it is an attack on a UN installation, we should consider that that this is part of the larger conflict in that region that has been going on for some time, so it might not be as significant as it seems. But given the staleness of ITN in the last few days, its reasonable. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the main question is "so what"? Is this a story that our readers will be looking for? If it's not anywhere near the main pages of major news outlets, I doubt it. It seems to be minor and the article is just above stub quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    • ITN items do not require to be at the top of any news site, just that they are covered by reliable news sources (CNN easily qualifies). Dismissing a story just because it is not front page news everywhere is not a valid reason to oppose. I'd also suggest against avoiding trying to determine if it is the type of story that our readers might be interested in. We should be aiming for diversity in both topic and geography, not primarily on interest. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a moot point since it's never getting on the main page, but is it "a UN" or "an UN"? The latter spelling seems like it would only make sense if it were pronounced phonetically rather than by spelling it out, which generally is not the case.--WaltCip (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    If ever posted, it would be "A United Nations...." so that's not a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a high magnitude attack, not a major story. (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 27Edit

November 26Edit

November 25Edit

RD: O'Neil BellEdit

Article: O'Neil Bell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Yahoo! Atlanta Journal-Constitution AFP

Nominator's comments: Former undisputed cruiserweight champion in boxing. Died unexpectedly, having been shot to death in a robbery. Kudzu1 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting stale...but support as top of his fiel.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If his death was unexpected, it should get a blurb, which I'm not sure is warranted here; I'm not sure he was 'very important' to his field. Article is also very slim at the moment. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Defo not blurb, but RD.Lihaas (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a somewhat successful boxer, but hardly at the top of his field. (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality of article, too weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and merits; while perhaps above average I don't think he was "very important" to boxing. Article quality is also not there. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Granted the article is crap, he won a title in his weight divisionLihaas (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
As have thousands of boxers. That doesn't mean they're important to the field of boxing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; I would look for, did this person pioneer a notable boxing style, influence other boxers, awards, etc. Winning belts is expected of most boxers. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Remove European migrant crisis from ongoing?Edit

My previous proposal to remove European migrant crisis as ongoing did not go well, despite two supports and two opposes. This time, even when Paris attacks affects the crisis, there have not been frequent updates lately. In fact, editing has slowed down. Whether the crisis is in the news frequently no longer matters. I checked recent developments and found nothing new... except typical politics. If removed, this leaves Paris attacks aftermath the only ongoing event in the Main Page. That shouldn't affect the Main Page, should it? --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - The undertones of the migrant crisis continue, and there are news items that say some variant of "in the aftermath of the Paris attacks we should restrict immigration from Muslim refugees", which is definitely related to the migrant crisis. That said, other items are dominating the news right now. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least in Germany, this is still very much top of the news every day. There have been major developments in the last few days, for instance in Sweden. No updates to the article is not a reason to take this off ITN, but rather to get to it and add the new information. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. The situation is escalating also because several countries have now declared that they will only accept people fleeing from war zones. So there are new developments all the time. --Tone 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • keep I just looked at two national news media websites in my country, and the refugee crisis was still on the front page of both today. Thue (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose/keep – Lull in editing ≠ lull in event. Issues are continually unfolding and it continues to become more problematic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - While in principle I agree with you, some time ago we removed the Southeast Asian Haze from ongoing because of a lull in editing. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The reason to keep something in ongoing is for an article receiving frequent updates, not because it is just in the news. The editing rate on the article has drastically slowed down so it is no longer appropriate for ongoing. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Again, if no updates is your concern, then WP:JUSTDOIT. There's plenty to choose from. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time at the moment, unfortunately. Keeping the article on the main page will serve the purpose of bringing editors there and do more work on it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not that it is not being updated, but from what news I see on it, there is little to update on a frequent basis. It's a big story in the news day to day as it is still happening, but there is little actual day to day change in the "story" that merits frequent encyclopedic updates. And Ongoing is meant for stories that do have frequent encyclopedic updates. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a no-brainer, with the events in Europe lately, and the strong feelings about immigration, this is fine at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above rationale. Concerns about the numbers of migrants remain big news not just in Europe, but also making ripples in North America and Australia '''tAD''' (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

November 24Edit

[Needs attention] Blue Origin rocket landingEdit

Article: Blue Origin New Shepard (talk, history)
Blurb: Blue Origin performs the first successful soft landing of a reusable suborbital rocket, the New Shepard''
News source(s): BBC, Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first time anyone has soft-landed a rocket that has been to space. It steals SpaceX's thunder a bit, as they've been trying to do this for a few years without success, albeit with a bigger orbital rocket. This is instead a suborbital one intended for space tourists, but still a hugely impressive achievement that brings the prospect of significantly-reduced launch costs. Modest Genius talk 12:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose for a few reasons (1) the BBC article is like a press release from the company; there was no media at the rocket launch/landing so all information comes from the company. Questionable reliability. (2) this development seems like an incremental step in progress - the rocket lands and can be used again - doesn't seem like a significant development yet (3) the article hasn't been fully updated e.g. the "mission" section is written about a future planned mission but hasn't this mission just happened? MurielMary (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, a very significant "increment" and we usually post the launch of any new series of rockets, none of which has landed under power. That being said, I agree entirely with Modest Genius's reservations on the reliability and independence of sources. When I clicked on the news item for this this morning I expected to see a launch and landing. Instead there was a news anchor and some talking heads discussing this but without any actual footage. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian source above has the footage, albeit taken from Blue Origin's press release. Skip to 1:45 for the landing. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not significant, especially after (albeit a ropey) Virgin commercial trial or two. What makes this any different? It's not clear to me why this is substantially different or more interesting, other than the fact that I'm disappointed by the spelling of "Shepard". But I do get it, so don't bother. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume it is named after Alan Shepard and so is spelled correctly.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, hence why I said "But I do get it, so don't bother." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I was just about to undo it, but you are too fast and I got an edit conflict. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
What's significant is the vertical landing. The rocket goes up to space, then comes back down to Earth and lands itself using the main engine (no parachutes). No-one has ever done that before. I agree that a mere trial run of a suborbital flight would not be sufficient, but the major technological breakthrough of a vertical landing is. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, may I ask another question? What is the scale of this landing? Is it a vessel within which six or so humans would survive, or is it an experimental craft which proves that we can re-land vehicles from space? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Blue_Origin_New_Shepard#Development Three or more passengers (though 0 this time, new manned spaceflight tech would kill too often if it wasn't tested first). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's made me strike the oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Rockets are among the most expensive vehicles ever built, and yet most of them are lost (by design) on launch. A reusable launch vehicle is practically the holy grail of current space flight research, and a vertical landing is incredible. Calling that an "incremental step in progress" is like saying a car that can go up the street and back and then be used again is incrementally better than one that you can drive for a hundred miles but requires you to bail out of its exploding hulk when you wish to disembark. Also per Medeis, it's common ITN practice to post the launch of new rocket series, even when they do not represent such a significant step forward - and this one is not only significant, it's a new entry into the commercial spaceflight field, significant in and of itself. - OldManNeptune 12:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Essentially what we're looking at here is a big sounding rocket. Both the X-15 and SS1 were reusable, went into space, and soft landed, nothing new there. Thus, in the strictest sense the blurb and noms comments are incorrect. The term VTVL should be added for it to be correct. When SpaceX lands their first stage, that's a game changer. But this? Gets a big 'meh' from me. Fgf10 (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but they were space planes, not rockets, and required a booster rocket or mothership to get them up there. Modest Genius talk 11:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, a significant technological development. Nsk92 (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is in danger of going stale, but we have 3 supports (4 if you include my nomination) and 1.5 opposes. Marking as [needs attention] in the hope that another couple of sets of eyes can move this towards consensus. Modest Genius talk 12:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Theres a source tag on the main section of the update. Still a little tight on the update.Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There was one [unreliable source?] tag, which isn't enough to disqualify posting. Nevertheless I've found a better source and replaced the reference. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Tunis bombingEdit

Article: 2015 Tunis bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Tunis, Tunisia, a bus explodes, killing twelve presidential security guards.
News source(s): CNN BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Terrorist attack killing presidential security guards. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack. Andise1 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I note the BBC article makes it clear it is a suicide bomber that triggered the explosion and suggest the blurb reflect that. I note ISIS is claiming responsibility but they is yet proven out. The article could use a hint more expansion but it will likely take some time for details to filter in. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral/weak oppose at this point - neither CNN nor BBC have this story on their front page, suggesting lack of notability. Also the article is very brief. MurielMary (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because certain websites do not have this attack on their front page does not mean it is not notable. Andise1 (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Support with caveats per Anise. Most media is covered by turkey/Russia at the moment. oF course the article needs major work.Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Clear notability as a mass-casualty terrorist attack in a generally stable place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The article would probably be ready with some copy editing. At this point it say in various places that 12, 14, and 15 people were killed. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready article is now in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
proposal merge Mali and Tunisia blurbs? Both in Africa and related to Libya (broadly).Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with revised blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull too many terrorism-related entries at ITN lately. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Time to start ignoring this user's entries here which seem determined to disrupt the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

RD: Douglass NorthEdit

Nom Douglass North. Nobel prize winning economist. "Obituary: Douglass C. North, Nobel Prize-winning economist, 95" --bender235 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending article improvement. Certainly top of his field, but article needs more referencing. -Zanhe (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, oppose on current article quality. As Zanhe said, it needs referencing improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mere nobel prize has long been discounted as justification for an ITNRD listing. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Since when? If a "mere nobel prize" (lol, "mere"?) doesn't indicate significance in one's field then I don't know what does. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I do have to concur with Medeis; rightly or wrongly, that does seem to be the precedent. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support when updated.Correctron (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on significance; article does need references. The Rise of the Western World remains a standard undergrad textbook on economic history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not yet in a state to post, and does not seem to be being significantly improved; much is un- or under-referenced, too much leans on a single reference, and the notability, aside from the Nobel prize, is not well explained. Could the nominator or a supporter please link a couple of full obituaries in major newspapers? (The BBC doesn't seem to have covered it.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but unfortunately it doesn't appear that the article will get to a postable state before this goes stale. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

New Portuguese PMEdit

Article: Portuguese legislative election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Socialist Party leader António Costa (pictured) is appointed Prime Minister of Portugal.
News source(s): BBC, WSJ, Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Change in head of government for Portugal. We didn't nominate their general election result seven weeks ago. Incumbent PM has failed to gain a majority coalition to govern, providing an opportunity for another EU country to form a left-wing government. Fuebaey (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - What makes this story even more interesting is that the President was up until now still trying to keep Pedro Passos Coelho in power as a caretaker Prime Minister, in what the opposition and others were claiming (with justification) as an attempted constitutional coup. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it's ITN/R if I'm not mistaken. -Zanhe (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: Changes to head of state are ITNR, but not changes to head of government. General elections are, which often mention the leader of the party that wins, but any other change in head of government is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
not udaed but weak support the circumstances are very unusual (and its not ITNR, the election was). But the section needs more of an update.Lihaas (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Premature? The lead of Costa's article says "On 24 November 2015, he was given a list of items by President Aníbal Cavaco Silva that he would like clarified before being appointed prime minister-designate." That implies it's not a done deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I try not to rely on unsourced statements - this is confirmation. The process should be a formality since the SP made their pacts two weeks ago. I'll add a paragraph to Portuguese legislative election, 2015#Government formation in the next day or so, if someone hasn't already beaten me to it. Fuebaey (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Should be a formality" gives me pause. It could still fall through, yes? As a wise man once said, "it ain't over 'till it's over". BTW I do of course support this if it is indeed confirmed beyond any shadow of doubt. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for lack of rationale. Costa seems to have half the seats of his nearest rival. Please explain what's going on, ao we can evaluate this. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until the vote in the assembly. This is effectively a government change. --Tone 15:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose too many politics entries at ITN. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Hunting Ground controversy may see changes to Wikipedia editing rulesEdit

News stories which involve the stereotypical navel-gazing of Wikipedia seldom get too far here. Closing with snow, as befits the season. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: The Hunting Ground (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An ongoing controversy regarding inappropriate edits to Wikipedia articles related to the documentary film The Hunting Ground may result in a major overall of Wikipedia's rules and associated policies, especially those related to Conflict of interest.
News source(s):

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: May directly effect Wikipedia even more than it has already. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose not that this is not an important issue for to figure out but this is far from an ITN-type story. There's other places like the signpost where this can be highlighted. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this is not news in any way, shape or form. Not only does nobody other than a few hundred Wikipedia editors care, Jimmy Wales has no powers to change Wikipedia's rules even should he want to. ‑ iridescent 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2015 Roubaix shootingsEdit

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Roubaix shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A number of people are injured during a hostage crisis in Roubaix, France.
News source(s): The Guardian
 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Too soon - There's no evidence at this early date of the scale of this event or of any ties to terrorism. This could easily turn out to be something routine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - My read of the news stories suggests this is not tied to terrorism but because of where it happened and due to the recent rise in terrorism/threats here, clearly people are a bit on edge to believe this might be serious. Wait to see if this actually is such a case or not. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Police there are saying it is unconnected to the terrorist attacks and looking more like a small time robbery gone wrong. [6]. Assuming this is what it proves out to be oppose since this is just a local crime. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - the way it's been presented here is that military-type weapons were being used, so it seemed likely the well-known terrorism suspects are involved. But wait until the article is more than one sentence... LjL (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow-up - they just confirmed on our TV it was an armed robbery, no terrorism. LjL (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The hypersensitivity is understandable, but just a local crime in the end. Resolute 21:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was not a terrorist attack. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Russian jet shootdownEdit

I think Sca understands now. No use beating the dead horse. --Jayron32 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You can't fight City Hall. [7] Sca (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkey says it shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 fighter jet on the Turkish-Syrian border.
Alternative blurb: ​A Russian Su-24 fighter jet is shot down on the Turkish-Syrian border.
Alternative blurb II: ​A Russian Su-24 fighter jet is shot down by Turkey near the Syrian border.
News source(s): Press TV

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It seems small with 1-2 casualties but its all over the news and some heated rhetoric. Within the next 24 hours it could be even bigger with repercussions already warned. I awas unsure to nominate this but keep an eye on it and it may grow within 24 hours. MAJOR escalation here... Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits; one country shooting down another's plane is notable. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposing altblurb that leaves out "Turkey says"; all sides seem to agree a jet was lost (and there is film of it) but disagree on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb Clearly a major news story right now. I was busy adding additional information to a different article, but have moved over text to this one, as it was reported here first. Also tweaked both proposed blurbs to include links to direct section with text about shootdown. --Jayron32 13:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your link. Ill add it to the article. You can Too ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

:*Note: The new article is not sufficiently developed yet, if it gets there we can change the target link. Let's keep the target at the larger article, which provides more context and has more details. If and when the new article is as developed as the current Russian military intervention target, we can change it. --Jayron32 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Theres a minimum update for nw. Obviously over the next 3+ hours more would come in. Nato is meeting in an emergency session in about 2 hours.Lihaas (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
All good. --Jayron32 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb which I've modified to present tense, but most outlets are pretty clear on how this happened, e.g. BBC: "Turkey shoots down Russian warplane on Syria border", NYT: "Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syria Border", SMH: "Russian fighter jet shot down by Turkish jets near Syrian-Turkish border" so perhaps we should modify the blurb to reflect these reliable sources. Putin has just said "We will never tolerate such atrocities". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note:: The two pilots were seen parachuting to ground. [8] (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note 2: both of whom were shot at by some rebel group and at least one of whom has been declared dead by same. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. That is just one helluva bad day at the office. (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Death of pilots both is disputed: [9]. (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that military planes get shot down by accident or by friendly fire in wars is hardly uncommon, and so is this incident. If larger ramifications emerge (break of diplomatic relations, military escalation), then let's post something. But at the moment it seems all that will happen will be a few harsh words being exchanged. (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
By Turkey's admission, it was not an accident, and Russia also is not saying it was an accident. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, to all intents and purposes, this is an act of war. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"Friendly fire"? This is not friendly fire, check the definition. LjL (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is an extremely important news with many possible repercussions and very likely deterioration in the relations between Russia and Turkey as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb 2 – From what I read "by Turkey" is being treated as an established fact. The only disagreement seems to be about whether it was in Turkish airspace, although given the video coverage there seems little doubt about that either. Sca (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
PS: Target article lede says "by the Turkish Air Force." Alt2 could be changed to "by Turkish Air Force jets," (or "F-16s") if that's not too long. Sca (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
READY to post?Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I was initially inclined to wait just to see if this was resolved diplomatically (per IP .237's reasoning), but Putin seems to be pushing for at least calling out Turkey on its actions. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a big deal. Banedon (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - World-wide news. Could escalate. Dismas|(talk) 15:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (altblurb) and suggest quick publication. Obviously major news. LjL (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - well basically, a world wide news. And a possible game changer.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
NOTE TO POSTING ADMIN we don't know the exact location ofw here it was shot down (hence the controversy). We should use the more neutral original blurb indicating the border of both.Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. First time a NATO member shot down a Russian jet since the 1950s, early in the Cold War. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a modified version of Alt2, as the exact location where the shooting happened is contentious. Feel free to report updates as needed to WP:ERRORS for prompt response. --Jayron32 17:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Too vague. Turkey is larger than any European country, and borders on seven countries. That means many possible locations. Can't we at least say is shot down by Turkey near Syria? That would give some indication of one of the Five Ws. Sca (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    Please report updates as needed to WP:ERRORS for prompt response. --Jayron32 18:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason I keep running into this organizational issue (with several admins) is that not every suggestion for improving an ITN blurb concerns an error per se. The lack of any indication of the incident's location isn't technically an error, it's an omission, or a simple lack of info. The pre-posting discussion of the blurb occurred here, and it seems logical for additional discussion of the blurb to be allowed here. However, please see this. Sca (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And you'll note it got fixed promptly. So... --Jayron32 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
For some reason the fix isn't showing up on the Main Page display yet. Now it's there.
Aside from which, it would make sense to change the headings on Main Page Talk to something like Errors/suggestions. Sca (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well that's something to take up elsewhere, like WT:MAIN. Suggestions are usually so vague and subjective that they can be dismissed, most importantly because the community has come to a consensus on a blurb before it's posted. Why then suddenly bend the whim of an individual's subjective opinion unless there's a factual error? Everyone has a preference, and not everyone has copyedited print. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, leave MP Talk as it is, but allow good-faith post-posting discussion here. Sca (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why have further discussion on the nomination thread when the item has already been posted? That makes no sense.--WaltCip (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Quatsch. Sca (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 23Edit

[Closed] Northern white rhino dies, population down to threeEdit

Consensus against posting this. Fuebaey (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Northern white rhinoceros (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Northern white rhinoceros moves closer to extinction with the death of a female at San Diego Zoo's Safari Park; three animals remain in the world
News source(s): CNN BBC USA Today

First article updated, second needs updating
Nominator's comments: Significant event in species reduction/extinctions MurielMary (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's not a species, it's a subspecies, and it's not the last one. Abductive (reasoning) 09:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose — if a species becomes extinct, that's news, but we're not going to run a countdown ticker each time a member of an endangered subspecies dies. This doesn't "move the species closer to extinction", anyway; the effort to resurrect the NWR don't involve any of the surviving examples but instead is based on implanting NWR embryos into other rhino surrogates. ‑ iridescent 09:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - It's in the news now. No guarantees the actual extinction will be in the news as well, especially given how many species go extinct every day. Only problem I would say is that the article looks pretty outdated and / or badly structured. There are three rhinos remaining for example, but that is not apparent in that page. Banedon (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The fourth sentence of the opening paragraph of the rhino article states there are three remaining; second paragraph mentions death of the female at San Diego. Also seem to be a large number of updates in the last 24 hours. Or do you mean the San Diego article looks outdated? MurielMary (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
comment is that the last female? If so then its notable as the end of the speces (almost). Any resurrection will then be of a mixed species.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now hope for this subspecies is dead for a long time. So wait for last one in Kenya. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; we aren't a species countdown ticker. This can be posted if they go extinct(not anxious to, it's just reality). 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Ongoing: Military intervention against ISIL (swap Paris attack aftermath)Edit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle reportedly made its strikes recently, with France and Russia apparently leading the way. This is to swap the current link Paris attack aftermath to military intervention against ISIL which seems more precise and developing. Brandmeistertalk 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: The above choice of article is being updated MUCH LESS often than the Paris Attacks article is. The requested ISIL article has only been edited 4 times in the last 24 hours, and in the last week I see only 2-3 updates to the article I would count as substantial. The Paris Attacks article exceeds 50 edits in the past 12 hours, with at least 4-5 major content additions in that time span. Based just on that, the Paris Attacks article is the preferred target. --Jayron32 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Why not post the Syrian Civil War as ongoing? The terrorist attacks in Paris, the refugee crisis, the French and Russian (and many other nations, including the US) strikes on ISIL, all these news stories are directly related or are direct consequences of this civil war. All the while, the civil war is going on with an intensity that by itself would justify this civil to be posted as ongoing. And frankly, it should never have been removed. (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. Just today it appears that the UK will be sending airstrikes against ISIL in Syria. Time to focus on the bigger picture (e.g. as noted by the IP above) and not just one of the many horrendous individual events, makes perfect sense for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Syrian Civil War article, there are a few more substantial updates, but not as much activity as the Paris attacks article; its last 50 edits takes us back to October, and while there was a flurry of activity on November 21, the Paris attacks article is getting more updates more recently. Still more action in that article. --Jayron32 02:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if such a page exists but it would seem that if we had an outline page (one that follows WP:OUTLINE, not necessarily a prose-filed article but one that is more a inter-wiki link directory) that gave overviews of various articles that touch on the ISIL/Syria situation (including but not limited to the refugee crisis, the Paris attacks, the Metrojet crash, the various historical ruins destroyed by ISIL, etc.) that this would be an acceptable "ongoing" news target even though that specific page may not always be updated. It's this type of specific scenario where the situation is so amorphous and all-encompassing where I'd consider this a possibility; I would not, for example, recommend it at all for something like the Olympics (in that the current Olympics page should be a good overview prose article and not just an outline-level article). --MASEM (t) 20:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I was the admin who put 'Paris attacks aftermath' in Ongoing after the item rolled off, because related news was at the time continuously top of the BBC's news index and the article was being heavily worked on (~50 edits per day). I am entirely happy for it to be replaced with a more general ISIS-related article, as long as a suitable target can be found that is being updated frequently. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Move Metrojet Flight 9268 to Ongoing again?Edit

Already removed, and no appetite for its retention. Jayron's points show that the criteria for posting to ongoing are not met, and were not met when this particular discussion started either. BencherliteTalk 17:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Metrojet Flight 9268" has been cyclically being removed and reappearing, but perhaps patience wasn't in our minds. This time, I hope patience is considered in regards to developments. Russia stated that the flight was bombed, exciting fears of terrorism. Afterwards, there aren't any more developments yet. Currently, it's at the bottommost. Shall we declare it ongoing again? George Ho (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose it's done it's time now we have confirmation of what the cause was. Let it slide off. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"confirms" was changed to "states". --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Any further determination will likely takes months (it took several to confirm what took down that MA flight over Ukraine). The story for all purposes is now stale and/or part of the larger issue of these various terrorist acts between Paris, etc. (though no linkage has been made at this time that I have seen). --MASEM (t) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Getting a little tired of this now. The Kremlin confirmed it. If you doubt the Kremlin, then you should doubt the White House and Downing Street etc. This is seriously becoming a drain on resources responding to each and every nuance of your posts. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The article in question has just one substantial edit in the past week, nearly all the activity has been vandalism reversion and minor wording fixes. And that substantial edit: [10] is not any new information, but a retrospective discussion over claims Russia had made initially in the investigation. There has not been any substantial new information added to the article to justify its inclusion in any part of ITN, and the volume of new information is far too low for Ongoing. --Jayron32 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Pfizer dealEdit

Articles: Pfizer (talk, history) and Allergan, Plc (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American pharmaceutical company Pfizer agrees to merge with Allergan in a deal worth US$160 billion.
Alternative blurb: ​American Pfizer and Irish Allergan agree to merge to produce the world's largest pharmaceutical company.
Alternative blurb II: ​American Pfizer and Irish Allergan agree to merge, with Pfizer becoming based in Ireland.
News source(s): Guardian, CNBC, Reuters

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Significant business takeover. Big drug company buys out Botox manufacturer, to potentially create world's largest drug company. Tax inversion may also be involved - relocating from the US to Ireland would more than halve the corporation's tax rates. Fuebaey (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, major businees transaction. sst✈(discuss) 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, It is just a merge rather than a buyout (the total value of the merged companies to be $160B, as opposed that much trading hands), but that said, this is a major deal in the pharma side. Pfizer's article has a few cns, but otherwise both articles seem ready to go. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality of Allergan. I thought about nominating this earlier today, until I looked at the article and saw that it doesn't actually talk about the company. It has bits about its corporate history and a list of its product and nothing else. -- KTC (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Time we had a discussion about this kind of thing. Not that I disagree with you, but how many times have we seen massive (mega-massive) business deals bummed out of ITN because they haven't signed, sealed and delivered the bottom line. I'll start something, hopefully you and the others around these parts can contribute so we get some guidance we can follow in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
TRM, Ping me when you get the discussion started. I'll add my two cents. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose we just went through this with Heinzkraft, whose merger nominated here as a "big deal" was followed within a few weeks by buyouts and layoffs. Consolidation during bad economic times is not the same thing as, say, the creation of Verizon as an integrated mobile, internet and full-service phone carrier with the merger of some local service baby bells and GTE. There's no promise of synergy here (i.e., no news) just cost cutting and tax avoision. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is news now and should be posted now; the actual transaction will likely not be in the news(as I state on TRM's discussion) 331dot (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per SSTflyer. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a huge merger with potential impact on the pricing and development of common medicines used by hundreds of millions of people. -Zanhe (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - seems like a significant corporate development, plus the tax inversion angle and opposition to it from Clinton/Sanders is interesting. As to timing, I think a useful rule of thumb could be "post it when it's in the news" ...... which is currently. MurielMary (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • And be sure to cover the nakedly anti-American reasoning behind their proposed transfer of their HQ to Ireland. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Pfizer article looks ok, but more of an update about the merger and criticism of tax inversion would be helpful; ITN is supposed to be providing an in-depth look at such news, which this is not. I oppose the inclusion of the inadequate article on Allergan as a bolded target, but don't think that necessarily a barrier to posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Added an alt-blurb - Allergan's Irishness is as important as Pfizer's Americanness. Smurrayinchester 12:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant corporate development. huge merger.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked I have unbolded Allergan as a target article, per above comments. Tweaked the blurb to state the deal itself is worth that amount. Still more than the AB InBev and SABMiller agreement we posted last month. Fuebaey (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with alt blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22Edit

[Posted] 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championshipEdit

Article: 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Kyle Busch (pictured) wins the 2015 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship.
News source(s): New York Times

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: Notable subject concerning the championship in the highest level of stock car racing. Dough4872 04:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks like it's one of the events that are usually posted according to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Motorsport, anyway. Zappa24Mati 04:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose – Large chunks of unsourced material throughout the article, which is predominantly made of giant tables and lists. Notably, most of the rule changes (which I assume are a notable aspect of the series) is mostly devoid of sources. Others might be verifiable through the wikilinks of drivers or the specific races, but there are dozens that need verification. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like some of the rule changes (particularly in the preseason section) have sources, but they were placed in a way that made it seem like they didn't. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Commendable updates to the article by Dough4872 were made, including the addition of race summaries. Meets ITN criteria now and should be good to go (though I would suggest restructuring to place prose closer to the top...just a personal nitpick). Pinging @MurielMary, Fuebaey, and The Rambling Man: to give the article another look through and for another set of eyes to verify. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since he missed the first eleven races of the season, should his injury be mentioned? - – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 05:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Might be worth mentioning, along with Jeff Gordon retiring. Dough4872 06:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as article doesn't currently meet ITN criteria - article is largely lists and tables (criteria state update must include prose) and significant amounts are unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article appears to have been updated, looks okay to me. - OldManNeptune 10:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adding "Kyle Busch won the championship", an image and some stats is an insufficient update for ITN. Ping me if someone adds a season summary, or at least a final race summary to the article. It would also help if someone sourced the pre-existing prose. Fuebaey (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I can go around today and add sources to the article, most of the stuff is easy to source. Dough4872 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks a bit better now. A few unsourced statements, but not enough for me to stand in the way of this being posted. Kudos to Dough4872 for the summary. Fuebaey (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - of little importance outside the US, at least we should restrict ourself to sport events that have at least some global significance. (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, and NBA Finals are featured on the main page every year, so I see no reason why the NASCAR Sprint Cup championship shouldn't as it is one of the biggest spectator sports in the United States, and also has international following. Dough4872 15:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • From the instructions: "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." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not the same, let's not be silly. (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's only not the same because it's an event you personally aren't interested in. Otherwise, it's exactly what the rules tell you is an invalid reason to oppose an article being posted. --Jayron32 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending an update with a text summary of the season. 1 point winning margin when there is a 5000+ total seems unusual. Nergaal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That's the nature of the Chase for the Sprint Cup. Dough4872 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am in the process of writing a sourced season summary. Dough4872 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    Good to hear. The article is very poor, just a jumbled collection of tables and unreferenced bullet lists. It's not the quality of article we should be featuring at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    The sourced season summary has been added. Dough4872 21:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Recurring event, and the article has been updated. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The recurring event is discussed in WT:ITN/R; place your comments there for either preservation or removal. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Ko wins LPGA Player of the Year Award, youngest ever winnerEdit

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: Lydia Ko (talk, history) and LPGA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Lydia Ko (pictured) wins the LPGA 2015 Player of the Year Award, becoming the youngest winner in the 49-year history of the award
Alternative blurb: ​In golf, 18-year-old Lydia Ko (pictured) wins the LPGA 2015 Player of the Year Award, becoming the youngest winner in the 49-year history of the award
News source(s): USA Today Stuff NZ Toronto Star The Golf Channel Vavel Sports Newspaper L.A. Times
Nominator's comments: Although other wins from the end of the season are being reported, they are being reported as secondary to Ko's "youngest P of the Y" achievement. Another "youngest ever" achievement to add to a string of other achievements. MurielMary (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We virtually never post individual sporting awards in any sport - the only one I can think of right now is the FIFA Ballon d'Or. I don't think that being the youngest winner is interesting enough or exceptional enough to justify posting this one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Query to Bongwarrior there is also a current nomination for Kyle Busch's motorsports win, isn't that an individual sporting award? Please clarify your point. MurielMary (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's winning a championship. This golf award is honorary, to celebrate the accumulated success over the course of a year, it's nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • But isn't there an equivalent Driver of the Year award given to the driver with the most wins/points earned? Do we post that? Rhodesisland (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. We practically never post individual sporting awards, including much better known awards. This doesn't equate to winning an individual sporting competition/trophy. "Youngest to win" is really only an interesting enough tidbit to mention in passing for something that would get posted anyway (i.e. "Jane Doe wins the Generic Sports Championship, becoming the youngest athlete ever to do so.") However, this could be a great DYK hook. - OldManNeptune 10:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above and noting that we wouldn't post the men's equivalent award for the same reason. However, there is potential to spin off the list of winners into its own page and take that through the featured list process into "today's featured list" on the main page, or to get Ko's article to GA status and into DYK that way. BencherliteTalk 10:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above reasons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as with the Kachin jade mine disaster below, on another day I might have supported this, but with the quantity of ITN-worthy items right now I think there is no space for this. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Close Thanks for the responses on this nom. I suggest that the agreement to exclude individual sporting awards is included in the ITN/C criteria so that it's clear for new editors (currently not mentioned there) MurielMary (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Argentine presidential electionEdit

Article: Argentine general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina.
Alternative blurb: Cambiemos candidate Mauricio Macri (pictured) is elected President of Argentina.
News source(s): BBC, Bloomberg, Channel News Asia

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: New head of state/government for Argentina. Run-off result based on exit polls - still requires official confirmation. Fuebaey (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Easily. But could the blurb be a little longer, please? --bender235 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The second candidate, Daniel Scioli, has accepted his defeat. He's talking in the TV right now, the media may take a bit to reflect it. But the outcome can be considered confirmed. 68% of the votes have been counted. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notability is obvious, and the article is in very good shape. sst✈(discuss) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment legislative elections are ITNR too so we should conbine the blurb with the outcome there s well.Lihaas (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that make it a very long blurb? Besides, the legislative elections were held a month ago, alongside the first presidential elections. The delay is because Argentina uses a ballotage system, so there was a second election last sunday, which is the one reported here. Cambalachero (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Important story involving a big shift in Argentine politics. Jusdafax 08:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll bold Macri's article as well. Someone update the photo, please. --Tone 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Kachin jade mine disasterEdit

Article: Kachin jade mine disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 104 people are killed in a landslide at a jade mine in Kachin State, Myanmar.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle Massive loss of life. But article is one sentence '''tAD''' (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support And I've expanded the article a bit to support this. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - On another day I might have supported this, but with so many worthy and more significant news items recently I have to oppose this. Banedon (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Given that the last new story was posted 2 days ago, and many of the others on the cusp of being stale, this seems like a poor reason. (particularly that none of the other present stories in the nomination process are related to major loss of human life). --MASEM (t) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Of the items featured right now, I feel that the Paris attacks obviously must stay in some form because of its ongoing visibility. The bombing of Metrojet Flight 9268 is somewhat tied to the Paris attacks in terms of visibility, and the ongoing intervention in Syria is also a major geopolitical event worldwide. The salmon story, the diamond story and the Mali hostage story have only been featured for a few days, and there are three more nominations above this one two of which are ITN/R. Therefore ITN is very short on space right now, and something has to be sacrificed; I feel this is the best option. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Bonkers. The death of nearly at least 100 people in an industrial accident isn't ITN-worthy? I guess it's because they're not Westerners. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Landslide causing 90 deaths, definitely notable. sst✈(discuss) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability; it is in line with our usual death toll criteria for such events. There also seem to be allegations that jade mining corporations might have breached safety standards. I have added a little to the article, but more work is still needed to expand. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unfortunately these kind of disasters happen all too frequently. (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 100, possibly 200 deaths is massive for an industrial accident. EamonnPKeane (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind: this wasn't an industrial accident. Most of those killed were scavenging poor people that lived near this giant pile of earth, searching for pieces of jade to sell. --18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind that these scores of deaths wouldn't have been caused if it weren't for the mining company's disposal methods: i.e. an industrial accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
        • My point is that at this point, which company(s) and their role, if any, in this, is yet known, so it is difficult to classify it as an industrial accident. Speculation is strongly pointing to the various mining companies for bad, unsafe practices, and the gov't there is going to sort this out. But as noted in latest articles, people were also warned not to live there due to risk of landslide but chose to do so anyway, so it could be a lot of other related issues. (Please note I still support posting of this, regardless of how it's called. I just was trying to make it clear that the story it's not like a workplace accident that most would associate with a "industrial accident'.) --MASEM (t) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - massive loss of life in a politically sensitive region of Burma/Myanmar. Article is a bit on the short side, but decent enough for ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per reasoning of TRM and others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Aircraft unit as current ITN photoEdit

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.

The Russian statement on bomb conclusion has gotten We have newer blurbs, so either keep the current photo, use the fish photo (File:Salmo salar GLERL 1.jpg) as replacement, or no photo at all. I could not propose the big gem photo because it is unfree. I wanted to take this to WP:ERRORS, but I don't see it as an error... at all. George Ho (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment that's not exactly an ideal replacement, it's not really getting the gist of the story across. No photo at all is silly as we have (pictured) in the blurb so that takes care of any uncertainty as to which hook is related to the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Leave it be, it's not harming anyone.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna withdraw this due to the Argentinian elections nomination with a photo. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 21Edit

[Closed] Malta wins Junior EurovisionEdit

No consensus to post a junior competition. Stephen 22:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (talk, history) and Destiny Chukunyere (talk, history)
Blurb: Destiny Chukunyere representing Malta wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2015 with the song Not My Soul.
News source(s): [11]

Article updated
 --BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Generally youth competitions like this don't do well here; is there some notable reason to post this one? 331dot (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a cover of Aretha Franklin's "Think". I could support an original song if it were an actual innovation. This is not. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Have you actually read the articles you are opposing? She did not compete with "Think", she won her national final with that just to find the appropriate singer, and then participated in JESC with an original song. Facts... get it straight.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood the meaning of "Chukunyere won the live national final in Malta, enabling her to represent Malta, with the Aretha Franklin song 'Think'" and have withdrawn my oppose on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose posting this youth competition; competitions limited by age(this one is 10-15) do not represent a top level of competition in the career; we don't typically post youth sporting events for that reason. Unless there is something very unusual about this event, I don't see right now why it should be treated differently. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose trivia really, hopefully not as much as a joke as the main competition, but hardly worthy of main page inclusion in a global encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, stop nominating junior competitions. Abductive (reasoning) 17:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above reasons ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Two Bangladeshi politicians are hanged for war crimesEdit

Articles: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed (talk, history) and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Two Bangladeshi politicians Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury are hanged for war crimes committed during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
News source(s): (BBC), Al Jazeera English, (Hindu), (NDTV)

Both articles updated

 Jenda H. (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • support - historical significant. Article standard is OK as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • support this seems a legit notorious capital punishment. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • comment - shouldn't it be "hanged" rather than "hung"? --Bcp67 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I have corrected the blurb, there's no reason to post an altblurb for a grammatical correction. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Chowdhury's article is weak for a seven-term MP, with a political career spanning 30 years. It doesn't even explain his role during the war (not the indictments). Fuebaey (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not an RD nomination looking to prove the notability of the man, this is a warcrimes nomination. The update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either RDs/blurbs, but improvements may be needed per Fuebaey. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. --bender235 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready supported and updated as a warcrimes execution. The nomination has nothing to do with RD, and each target article meets the ITN update criteria. μηδείς (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – good enough. sst✈(discuss) 07:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was coming to post this, but some recent edits by a redlinked editor to Chowdhury have left me wondering if bias has been introduced; what pulled me up is 'Throughout his political career, Salahuddin became the centre of controversy several times with his vulgar remarks and actions.' referenced to a source that does not appear to use the word 'vulgar'. I don't have time to check. Also is his surname Salahuddin or Chowdhury? Both are used. The same editor has also added material to Mojaheed. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted much of what was added to the Chowdhury article, which was poorly written and sourced (indeed, Chowdhury was his surname). I removed some overkill, but some of the refs appear to link to front page news from 2011 which is no longer current. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the ready tag, there is too much linkrot to support many of the claims, and editing by those more familiar with the case seems aimed more at POV than article quality. Both articles need a good going over, preferably by someone with local expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant news. -Zanhe (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 WBSC Premier12Edit

No consensus to post. Fuebaey (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 WBSC Premier12 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, South Korea defeats the United States to win the inaugural WBSC Premier12.
News source(s): Taipei Times, Japan Times
Nominator's comments: This is a major international baseball tournament. The World Baseball Softball Confederation, a merged entity from the International Softball Federation and International Baseball Federation, created this event to replace the Baseball World Cup as "the new flagship pro baseball world championship." Has gotten continued coverage during the event. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. No prose synopsis of the tournament, or even of the final game. An article of tables is not of sufficient quality to post on the main page. --Jayron32 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know. I'm just about to start adding game summaries. Would you change to support on that improvement? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I can't think of another reason to support anything. Either you've cleaned up an article to be main page ready or you haven't. Any other consideration is mostly irrelevant. If it just happened, and it has a quality article, there's no valid reason to oppose it, except "I think I know what people who aren't me should find important, and I feel the need to tell them all the time". I don't believe that's my job. If the article is good enough, and this is a current event, I generally would support. --Jayron32 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay. I wasn't sure if your oppose was based solely on quality or also the event itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There's now two paragraphs on the championship game, and some sentences on all of the games of the knockout stage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to weak support. I'd like to see more along these lines, but it's the bare minimum. --Jayron32 01:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'll be adding more tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this does not seem to be covered significantly in the "Western" World. Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Article's quality is good, but oppose on the competition's notability. Unlike the World Baseball Classic, active Major Leaguers did not participate. -- (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • This and the WBC are currently the two major international baseball competitions. One includes major leaguers while the other doesn't. I don't think that should make one more notable than the other, but YMMV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability - 250 people watched one of the quarter-finals? Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I... did not notice that. All I can say in response is that many games, including the championship, had over 40k in attendance. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Besides the Final, only the home team's semi and bronze final had 40k. If Japan, Taiwan or South Korea wasn't playing then attendance was 119(!) to 1,200 the entire tournament. And the Final had the nearest foreign country playing (South Korea understrength national baseball team). The "All-World team" has three dudes that are red links! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Kim Young-samEdit

Article: Kim Young-sam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former South Korean President Kim Young-sam dies at age 87.
Alternative blurb: ​Former South Korean President Kim Young-sam dies from acute heart failure at age 87.
News source(s): Korea Herald

Nominator's comments: Former President of South Korea. He's a former head of state...speaks for itself. I know the article's gonna need work like a lot more sourcing so I'll fix the article. Any help is welcome. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - His entire career section (the rationale for RD) is unsourced, if anyone needs improvement pointers. Fuebaey (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I've sourced most of it. But there's a 20 year gap between when he was first elected as a politician and his party leadership, as well as nothing after his Presidency (17 years). His article over at ko is massive, if anyone can read Korean and feels like translating. Fuebaey (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although political career section might need some refs. Brandmeistertalk 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements that are underway to the page and fixing of sourcing issues; clearly very important to Korean politics aside from the importance as head of state(having been first civilian leader in 30 years). 331dot (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - pending some improvements. clearly a important and significant politician.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on Article Improvements Clearly important but needs better sourcing. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that I only support an RD. While a major world leader and clearly RD, the impact is not as great to merit a blurb. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Brandmeister, 331dot, Capitalistroadster, BabbaQ, and Masem: I added blurbs, but the nomination is still RD/blurb. --George Ho (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as in the news or recent death. Article has improved referencing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Former head of state, I've seen the news of his death fairly prominently, and the article seems to be good enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - post ASAP. -Zanhe (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Paku Alam IXEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Paku Alam IX (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Antara News, Jakarta Globe (in Indonesian)
 --Erik Fastman (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it's a stub, I'm not really clear on the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not much of a Social Studies person, but was this person a sitting ruler? Ruler of Pakualaman, in central Java, Indonesia, according to our page on him. But I can't tell from the Pakualaman page if it is independent enough for Alam to be considered a sitting "head of state". Of course there is the whole stub thing, too. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This doesn't look like a national leader (aka a head of state), nor is there any specific notability really clear here. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The nominator, User:Erik Fastman, might want to give an explicit rationale explaining the reason why the subject meets ITN criteria, along the lines of other recent RD nominations. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Former leader of a tiny subdivision, no notability. @Crisco 1492: any thoughts? sst✈(discuss) 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Paku Alam IX as prince of Pakualaman has reigned over a considerably smaller area then Hamengkubuwana X (whom I'd probably vote to include, as the only reigning monarch in Indonesia who actually has legal recognition and power). Definitely RD material in Indonesia, but not for a worldwide audience. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 20Edit

[Posted to RD]: Kitanoumi ToshimitsuEdit

Article: Kitanoumi Toshimitsu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nikkei Asian Review, Terra Networks (in Spanish)

Nominator's comments: Important figure in Sumo. 55th yokozuna and 5th most makuuchi (top division) championships (24). Also, incumbent chairman of the Japan Sumo Association. About Sumo RD, we posted Taihō Kōki in January 201361.245.26.8 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Top of field in Japanese Sumo wrestling and management. Article looks decent. Fuebaey (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly very important to Sumo. Article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Before posting, can we get a citation for the "fighting style" section? Otherwise, this would be ready to post. --Jayron32 18:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find an English citation for it (I can't read Japanese). Since it doesn't affect his overall achievement, I've commented it out. Fuebaey (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Top within his field of Sumo. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • We've got two bare supports with no rationale given, and no update of the article, although the update section of the nomination template was removed. Can the supporters do the work, rather than deleting and avoiding it? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you're reading the correct article? The one above does state when he died and the cause of his death. The article also covers the main points of his life (his wrestling career, stable ownership, the controversies during his administration of Sumo, death). If you happen to find a reference to his fighting style, feel free to add it, but I don't believe this shouldn't be posted due to a lack of trivia. Fuebaey (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you clarify what updates you require, Medeis? I thought we had long since waived the update requirement for RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The three-prose paragraph update requirement has been abandoned. If there's no update at all showing the subject's importance it should not be posted, and that was the case when I objected. That's not even to mention the fact that Nergaal and BaabaQ's (as usual) votes are simply votes, not rationales for posting. μηδείς (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Three paragraphs for a developed article seems a bit overkill to me. ITN only requires that, as a minimum, for new articles or sub-stubs. From recent experience, a basic RD update is a sourced date/cause of death and no obvious omissions from their life. I think the lead adequately summarises his importance, though you may need to click on links if you're not familiar with sumo. Fuebaey (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 03:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 November Bamako hotel shootingEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​At least 170 people are taken hostage by gunmen at the Radisson Blu hotel in Mali.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability Unfortunately so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, sadly. Agree with nom's comments. Will unfold and develop. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait 80 people have been reportedly freed so far. Brandmeistertalk 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait – Developing. Sca (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for stability, but support Even if the hostages are all freed without harm, this is a significant story. As I read this now, the raid to rescue the hostages is ongoing, so give it a few hours. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - that it is developing is a positive, not negative, in my opinion. Banedon (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In journalism, "developing" means just that – it's continuing to play out; the outcome isn't clear yet. The term isn't meant to be negative. Sca (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I mean it's a positive for posting it to ITN, not negative. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Though the story is developing, I think we know enough and the article in question is of good enough quality that we can post now, and update the blurb when the story develops further. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with updated numbers from article. Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness as needed. --Jayron32 17:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - article is ready and the situation is great enough to justify posting .--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Update Can an administrator please change tense at the front page so the story will read "were taken hostages" instead of are. Our readers shouldn't get the impression that this is ongoing stil. Iselilja (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have had a go at the wording, as we generally use present tense, but I agree this is confusing; I've also updated the numbers per current reports. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iselilja: For future reference, when I said "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness", what I meant by that was "Report future needed updates to WP:ERRORS for promptness" I hope that helps! --Jayron32 18:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Move November 2015 Paris attacks to ongoing?Edit

It's there. BencherliteTalk 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If the newest nomination of some genetically modified salmon is approved, what will happen to blurbs older than the November 2015 Paris attacks? Now with recent arrests in Europe related to the attacks, shall we feature the event as ongoing? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It'll still be the third item in the news box. The Myanmar election will get pushed - and that's definitely stale by now. Arrests and raids are footnotes to the main story, quite frankly. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No prejudice against moving it to ongoing when it's ready to roll off the bottom. There's still several stories to go, so I don't know that we need to discuss it now. When it is the bottommost story, it would be either admins discretion to move it to ongoing, subject to community consensus if the community were to disagree with it. I suppose we could have the discussion early, but I don't see the need; it is hard to predict if the article will still be being actively updated when the time comes to make the decision. --Jayron32 10:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Jayron. In its various ramifications it's still a top story. Sca (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also agree with Jayron32 ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, could not be a more premature notion. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Change your mind, Abductive? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (in principle) that this be moved to ongoing when it would normally age off the page due to newer stories. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Jayron, Smurray, Cyclonebiskit: The story is now bottommost. Change your minds? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, if an Administrator does not decide on their own to move it to Ongoing, then we can have the discussion. Unless and until that happens, the situation has not changes. --Jayron32 19:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've seen ITN have 8 or even 9 entries. The current 4 entries is on the really low side. Nergaal (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I already asked a reinsertion of other older blurbs, but that's in the user talk page. I can ask again at another talk page. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If we had 9 entries, we'd have an absurd amount of white space in the leftmost column. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions#Balance. If you wish to change the policy and require a certain number of blurbs regardless of other design considerations, please start an RFC and get people to support such a policy. --Jayron32 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have squeezed in the diamond item without removing the Paris attacks; balance looks ok at most widths on my monitor, but then it did before the removal of the old 5th item. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 19Edit

[Posted] Genetically modified animal deemed fit for human consumptionEdit

Articles: AquAdvantage salmon (talk, history) and Genetically modified food (talk, history)
Blurb: Salmon becomes the first genetically modified animal approved the by FDA as fit for human consumption.
Alternative blurb: Salmon becomes the first genetically modified animal approved the by the United States FDA as fit for human consumption.
News source(s): NYT, WSJ, Time, BBC, Reuters
Article updated

Nominator's comments: It is the first time anywhere in the world a food agency approves a meat to be fit for consumption. This sets a precedent. Let the paranoia of the uninformed begin. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "It's the first genetically engineered animal for food that's been approved anywhere in the world". Nergaal (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates to the second article – (THIS IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT FEEDS ITS COUNTRY CANCER) If it's indeed the first GMA approved definitely a support from me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Plants have been approved before, but not livestock. Nergaal (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it may be approved only by the FDA, but what the FDA says is widely followed worldwide. Banedon (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support First animal approval is an interesting enough development. Maybe world hunger can be solved in our lifetimes. Mamyles (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • 1. There is enough food, some is thrown out without reaching a hungry person, some makes people fat. I don't know if one only is a minor contribution or not. 2. Eating animals is a horrific waste. You could make 10 pounds of bread for the amount of grain it takes to make 1 pound of meat. The livestock I believe eat more food than the people. There's too much farmland in the world, rainforests and endangered species habitats are being destroyed for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree. Unfortunately, media markets all over the Western world have sung the praises of meat for decades, and it will be difficult to get them to break their old habits, regardless of how much they may be made aware of how their love for meat is contributing to catastrophic climate change.--WaltCip (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The problem isn't solely a lack of food, it's that food is hard to grow in regions that need it. One use of GMO is to allow high-yield food to be grown in places that would not otherwise be tenable, such as semi-arid regions of Africa. Another is to make food more nutritious, such as Golden Rice, which alone could save a million lives yearly. Mamyles (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Specifying the country name might be a good idea. Isa (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support interesting and notable development. Agree with Isanae, could add "the U.S." to the blurb i.e. "approved by the U.S. FDA" MurielMary (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; a notable development in this industry, even if they have yet to find many places willing to sell it. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Story clearly important. First article (the one on the salmon) is ready to go. The genetically modified food one has a lot of CNs, but I think we can post if the only target is the salmon one. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Update: Paris shooting/bombingEdit

While acknowledging initial opposes based on a since altered blurb, consensus is still against updating the Paris event. Fuebaey (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: November 2015 Paris attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: Abdelhamid Abaaoud, chief suspect in the Paris attacks that killed 130, dies in a raid by French police.
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Reuters, AP

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Given widely reported confirmation that suspected mastermind Abaaoud was killed, it's time to update the blurb for this (almost) week-old story. Sca (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the blurb suggested: "suspected mastermind"/"massive raid"? Are we suddenly The Sun? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly because of the "suspected" aspect. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose my own thoughts before reading TRM's comment were exactly "suspected mastermind"/"massive raid"? It might be time for this to go to ongoing soon, but certainly not to go all tabloid on a patsy with a $10,000 budget. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A patsy with a $10,000 budget – Huh? Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the figure I heard on the radio yesterday. The Mail says less than 7,000 pounds and quotes experts: Experts say the costs involved were a fraction of the £85,000 used in the foiled plot to attack U.S. ships in the Strait of Hormuz in 2002 or the £48,000 price tag of the suicide and car bombings that killed more than 200 in Bali in 2002. A patsy is someone who is assigned the blame for actions arranged by others. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I know what a patsy is. I don't see how the fact that this was a monetarily inexpensive terrorist operation in any way lessens its signficance. Sca (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Then "huh" is the wrong word choice. Next time make it clear you do understand but that you don't agree, and I won't waste my time in providing a good faith explanation. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As a compound modifier, good-faith should be hyphenated. Everyone knows what a patsy is. Explaining it struck me as condescending and sarcastic.
Sca (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I have never heard "huh?" to mean anything other than lack of comprehension or belief. I gave a simple explanation of what a patsy was because your "huh?" seemed to imply you either didn't understand or believe what I said; not simple disagreement. Taking your comments as made in good faith is the diametric opposite of patronizing you. μηδείς (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, "huh" referred to the entire phrase, not to "patsy" per se. But let's bury the hatchet. Sca (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above: I was at a gym yesterday where they had both CNN and Fox news on, and while CNN was going over broad manners dealing with the Paris attacks, Fox was engaged in focusing on this raid (with the same sensationalist language) and scaremongers with the claimed video found. The stark difference is pretty summed up above. Given they also caught 8 suspects and are going through the location with a fine-tooth comb (eg they aren't saying if they found another cell), I'm not yet sure if an ongoing is needed but that remains open. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of the main news sights I've seen today use "suspected mastermind," but some use "top suspect" or "chief suspect," and I'd be fine with either of those. Fine to drop "massive" if it makes you queasy (although from what I've read, it was a big operation with much gunfire). Sca (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • While I'm sure ISIS prefers the connotations of "mastermind", it's more accurate to call him the "alleged ringleader". That said, many analysts suspect he was despatched to the French organizing job by higher-ups. Oppose replacing current blurb. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That is quite possibly one of the worst blurbs I've ever read. It's subjective, clunky, and really there is no point in usurping the blurb that is currently posted in ITN for the sake of this cable news-esque hot take.--WaltCip (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm revising my vote on the basis that most of the sensationalism in the blurb actually was struck out, but I still do not believe it is worth dropping an ITN event from the ticker. As Sca says, the difference in connotation between "chief suspect" and "suspected mastermind" is an ocean's width, but until we get all the facts we ought not to jump to conclusions about what this is.--WaltCip (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I stand by my nomination. I watched two news shows Thursday evening (U.S. time), PBS's Newshour and Deutsche Welle's (necessarily Europe-centric) English-language news program. Both led with this story. That means journalists in responsible positions here and in Europe judged this the No. 1 story in the world on Nov. 19, 2015. (DW used the admitted cliché "in a hail of gunfire." The News Hour called Abaaoud "the ringleader," and outlined his activity in 'Islamic State.') This story is definitely in the news, and indeed at the top of the news. Sca (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I can't understand the rationale behind the oppose votes. The blurb reads OK to me, although I'd still prefer something like "Abdelhamid Abaaoud, chief suspect in the Paris attacks, is killed in a raid by French police." This does not have to mean a current blurb be dropped; it can simply replace the blurb on the Paris attacks. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Blurb edited to remove portions previously stricken through. Death toll up to 130. Sca (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent Target article is already highlighted on the main page. Not opposed, but not supporting either. --Jayron32 01:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This twist in the story is already noted in the Paris Attack blurb, which is still on the ITN ticker. The story here is the larger attack, which involved multiple perpetrators and victims, and re-focusing the blurb on a single person gives undue weight. Readers starving for up-to-the-minute details on this event can click on the event's link in ITN, or go to any news site on the internet. (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose To me it's part of the bigger story of the Paris attacks, not a new story on its own. MurielMary (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Footnote of the original story. It's nothing like Bin Laden, who was hunted down for ten years after his plot '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyone interested in fairly detailed background on Abaaoud can read about him here. Sca (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 18Edit

[Posted] Karowe AK6 diamondEdit

Articles: Karowe AK6 (talk, history) and Lucara Diamond (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The world's second biggest gem-quality diamond ever, is found by a Canadian company in Botswana.
Alternative blurb: ​The world's second biggest gem-quality diamond ever, is found in a Lucara Diamond mine in Botswana.
News source(s): The Telegraph, Bloomberg, BBC

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Biggest diamond find in a century and second biggest gem-class ever. Find hit the media on November 19, but the announcement was on the 18th. There is a non-free photo available, not sure if it can be used here though. w.carter-Talk 10:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, but the article needs to be way more than one short paragraph. Needs a lot of work. Significant find and sure to break the record for most-expensive diamond whenever it's eventually sold (probably years away). Modest Genius talk 14:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ditto. A great story for a change, but needs some more content. --Tone 14:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree that the article is way to short, but it's just been dug up so there is only the press release to go on so far. More will be added as soon as available. w.carter-Talk 14:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a once-in-a-lifetime event. Banedon (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Although now we'll probably find another one next week, rendering Banedon's argument invalid. :) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable and interesting. I've suggested an alt blurb which omits the unimportant point of the company's ownership. --LukeSurl t c 16:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Quality is sufficient to post, but I agree that it should be longer. Perhaps there are more details about the mine it was found in. Mamyles (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, biggest diamond found in 110 years. Also, there's an image in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 17:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Would have marked this ready, but it doesn't quite meet the three full prose paragraph size requirement for new articles. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is still too short to post; it is marked as a stub, and rightly so. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - post, biggest diamond found. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Lord, BabbaQ, do you not understand that you are supposed to give a rationale why the claim is important enough to post? You are even wrong on the facts this time, it is not the biggest diamond found. Luckfully, the article has been expanded and posted, but "support because I support votes" do not help. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I think your tape recorder is stuck. Time to change tapes.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the article length seems to be on the ok side. Nergaal (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Small expansion since my last comment seems adequate. I have shortened the blurb to one line to avoid having to remove the Paris attacks. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to RD]: Mal WhitfieldEdit

Article: Mal Whitfield (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Nominator's comments: Former Tuskeegee Airman who went on to win multiple year Olympic golds in track and field, then became a US sports ambassador in Africa. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Multiple gold medals at the Olympics is as good a measure of "top of one's field" as there could be, and the otherwise storied life adds flavor. Article seems okay. (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the IP, award-winning multiple Olympic gold medallist, certainly significant in the field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - little notability and minor impact on his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Article quality is sufficient, significance is established by facts in the article. --Jayron32 13:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll just point out that historically we have waited for at least 4 supports before posting an item like this before it is a day old. I neither disagree with the posting nor blame the poster, but I think maintaining the four supports precedent is a good one. That being said, Post-Posting Support. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll just point out that WP:BURO is much older a precedent than even that one. --Jayron32 05:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I said you werrn't a burro, Jayron. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
If my borough had burrows for burros, it'd just be a town of assholes... --Jayron32 05:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] U.S. National Book AwardEdit

No consensus to post. SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: List of winners of the National Book Award (talk, history)
Blurb: Fortune Smiles by Adam Johnson wins the U.S. National Book Award for fiction, and Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates wins for nonfiction.
Alternative blurb: Adam Johnson, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Neal Shusterman, and Robin Coste Lewis win the U.S. National Book Awards.
News source(s): The New York Times, Guardian Telegraph Der Spiegel
Nominator's comments: Good news for a change. Sorry I don't know the policy for US awards (this is not listed at WP:ITNR). SusanLesch (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Since it's a national award, I don't think it's international enough for ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We have all sorts of national awards, both US and non-US(see the film section of the ITNR list). Requiring everything to be international would leave very little to post to ITN. The question is does this have notable news coverage, which can and should include international coverage; the nominator has already given one UK source about this award. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am leaning support but I would wonder if SusanLesch could explain a little more about the award, such as its prestige. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Can't you just read the article National Book Award? Banedon (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I am interested in what the nominator has to say. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Found a German news story. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Major book award. Just wish we could get Neil Shusterman in the blurb too! Rhodesisland (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd be opposed to putting these awards up every year, but the Guardian article does suggest unusual factors in play this year (and ITN has been slow with so much European news being Paris attack aftermath). The problem is the suggested target (bold) article does no more than list the books and, as there is no year-by-year article for this award, it is hard to see how this might be rectified without undue focus on this year's awards. Could an article be created for Fortune Smiles, and the two books be made the targets? Or if Fortune Smiles is less notable (as seems perhaps the case), just focus it on Between the World and Me, which has an existing article of reasonable quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because award is non-controversial and National Book Award related articles look good. Remove the pipe from 'National Book Award' in the blurb because it is confusing. Brian Everlasting (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "~"? We've already got the Pulitzer, and one of the awardees to this highly variable prize isn't even linked in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Medeis: "~" is part of my signature. I didn't have anything to add beyond support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the books or the authors should be the targets of the blurb, the current target, the list, is weak and just notes these wins in passing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on Alt Blurb, provided that the actual award page is linked in the blurb, not the list of winners - it's just a list and gives no information on the significance of the award. MurielMary (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor award compared to Literature Nobel or Booker which we post. Fourth literary award (and at least second from US in the same field) looks redundant to post. Brandmeistertalk 12:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – On the fence. Does "National" make it only of U.S. interest? Sca (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the "national" part is not a problem. The real notability of the prize and its winners is. The prize could be called the "Not to be Posted at ITN Prize" and we would still post it if it were important enough. In this case there are bigger prizes and we are simply not slow on news. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We post the UK-based Booker Prize. Is that regarded as significantly more, uh ... significant? Sca (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
PS: Those ain't horses up there, sonny, they're burros. Don't ask me why they're there. Sca (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
See previous section. Not that it makes any further sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, previous nomination. I'll just sep it out, fulfilling my community service obligation for today. Sca (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: Why is the Booker Prize more important (which it must be if it's recurring?)? Our article about it is almost completely trivia. That said, our article about this prize is almost all bureaucratic details (and why did James Patterson win a lifetime award?) Neither one looks very important. I might withdraw this nom pretty soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Ongoing: 27th APEC SummitEdit

No consensus to post this to Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: APEC Philippines 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): New York Times ABC News NBC News CNN Philippines

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
Nominator's comments: The APEC Summit's economic leaders' meeting is an ongoing event happening from November 18 to 19 attended by economic leaders and/or representatives of 21 Pacific Rim economies. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Travel impact" and "Homeless people"? μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The sources are meant to verify the event is happening. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
My point is that people should read the article. Fully one third of it is a criticism section, with a section on travel impact and a section on homeless people. These are given a huge ammount of attention for such and article. There's also the gem that: "This will be the first APEC meeting for Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau since their inaugurations on 15 September 2015 and 4 November 2015, respectively." Of course any summit will have new attendees. The article also needs a total going over for grammar and idiom. There's a statement that people "took on" social medial to protest. I assume what is meant was that they "took to" social media to protest, not that they sued socioal media, or engaged in denial of service attacks against it. There's no demonstration of any sort of major impact, and the article is not in the shape needed to be featured at ITN if there were. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ongoing is meant for events where the article gets incremental updates with things that individually might not merit posting . It isn't meant for events in progress unless new newsworthy developments will come out of this every day, which seems unlikely for this type of meeting.331dot (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The event itself is newsworthy. An economic meeting that is attended by economic leaders that represents 50-60 percent of the world's economy is of international interest. I am not nominating this as a stand alone headline, I only intend this to be included on the Ongoing events section as to inform Wikipedia users of an international affair that is taking place on this very day. Hollyckuhno (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that it should be a stand alone headline, and with this type of event we usually note the conclusion of the event, along with anything notable coming out of it. Ongoing is not meant merely to post events in progress, but ones where the article would have incremental updates, as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on procedure. As the above comments show, this is not what Ongoing is for (although I wouldn't blame someone for being mistaken). This nom would have better luck as a standalone headline, but as the G20 nom below shows, merely being an international gathering is perhaps not enough for the support of most. (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing because that's not what ongoing is for (it's not a "what's happening in the world today" slot). Unless and until there's an actual story to post, then this can't make ITN. I note in passing that the "see also" section reveals that 11 of the 20 leaders met last week through G20 and 13 of them will be at another regional summit next week, so these sorts of high-level meetings are really rather routine. BencherliteTalk 11:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing, this is either full blurb per ITNR (or ITNC at this rate if these pointless junkets keep getting shunned at ITNC) or it's nothing. Not ongoing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per TRM. Sca (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted to RD] RD: Jonah LomuEdit

Article: Jonah Lomu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: New Zealand national rugby union player Jonah Lomu (pictured) dies at the age of 40.
News source(s): The Guardian Sky News Australia

Nominator's comments: A global superstar in rugby, even to people who don't know much about rugby. Donnie Park (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support RD tag blurb - Top of his field. Article in good shape. Not so sure if he's major enough for a blurb. He is certainly notable for a blurb. Shaped the sport's industry. I was about to nominate him but you beat me to it mate! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (edit-conflicted while filling in the template). Really shocked to hear this news. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - but use "NZ linking to the New Zealand national rugby union team instead of All Blacks...some people will not get the reference..--Stemoc 00:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - exactly what the nom said: I don't know much rugby, even to the point that I can only name one non-Australian player - Lomu. Unquestionably belongs in RD (assuming the sad news is true). Just clarifying: strong support for RD, even as the article stands. Neutral on having an ITN blurb: I will defer to people with more knowledge about rugby or NZ. Adpete (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Article needs work (lots of unreferenced material for which no doubt references can be found) but obvious support for RD. Not sure on blurb but he was one of the biggest names in rugby union (the BBC report I'm listening to while typing this said that "many regarded him as the greatest rugby player of all time") and this is a very big story. BencherliteTalk 01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Needs improvement Many paragraphs are unsourced. Meets notability as New York Times in 2014 called him "one of the most recognized rugby players in the world."[12]Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. His name was known well beyond the sport. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb - Notability for RD is of no question. As for a blurb - the fact that for the last ten years he's had dialysis and other issues related to his kidneys means that while this was a sudden death, it wasn't wholly unexpected, and his importance otherwise to the world at large is not sufficient for a blurb. Article is in terrible shape though for posting, most of his career sections unsourced. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Happy with blurb or RD. Probably the only rugby union player to ever transcend the sport (think the equivalent of Michael Jordan in basketball). The article is in good enough condition to be on the main page -- I'd like to see it improved, but it's acceptable to me. -- Shudde talk 01:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either when the article is in shape. I think he's one of only about two non-Brit rugby player I could name (and the other one is a Frenchman whose name I'm not completely certain of). Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly meets the criteria; this even was in the news to a degree where I live. I think a blurb is fine here, given he is described as a "legend" in most stories that I perused on this. Many including PM Key have commented on the death, and the possibility of a state funeral has been discussed.[13] We also don't post much about rugby or New Zealand. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
well we posted about "NZ" winning the "rugby" world cup 16 days ago :P ..--Stemoc 03:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. Is this nomination for RD or for a full blurb? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Choose whatever fits best, Rhodesisland. This nomination is open-minded. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, in that case....Rhodesisland (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Not ready I've pulled the ready tag. I tagged specific sections in the article that have no or need more refs, and a few personal data sentences that should be sourced. Otherwise, I think this is close.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD on article improvements, Oppose blurb. Ditto Masem. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb, outstanding All Black and figure in international rugby as well. MurielMary (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As a New Zealander I would love to see a blurb, but as a Wikipedian I don't think he quite reaches that level. AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Aircorn expresses my sentiments too. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - major figure in rugby, known worldwide. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's just funny how someone who transformed the global oil industry is not notable enough for RD, but for a rugby player even a blurb is considered. Shows nicely what systematic bias is. Obviously oppose blurb and RD, it's Rugby, not anything of real importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Some people do consider rugby important, like the Prime Minister of New Zealand and many readers. If you feel other stories should be posted, it is up to you to convince people of it. From the available information it wasn't clear to me how the oil industry was "transformed" by that individual. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Then read the article or something on the web. Clearly most of those who opposed did not even do that, because they were not even aware that the guy was the oil minister of Saudi Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Full blurb, per all the supports above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD No more blurb inflation please! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • SS sport-transformingly famous all over the world. --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Significant figure in rugby, but he had long retired and his death has no widespread implications. Raising this to a blurb would make a mockery of even having the RD section, which is where this should definitely appear. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD after improvement, oppose blurb - Notability is most definitely not in question here. However, there are still some issues with referencing. There is no need for a full blurb, the death is sad, but not unexpected. Fgf10 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Only one section is still thin on references but I see there's constant work on the article so this should be fixed soon. I agree, RD is the case here. --Tone 11:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb - He died at an unusually young age and he's at the top of his field. Those two factors alone should qualify him for a blurb. I don't want to hear anything about a Mandela standard after the last few blurbs that have been posted.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
He stopped playing rugby many years ago, so is no longer at the top of his field. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, he's no longer at the top of his field because he's dead.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's absurd and certainly not necessary that the person had to be top of his field at the point of his or her death. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, that should be the distinguishing feature for blurbs. At the top of their field at the time of death, leading to major implications -> blurb. Had retired, declined in significance or was otherwise no longer at the top of their field, but had a significant historical impact -> RD. Lomu had not been one of the world's best rugby players for the last ~decade, so he falls into the latter category. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There were no implications when Thatcher died, she hadn't been PM for the decade or more before she died. She got a blurb. Mandela died 14 years after being the top of his field. He got a blurb. Your logic isn't that ... logical. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I opposed a blurb for Thatcher, following the same reasoning (don't remember about Mandela, was probably posted before I commented). Modest Genius talk 14:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In the context of sports, I agree with Modest Genius. Examples would be Senna or more recently (but arguably) Bianchi. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
What makes sportspeople at the top of their field different from politicians or film stars? Mandela, Thatcher and the guy from Fast and Furious were all blurbed, their deaths didn't have "major implications".... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If a death had "major implications", it would have to be something like the assassination of a top political figure, and so would likely be an ongoing item rather than merely a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb death is entirely unexpected according to his family, it's all over my news, international notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Unexpected but not unanticipated, given his medical condition (Nephrotic syndrome). In other words, they knew he would likely die young, but they didn't have any time frame to expect exactly when. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
      • And Thatcher and Mandela's deaths were likely too. I don't really see your point other than try to refute the indisputable fact that his family have stated that this sudden death was entirely unexpected. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb when it comes to rugby (which has an international audience larger than say American football) this guy is the biggest name - pretty much Tom Brady of the rugby union. Plus, the death seems completely unexpected since he was taking care of his health problems. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I am counting 4 explicit blurb opposes and 10 explicit blurb supports + the nom. Nergaal (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Count doesn't determine consensus; arguments do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article still has a major section tagged as unreferenced, and there's several paragraphs throughout lacking references. While I don't feel it appropriate to pull this as an RD at this point (it's decently sourced, it's not like a complete BLP failure), this is a serious matter before this can be even be considered a blurb. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Finally finished a run through of the article. Not perfect, but hopefully satisfactory for the front page (I know it is already there, but it seemed conditional on further improvements). AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it as RD That's why we instituted it: so news items don't get bogged down by notable deaths. With Thatcher and Mandela, the response was so major that a blurb was appropriate. For the German chancellor, I don't think it was. For him, I don't see the need either. Blurbs for deaths should be reserved for the most extreme cases. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Roger Ebert, Robin Williams, Frederick Sanger, Hakimullah Mehsud, Aruna Shanbaug, Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Helmut Schmidt, Günter Grass ... All deaths of the aforementioned were posted as full blurbs. Granted, a good number of these postings were contentious and resulted in fiery discussions subsequent to the posting as to whether or not these warranted blurbs, but blurbs they were. I don't mind if you don't post this as a blurb, but for God's sake, drop the "Thatcher and Mandela" cliche because we all know that standard is so frequently flouted it doesn't even apply here. --WaltCip (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's more than I had thought were posted as blurbs since RD was implemented. I agree with Williams, since it was so high profile and surprising, but the others? I'm not sure they should've been posted as blurbs. Partly because I don't know who some of them are... Standards here are inconsistently applied, which is a problem, but the answer isn't to simply stop trying to enforce them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If your concern is preventing future posting of blurbs that don't meet the arbitrary standard that a handful of people around here have set, then that ship has sailed. These postings range as far back as 2012, when RD was recently instituted, to as current as earlier this month. Consensus had plenty of time to change in those three years and it has remained mostly the same throughout. The hard truth is that the threshold for a full blurb posting is not as high as people think it is, and that in all of the above cases, the posting administrator believed that the qualifications and requirements for meriting a full blurb were met. Just as with regular ITN articles, if a posting was incorrectly made, it is at the discretion of other presiding administrators to pull an article (see the Holm-Rousey fight). If you want to dispute those postings on the basis that standards were inconsistently applied, then the entire ITN system needs to be re-evaluated to see where consensus does stand. Until then, on the basis of precedence, Jonah Lomu deserves a full blurb as much as the other candidates do. The Mandela and Thatcher standard does not exist.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
People are more than welcome to base their decision on precedence, just as others may choose to ignore it. There are no firm rules, aside from using consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep RD Generally, I don't think rugby union reaches the same viewership and magnitude as association football, for example. And as much as I like to read and watch, I never heard of Lomu before. Brandmeistertalk 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 17Edit

[Posted] [Closed] Russia declares Metrojet Flight 9268 bombedEdit

Okay, enough chat. Users are reminded that WP:ERRORS is the place to post ... errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Metrojet Flight 9268 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia's Federal Security Service announces that Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) was "unequivocally" destroyed by a bomb.
Alternative blurb: ​Russia's Federal Security Service announces that Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) was destroyed by a bomb.
Alternative blurb II: ​Russia's Federal Security Service announces that the crash of Metrojet Flight 9268 (pictured) was caused by a bomb.
News source(s): Guardian, Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: No sooner did we pull this from ongoing, than a major new development occurs. Could put this back in Ongoing, but might also deserve own blurb. Smurrayinchester 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • How reliable is the Russian investigation team on this? Frankly, what about on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Also, read the criticisms on the Service; accusations have been human rights violations and corruption. George Ho (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, but all the (many) blurbs attribute the claim to the FSB, none of the blurbs are stating this as absolute fact are they? I have no idea what human rights violations has to do with this news item. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just an example of FSB's... unreliability and untrustworthiness(?). George Ho (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, and all other such organisations have never had any such criticism. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support In this case I don't see a compelling reason not to trust this, and FSB cited the results of relevant analysis on substance traces. This is also consistent with ISIL claim. Brandmeistertalk 10:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, alt blurb, per Brandmeister. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Given that only Russia and Eygpt investigators are involved, even if there is question on trustworthiness, this is about as official as it will get. Note that Russia says they've held 17 workers at the airport and two are of critical interest, so they already have suspects and acting on it. --MASEM (t) 10:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, credible claim. Go for it! Altblurb seems good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - has been posted already twice, no reason to post any new development to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to announce the finding of the cause of the crash? 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Important development with broader implications. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on update; official finding of a cause is notable; questions of trustworthiness are not relevant, as the readers can decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Given the barrage of previous coverage on this point, suggest we say "confirms" rather than "announces." Sca (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, confirms is better. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe concludes? That is was a bomb is technically a hypothesis though one they appear to have enough evidence to support to engage in police/legal action and would likely have high confidence in before doing so. "Confirms" implies they knew exactly what happened which doesn't yet seem to be the case. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ambiguous. See homonym. Sca (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The evening news used the term "confirmed". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You guys all know where WP:ERRORS is, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It was simultaneously posted there. Sca (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the place for this stuff, it doesn't need to be here after posting. Thanks for your understanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Je vous en prie. Sca (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Etiam tibi.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Incertum quo fata ferunt. Sca (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 16Edit

[Closed] 2015 G-20 summitEdit

consensus this is not as important as other current events, See Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Removal_proposal:_G20_summit to comment. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 G-20 Antalya summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 10th G-20 summit ends in Antalya.
News source(s): The Atlantic, Hurriyet, Times of India

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: Overshadowed by recent events, the article is pretty bareboned at the moment. Some topics to expand on: aftermath of events in Paris, Russia's intervention in Syria, terrorism and refugees. Particularly enjoying the cat trivia in the lead. Fuebaey (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1) I dont see what actual news have come out of this summit. 2) The article is not in good shape, to put it delicately. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems to have been pushed out of the news by the Paris attacks; maybe that should mean it gets pushed out of ITN this time, I'm not sure, but I could understand that. Article is not currently acceptable, as stated. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality. I realize that G20 Summits are ITNR, but I'd like to register a symbolic oppose on notability and impact anyway. Even as far as group economic summits go, this one was especially void of meaningful discussion. (talk) 12:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everything on this summit seems to be about discussing talking points but with no real resolutions as past summits (G8 or G20) typically have. And yes, it's overshadowed by events in Paris. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per others. Aside from the current news context, these G-whatever summits rarely produce much real news. Sca (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Geeee! Sca (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)  
  • Oppose - per above. Jusdafax 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
NOTE its ITNR. It only needs an update.Lihaas (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Lihaas: ITNR is not a guarantee of posting, if factors warrant not posting, such as a lack of news coverage due to other events. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless some actual news came out of it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • closing given obvious consensus. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Removed] Remove "Metrojet Flight 9268" as Ongoing?Edit

My opposition to featuring this as "Ongoing" wasn't well convincing before it got re-posted. Don't worry; I'll try not to rebut a lot. A week later, the editing has slowed down, and I don't see anything else new at this point, aside from future events that I shall not foresee here. I want to discuss this a week from now, but I've not seen recent stories on investigation lately since bomb hypothesis. You all had it as "ongoing" again that you wanted; shall we retain or remove it from Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal Because the investigation has been closed off to Western agencies, and the last bit was that the black box was sent off for more detailed analysis, this story has gone stale. If the investigation affirms it was done by a bomb, it would gain a new ITN. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Not seeing significant continuing updates; per above. SpencerT♦C 09:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - it's had its time on MP now. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

November 15Edit

[Closed] France attacks ISISEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 09:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Opération Chammal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In retaliation for terrorist attacks in Paris, the French Air Force strikes targets in Raqqah, Syria.
News source(s): (New York Times)

Nom. Ongoing development. --bender235 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Didn't this start a year ago? Isn't that the point, according to some, of the attacks on Paris? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Now news: the article doesn't seem to mention anything about a qualitative change in the airstikes that have been ongoing for quite some time, and any attacks on Raqqah that happened today aren't mentioned. LjL (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This started in 2014. The carrier Charles de Gaulle was withdrawn in April 2015. -- Callinus (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose France might be increasing the intensity of air strike conducted as a result of what happened in Paris, but they didn't start it in response to it. -- KTC (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There might be potential for a ongoing if there a new sustained campaign as a result of the Paris attacks, but at this point as others point out, this is still part of a longer effort French troops have had. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; not a new operation, maybe a little accelerated as a response, but that's all. 331dot (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It's also unclear as to if any actual damage was done to ISIS; they are claiming that the attacked facilities were abandoned in anticipation of retaliatory strikes. 331dot (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as part of the Paris attacks story, because news sources are saying this operation is direct retaliation for the Paris attacks, targeting what they think are the HQ's of the Paris attacks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] UFC 193Edit

As noted below, this is generating more heat than light. It was posted for a while, let this be a compromise. Closing now. --Tone 19:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: UFC 193 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In mixed martial arts, Holly Holm defeats Ronda Rousey (pictured) to become the women's bantamweight champion.
Alternative blurb: ​At UFC 193, Holly Holm captures the UFC Women's Bantamweight Championship with a knockout of Ronda Rousey (pictured), ending Rousey's undefeated streak in mixed martial arts.
News source(s): ESPN ABC News Australia
Nominator's comments: Now I know UFC events have been nominated here before and opposed, however, Rousey is one of the top names in MMA today and usually wins her fights fairly quickly. As she has lost, this is pretty surprising and newsworthy. Andise1 (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The article should describe details of the match before posting. Right now, I can't support this nomination. George Ho (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Not a fan, but I know the name, and I guess this is a pretty big UFC story. This seems as good a time as any to feature two topics I don't necessarily care about, but some do: UFC and women's sport, which we feature never and rarely, respectively. The UFC 193 article is currently a weak target, however, and this should obviously be slotted below the Paris attacks if this does get posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't, Bongwarrior. Nov 15 should always be above Nov 13... you know, Friday the 13th, which passed already. George Ho (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
As much as I would prefer to keep the article front and center on the ticker, George is correct. We have to maintain some semblance of objectivity so anything from November 14 onward would be posted above the atrocities in Paris. It will likely be moved to ongoing in due time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, we should put consensus first on recent Paris attacks as ongoing. Development took three or four days to make the "Metrojet" investigations ongoing, although I certainly opposed it. Actually, Metrojet was pulled out temporarily by consensus; three or four days later, consensus (or support votes) favored reinserting the event. Look, I'll do the consensus proposal if the Paris attacks blurb is at the near bottom and soon to be pushed out by newer stories. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it would be moved there without discussion, I just said that it would (likely) be placed there "in due time". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that thinking, but I strongly disagree in this case. I don't want to keep the Paris attacks as the top blurb as some memorial, but it's clearly in a different league from anything else on the template, and from anything else we've featured for quite some time. This will continue to be a huge story in the days and weeks ahead, and I don't think we're losing our objectivity by recognizing that and trying to stay in front of that in some fashion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If there's a discussion to see if it's warranted, I'll be in favor of keeping it on top as well. I agree with your reasoning entirely, just trying to maintain status quo of nominations otherwise. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Surely, no reason not to tread a bit carefully on this in order to avoid setting a bad precedent. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If this is the case, the Paris attacks can move to the ongoing section. Andise1 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've started a thread about this on the talk page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Same reasoning as Bongwarrior. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have updated the article with a bit more information. Please feel free to edit or add anything else to the article to make it suitable for the main page. Andise1 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - article was updated with details of the match. Rousey is a huge figure in women's sports. Proposed ALT blurb. starship.paint ~ KO 09:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable. Updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't follow UFC and still know the name Ronda Rousey and know of her record. I've tweaked the blurb though since it said that Holm was the championship and should read that she is the champion. Dismas|(talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sadly more notable for her loss than if she had won. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose – I can see I'm in the minority here, but I really question the significance of this story in the global scheme of things. Must we? Sca (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • "In the global scheme of things?" If you mean "in relation to Paris", then no, but based on that criteria, we wouldn't update ITN again for weeks. In relation to sports and culture? Absolutely. Rousey is the biggest name in a very popular sport, a crossover star who now acts in movies and models (and, for example, was the first woman ever on the cover of Men's Fitness), and the person Sports Illustrated called the world's most dominant athlete. ESPN's business reporter thinks that the UFC can easily survive her losing once, but also states, "It can be argued that never before has any sport's league or promotion had as much riding on a single event than the UFC will have when Rousey steps in the Octagon with Holm again." This loss was the biggest event in MMA history, and one of the biggest events of the year in any sport. -- Mike (Kicking222) 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Even in the global scheme of (inherently insignificant) sports news. Sca (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready – Not sure which altblurb to use though since sports are not my forte. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Should we include details about the other fights on the card in the article? Andise1 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Old fights are no longer newsworthy, but you can do it. Why not discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts? George Ho (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe you misunderstood me. I meant details about the other fights that occurred at UFC 193 before the Rousey vs. Holm fight. Andise1 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, why not. Be careful of UFC fanatics; they have not participated at ITN before. George Ho (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not have the time to add this information right now, but if someone else is willing to go ahead. Otherwise, I will try to add it when I get the chance. My main question was should details on the other UFC 193 fights be necessary before the article goes up on the main page? Andise1 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to mention the other fights- not even the other title fight. Comparatively, they're completely irrelevant. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this is such a big deal, why is the article so slim, and why is there absolutely no reaction to this so-called surprise result? What does the result of Rousey losing even mean? Expand away. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support You guys are constantly posting the most obscure sports stories to ITN, so why not UFC? ITN/R has no less than 31 different sports events, all of which are 'notable' enough to be posted without even a discussion. Also this nomination has overwhelming support. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Instead of voting without any kind of substance, other than the claim this is supported, the point is that we're trying to establish if this is actually updated sufficiently, not just the headline. If it's really such a big deal, why is the article so crap? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    What, Rambling Man? How is the quality of All-Russia Athletic Federation page not similar to this? Am I sensing closeted preferences (I don't mean sexuality)? Look, there have been references in the UFC page, but the Russian one... OMG. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    What, George? What? Fix it, as I suggested. Sense what you like, it's creepy and a little bit sad, but fine by me if it makes you tick. Look, stop saying "Look" at the start of your sentences, it's not helpful and a little rude. OMG to you too, I note you didn't take any of my advice. Start. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    "If this is so significant, why is the article so crap?" - well perhaps because nobody bothered to update it!? Since when did 'if it is significant it will have a big article' become a rule anyway, and why should anyone feel obligated to update an article? People update articles based on what they are interested in + what they have time to do, and people nominate articles they think should be featured on ITN. FYI I nominated the Astrosat article to ITN in September, which was almost universally supported, and I didn't write a single word in the Astrosat article. While you're in the business of calling George Ho rude, I'm going to say as well, TRM, that I find your reasoning for not posting this - which is almost a variant of "I'm going to sit here and and do nothing while you people update the article to my satisfaction" - rude. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    Posting articles at ITN is two-pronged: (1) significance of an event; and (2) showcasing Wikipedia articles. It is reasonable to suppose that the WADA story is of broader interest than the Rousey story; it is therefore also reasonable to suppose that the WADA story is likely to be put in good shape more rapidly. Hence, TRM's point is valid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that "Reactions" section was added, I hope this is ready to go. --George Ho (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

    Never mind. --George Ho (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The article opens with a lede saying 'this is notable because'. That's always a bad sign - Wikipedia bureaucratese in a self-justifying context. Until the article is rewritten - and the notability not just for WP but for ITN - is more self-evident, I don't think I can support this. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Other issues with the article aside, are you saying you think it's a bad thing that the lead contains a concise summary of what was important about the event? I also am not sure what you mean by "self-evident" - it doesn't seem like a concept that has any logical relevance to a scheduled sporting event, or something I would find a useful guideline for ITN notability in general (or anything else really). An oppose on article improvements is perfectly legitimate, but taking the summary out of the lead doesn't seem like it would be an improvement to me. - OldManNeptune 04:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I have rewritten the lead, changing the wording to make it more suitable for the main page. Andise1 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It seems a lot less notable than the average ITN sports nom. Let's post something else than this. You can pull that ready tag. Jusdafax 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Now that the initial excitement of the result has worn off, the truth is clear as stated by TRM -- there is no lasting notability that merits posting this on ITN. And the quality of the article... UGH!!!--WaltCip (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
There is another section of another match. George Ho (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to complain about the quality of the article, you could always work on updating the article to make it better. I have edited the lead paragraph to make the wording better and more suitable for the article. Andise1 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Numerous sports news sources are indeed calling this a truly significant outcome. The article as I write this comment has 22 references and looks perfectly fine for an article summarizing a fighting event. It would be helpful if the "article sucks" voters who also have no desire to improve the article would offer more useful feedback than "UGH!" but such is ITN. - OldManNeptune 04:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article was in a pretty poor state when I first nominated this, (as are most UFC event articles), but I have tried to update the article the best I could. As I have mentioned before, other editors are welcome to add any information they deem important or necessary to the article for it to be on the main page. I don't have all the time in the world to work on articles, and seeing as I was one of the few who added significant updates to the article, I tried my best to bring it up to main page standards. Andise1 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Considerable coverage especially compared to typical UFC outcomes. Article has improved greatly since initial nomination.LM2000 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This has gained significantly more coverage than other UFC outcomes. Even people who don't follow the sport (like me) seem to know the result. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Recognize significance, but oppose on article quality – The article I'm reading is awfully skimpy compared to the media hype I've witnessed both before and after the event. Yes, the only news worth repeating is that Rousey lost the fight, after having been built up as an unstoppable monster for at least the past two years. However, the coverage of that fight in the article pales in comparison to the coverage given to Jędrzejczyk vs. Létourneau, which makes no sense. I've seen articles devoted to Rousey's individual fights before. If the "newsworthy event" is Rousey's fight, then perhaps a separate article is a better way to go. BY THE WAY, the blurb is worded to state that Holm is pictured, when the photo accompanying the blurb is actually of Rousey. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Moved "pictured". George Ho (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Rousey was knocked out suddenly in round 2, while Jędrzejczyk vs. Letourneau went on five rounds and was decided by the judges. That's why Rousey vs. Holm is shorter. Smurrayinchester 14:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That strikes me as fanboy POV. I haven't taken the time to read all of the coverage of the event, but it's clear from what I have read that the focus of attention from both media and fans was on Rousey/Holm and little else, as mentioned earlier by Kicking222. One would hope that we would reflect that weight, rather than merely providing a mini-play-by-play which gives far more article space to a far less important fight. At least the section "One-round fights" was renamed before it was necessary to point out that the lack of sufficient background provided may mislead readers into thinking that the fights were scheduled for one round, when instead it referred to the fights not lasting beyond the first round. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted I made a slight tweak by posting the image of the winner instead of the loser, per usual practice. --Jayron32 13:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-post oppose - train wreak a lot more newsworthy, and it's not even exceptionally newsworthy (I actually opposed it). LjL (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Embarrassing.   Sca (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post posting support. This is the sport at its highest level. It's currently main page news for the BBC and the Guardian, made a $6 million gate in Australia, and is a pay-per-view juggernaut in the US, so unlike 99% of the sporting stories we post, it's clearly of international interest to boot. GRAPPLE X 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • BBC currently leads with "Paris attacks: France 'at war' says President Hollande."
  • Guardian currently leads with "Alleged Mastermind of Paris attacks named."
Of interest to whom? Sca (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You may need to point out where I said "leading story", because I distinctly recall typing "main page news", which it is. Both of them feature it on their home page at the time of this comment. And in regard to your second question, to sport fans, clearly. GRAPPLE X 15:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Sport(s) fans in general, or just UFC devotees?
Glad your short-term memory is distinct. Sca (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither website's home pages seem to mention the word "Holm" at this time, so if they did when you posted, it may have been a very brief fluke. LjL (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I hit a ctrl+F search for "Rousey" and turned it up on both; she may have lost but she's by far the more known name. GRAPPLE X 16:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, I get no hit for "Rousey" either at this time. LjL (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC) has it on their homepage as "Upset in Ultimate Fighting Championship", no names mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have "Ronda Rousey knocked out by Holly Holm in UFC title upset" on the BBC home page right now; is it perhaps regionally different? GRAPPLE X 16:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Could be. I'm located in Italy, and The Guardian for instance explicitly sends me to when I load their homepage. Still... Wikipedia is international, and probably shouldn't mention events with only a local significance, if this is such a case. LjL (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yet we post England-only football, US-only gridiron, or Indian-only cricket stories; sport is often inherently local. But for what it's worth, it's pretty big news here in Ireland, for a fight that took place in Australia, between two Americans, which doesn't scream local to me. GRAPPLE X 16:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I guess. My personal view is that just because sports fan are often very adamant, vocal and passionate about their hobby doesn't necessarily make it international news of general interest. LjL (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I am sorry but how was this posted? I don't want to go into the entire is it significant thing (it is not in my opinion, but I don't mind if consensus says otherwise). But how do we post such a slim article that does not even mention the fight in the blurb with more than two lines? This is embarassing for ITN indeed! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pull, insufficient time given for debate. Abductive (reasoning) 16:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • You're joking, right? It was nominated at 06:26, 15 November and posted at 13:47, 16 November. How is 36 hours "insufficient"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Because it was posted and should never have been posted. Posting that piece of garbage brought the correct reaction; it should never have been posted. Abductive (reasoning) 00:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pull – For previously noted reasons. Sca (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, feel free to pull (but note I have already !voted "pp oppose" above). LjL (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled. The ITN blurb actually contained more information establishing the event's significance than the article itself did. A match summary, while important, is insufficient. As discussed above, there must be coverage of the bout's "upset" nature and reactions thereto (the reason behind its high level of notability). —David Levy 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • REPOST Are you people serious? The article is almost over 5kb prose, so much longer than many articles that get posted here. Pulling an article makes it harder for people to find it, and therefore harder for them to update and improve it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is "In The News", not "Long Articles". You can make your point with lowercase like everybody else, by the way... LjL (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I feel I've made my point. This article is sufficiently long and updated, with consensus to post after a sufficient debating period here. I see no valid reason to pull it and it should be reposted NOW. All caps. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Muboshgu, have you considered ital as a tool for emphasis? That's what's generally used in expository prose. Sca (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If it helps make my point I'll consider it in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Much as I don't support the posting of this on ITN, posting it for half a day and then pulling it is extremely confusing to our readers. Either post it and keep it posted, or don't post it at all!--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I think getting things right is more important than causing a little fluke (and I don't see how a normal reader is liable to be very confused, anyway). LjL (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would be great if those who advocated for this to be pulled help update the article to main page standards. I know some of you are not interested in UFC, but those who can help and know what needs updating should help if able to. Andise1 (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If this does get reposted, can it be placed below the information about the Paris attacks? Regardless of whether or not the fight is significant enough for the ITN section, it is far less significant than the Paris attacks and I feel that placing such a soft news story above the attacks makes us look bad. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I think this is an instance in which WP:IAR would apply in this case.--WaltCip (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, Spirit of Eagle and WaltCip. The consensus already agreed in the talk page not to do that. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It would certainly be easier and less consensus-breaking (as well as, in my opinion, more sensible) not to post it at all. LjL (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Consensus already strongly favors posting this, which is presumably why it was posted. Given that most of the votes opposing on grounds of quality have failed to give useful feedback (does the article itself need to explain both the concept of a sports upset involving a famously undefeated champion and the celebrity of the first truly successful female fighter without allowing that a reader might click the link on Ronda Rousey to see what she's about? It's obviously too soon to expand upon what impact this could have on the sport, which is the section that stands out as most plainly absent when compared to other articles dealing with other major sports upsets.) and largely simply express disgust (and one, mysteriously enough, claims 36 hours isn't enough time to debate?), I suspect the tacting being employed is to simply obstruct until it goes stale, hardly uncommon but never fun for those who work to get articles in good shape to please those who really don't want to see it posted anyway - as you've admitted is the case for yourself. - OldManNeptune 00:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:Consensus doesn't mean "majority". There was a somewhat slight majority to post, there was no "consensus" in Wikipedia terms. LjL (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If there is consensus against listing it under the section on the French attacks, then I oppose listing this ITN update at all since the article is underdeveloped and of questionable significance. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The vote tally I just counted is 13 support, 6 oppose, hardly the slim majority you're making it out to be. It's purely subjective, but by my count a number of the opposes are also rather empty votes, amounting to no more than griping about article quality without offering suggestions. At this point I think it's fair to ask exactly what you think is missing for this to go up since it has popular support and editors willing to make the needed changes - and I emphasize that it is not respectful of others' time to say that this only needs improvements if admins intend to veto this no matter what is done. - OldManNeptune 02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you coutned, but I counted 10 among "oppose", "pull" and "agree with pull". As to what is missing, I guess you'd have to ask those who think that, because personally, I just think it shouldn't be posted regardless. LjL (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Pull is not the same as oppose - and some are duplicates. Your specific words are that not posting this would be less consensus-breaking. In what possible way is that true? Not posting this is a direct defiance of consensus, and I point out that a number of the opposes seem to be directly in defiance of policy (such as "don't post at all if it would go above the Paris attacks") besides consensus. Indeed, your own oppose uses this reasoning: "train wreak a lot more newsworthy", not generally considered good rationale, so I wonder why you want to argue over the "legal" definition of consensus when your own vote was empty of substance? - OldManNeptune 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with the rationale for pulling the pose. The article needs to expand on why it was considered an upset e.g. pre-bout expectations, post-fight reactions).—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Why does it need to expand on that when the link to Ronda Rousey, right there in the blurb, explains her status and hence why this is an upset? What specifically is unclear? - OldManNeptune 00:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Basic information about Rousey relevant to the fight should ideally be in this article. Readers shouldn't have to chase links to figure out why the fight and the loss was a big deal. More detailed information can be left in her bio. I'd expect to see a few sentences on her prior record and reputation and why Holm was considered an underdog.—Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"Though Ronda Rousey was favored to defeat Holly Holm, Holm won in an upset, for Rousey's first career defeat" is the current second sentence, which concisely describes the basics of what happened (Rousey was undefeated and favored, Holm won). I am concerned that creating an entire subsection in the UFC 193 article simply to describe the renown of one of the competitors is inappropriate given that the event, like all UFC events, featured numerous fighters, and fighter bios can rightly go in their own articles. In short, I feel that what you are suggesting may be writing an article solely for ITN at the expense of proper writing for the topic in general. - OldManNeptune 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why "an entire subsection" would necessarily be needed. I don't think a few sentences explaining why she was favored and to what extent is "at the expense of proper writing". As the basis of notability of this ITNC nomination is that this was a monumental upset of sorts, I would expect the article to have some expansion of that for the benefit of non-UFC fans.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
See my comment above regarding fanboy POV. Wikipedia content is supposed to be written for a general audience, not "by fanboys, for fanboys". The latter is a little too evident with our coverage of a great many sports with ardent fans. I agree with those editors who have pointed out that the article is sorely lacking in background. A non-fan who reads the article at some point in the future, without the surrounding media hype, may have a hard time understanding what the big deal was. Remember, there's a reason why editors constantly refer to WP:NOTNEWS and how there's a difference between news and encyclopedic content. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support posting and oppose pull. The "article is not good enough" argument for opposing this is, in my opinion, ludicrous. Even if we accept that the article is not good enough, ITN has four purposes, of which only one is violated by the article not being good enough. Furthermore, WP:ITN says "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable", and the article right now has well over five sentences with three references, something that should qualify as 'more than sufficient'. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This actually got posted?! Haha, a new all-time low. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - minor sport and this does not even seem to be the top competition (or rather there are ten of them) in this sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2015‎ (UTC)
    It's absolutely the top competition in mixed martial arts; the next closest promotion in size doesn't even have the clout to enter the pay-per-view market. In terms of high-level competition, UFC is MMA. GRAPPLE X 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Ten of what? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Major venue, major attendance, major gate, major buys, major hype, major title change, major knockout, major win for major boxer and major loss for major celebrity. That's why it received major coverage "in the news". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the obvious schism in opinions here, I think it might be fitting for an admin to close this nom as no consensus. This is not likely to get anywhere further other than generate more heat than light.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

November 14Edit

RD: Warren MitchellEdit

Article: Warren Mitchell (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Award-winning English actor. George Ho (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support on article improvements More sourcing is needed. On the importance, I'm on the edge but would swing in favor of the BAFTA wins. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support most of the article is inline sourced, and per frequent pleas here, the rest of it is sourced by blue links to other articles which verify the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There were two paragraphs that included potentially contentious claims/original research without sourcing, and a blue link is not sufficient for that purpose. However I added the inlines to support those two points, so it should all be good. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • How would a British audience compare him to Geoffrey Palmer (actor) and Richard Briers? Maybe I am not seeing it. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting question, which I will attempt to answer. This is his obit in the Independent. His main role, Alf Garnett, was a national institution, watched by 20 million viewers, even if not everyone understood that you were not supposed to agree with the character's racist views. (Ricky Gervaias called Garnett "one of the most influential and important characters and performances in comedy history.") But he was also an actor with a life outside the TV show that was his trademark, and the obit records that Arthur Miller said he was the best Willy Loman he'd seen (Death of a Salesman). The Guardian says that "The fact that Mitchell could play impressively on television both Garnett and Shylock – a mouthpiece for religious intolerance and a victim of it – is a measure of his range." He won awards for stage and for TV work. Probably loved in a different way to Briers, whose comedy was of a different character but who also did some serious work; and probably a broader appeal than Palmer (who isn't dead, but you had me worred that I'd missed something!). I was thinking of nominating him but someone beat me to it, so I'm going to say belatedly that I think that he was widely regarded as a leading British actor of his generation, and so this is a support for RD. BencherliteTalk 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
      • To possibly help: when trying to find references I mentioned above, (speaking as an American that has not seen Till Death but enough other British television to get the gist) I got the direct impression one could compare the character of Alf to Archie Bunker, and in fact, Archie's actor, Carroll O'Connor to Mitchell's own career. This comparison is far from being one to one, but both Bunker and O'Connor had recognition within US television, hence I feel Mitchell here is just as reasonable in British comedy/acting. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Except Bunker's character is renown for the impact it had on social issues of the time. Is there evidence of something similar here?—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Judging by the last section in Alf Garnett, yes, as the name of the character seems to be used in a manner in UK politics. But I do agree that it doesn't seem to be as much as with Archie Bunker. Still, I still weakly support this. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To add another British voice, I felt the failure (as I recall) to post Richard Briers was a mistake. The two are hard to compare; Briers was very well known for several hugely popular roles; Mitchell not so much, but 'Alf Garnett' is synonymous with a particular set of attitudes. Garnett is, I think, better known than any role Palmer played. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] RD: Norm EllenbergerEdit

George Ho (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Norm Ellenberger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Albuquerque Journal

Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of notable American basketball coaches. Also involved in scandal, Lobogate George Ho (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose He had a long and notable coaching career, but he's not the HOF-level of coach, like a Dean Smith or a Jerry Tarkanian. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He seems to be a maybe above average coach but I don't think that meets "very important" to his field. I'm not convinced that the scandal makes him important(maybe I could be, but I'm not yet). 331dot (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Coach is not considered very important to his field. For sports-related deaths, my litmus test is whether a newspaper of record like The New York Times prominently covers it.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above. Not really top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Hisham NazerEdit

Consensus that he does not meet the RD criteria. BencherliteTalk 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hisham Nazer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Saudi Gazette Emirates 24/7

Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of notable ambassadors to Egypt and chairman for oil company. George Ho (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the death criteria. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not notable or made a significant impact to his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Egeymi said I should have mentioned his position as political minister of oil. I don't know how significant the position is, but I don't think it would have made any difference, given the opposition here. Also, he lost his role as an ambassador due to his incident with some woman at an Egyptian airport during the start of the Egyptian crisis. That's more significant than being related to oil politics unless someone can add more content in the article. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - important person in the world of oil and geopolitics, and article is in good shape — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing how this person is important. Also, there's tense issues with the article so some more updating is needed. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ambassador and oil company executive? Hardly the cursus honorum we'd expect for an RD candidate. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Clueless oppose- he was the oil minister of the largest oil producer in the world. The person who nationalized ARAMCO, the most important oil company in the world. And he was ARAMCO's first Saudi chairman. In the world of oil (post World War II) he was a hugely influential figure, second only to Ahmed Yamani Juan Pablo Alfonso. Maybe that is not notable enough for RD (I guess he should have been a wrestler or an actor instead), but at least when opposing make an attempt to educate yourself about the person in question. Same goes also to the person who claimed that the person who nationalized ARAMCO hads no significant impact to his field. That's laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

RD: Nick BockwinkelEdit

Article: Nick Bockwinkel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Slam! Sports WWE New York Daily News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bockwinkel is widely considered to be one of the top wrestlers of all time. He was a wrestler for four decades (1954-87), headlining shows across the United States and in several other countries, including Canada, Australia and Japan and was almost always the top guy everywhere he went. So in terms of notability this one is a no-brainer (though I'm sure the unofficial criteria for wrestlers, "I've never heard of him", will be applied). At least three wrestlers have been featured in RD before (and Bockwinkel easily ranks among them in importance), so let's not get sidetracked with the "wrestling's not notable" red herring. The one issue is that there isn't a lot of mainstream coverage at the moment, but the news of his death is still new (EDIT: His death is getting more coverage now, but surprisingly it's mostly among celebrity news websites like TMZ). Scorpion0422 14:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose most of the "American Wrestling Association" and "Post-retirement" sections are unreferenced. Also I can't see where the second para of the lead is expanded upon and seriously referenced in the main part of the article. Claiming things like "many industry experts to be an excellent wrestler" need multiple reliable sources for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Referencing work is underway. Based on how things have gone in the past with underreferenced articles nominated at ITN, the professional wrestling project has done quick work (see Dusty Rhodes and Roddy Piper this year for examples). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on article quality – To address TRM's concerns, I'm not so concerned about the AWA and post-retirement sections being unreferenced as I'm concerned about those sections dominating the article. As with most pro wrestling biographies on Wikipedia, this is more a coatrack to the promotions the wrestler worked for than a proper biography of the wrestler. His father was a top wrestler, and in fact promoted Nick as a future wrestler when he was a teenager, but according to the article, nothing is known about his life prior to leaving OU and turning professional? I don't buy that one bit. One of the Slam Wrestling pieces I read, plus Bobby Heenan's autobiography and other sources over the years, have mentioned that Bockwinkel had multiple hot runs in Georgia Championship Wrestling throughout the 1960s and 1970s, of which there is zero mention. He also appeared in more than one episode of Hawaii Five-O, which causes me to wonder if more can be said about his acting career than merely offering a list of appearances. The AWA section, like the AWA article itself, gives undue weight to particular events at the expense of providing a more accessible overview. Bockwinkel had mentioned in interviews that the AWA's touring schedule gave him several days off per week. He fondly took advantage of that and defended the AWA title in numerous other promotions, including those affiliated with "rival" National Wrestling Alliance. Instead of providing that overview, we mention a single such match against Bob Backlund. Curiously enough, this exact same problem exists in the Antonio Inoki article – little or no mention of countless notable events, but it does mention a particular match against Backlund, a match which was never even acknowledged to Backlund's North American fans at the time due to its controversial finish. Oh yeah, there's also zero mention of numerous appearances in the Memphis promotion from 1981–83 or thereabouts. In particular, he played a minor role in the Jerry Lawler vs. Andy Kaufman feud, events which the industry and even fans make out to be a bigger deal than it really was (including on Wikipedia), presumably due to Kaufman's celebrity. Once again, not reflected in the article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, but wait on the article's quality improving. GRAPPLE X 11:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Top of his field and meets RD criteria for notability, but article needs work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. For sports-related deaths, my litmus test is based on coverage by a newspaper of record like The New York Times, where I see no mention on his death. Aside for industry longevity, he doesn't have the wider impact of a Roddy Piper. Bockwinkel seems to below the tier of even other long-time wrestlers whose deaths did not get posted recently like Dusty Rhodes (Rhodes' ITNC link) or Vern Gagne (Gagne's ITNC link). The Times had its own writeup for Gagne[14] and ran AP's story on Rhodes.[15] Even, which has been providing more mainstream coverage of wrestling, doesn't cover Bockwinkel, though they had AP's story on Gagne.[16]Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Gagne was one of the bigger stars in all of network television during the 1950s, while Piper was one of the stars of the "Rock 'n' Wrestling Connection" and related events, which led to a film career and other reknown. There's about a quarter century in between in which the mainstream media was content to pretend that professional wrestling didn't exist, apart from occasional derisive hit pieces found in a local newspaper or a monthly magazine. This period coincides with the majority of Bockwinkel's heyday as an active wrestler. Also, not only the mainstream media, but also the wrestling media, weren't as likely to notice you if you didn't perform at Madison Square Garden, something which has been pointed out countless times over the years by wrestlers and wrestling journalists. The AWA was based in Minneapolis, hardly a media capital back in those days. I can assure you that such lack of media attention wasn't very important to fans: the business overall was healthy, some of his biggest matches of the 1970s occurred in venues as large as Comiskey Park and Soldier Field, plus AWA All-Star Wrestling was getting consistent 20+ ratings and 60+ shares on most of its affiliates. Arguably the pinnacle of Bockwinkel's career was on April 24 (? I've seen two other dates mentioned across various sources), 1983, known in the wrestling world as "Super Sunday" (once again, the article fails to give appropriate mention to this event in favor of details and results of more obscure matches). In that event, for the second time in less than a year, Hulk Hogan pinned Bockwinkel, only to have the title returned to Bockwinkel on a technicality. That previous time, however, they did the switcheroo on television after the fact. This time, they did it at the event itself, which led to a near-riot at the St. Paul Civic Center. Fan riots or the threat thereof were fairly common in the Northeast and Southern United States back in those days. I forget who wrote this, but one account of that event pointed out that it would have taken a very special performer to incite a riot among "mild-mannered" upper-midwestern people of Scandanavian descent.
I see that the article has been updated, but I still question whether there's any improvement. Obviously, someone out there is a huge Bob Backlund fan, as there is now even more mention of Backlund than before. A paragraph was inserted mentioning how he began using a dictionary to bolster his interviews, but it's in the AWA section, potentially misleading readers into believing that he began this practice while in the AWA. The source I read stated that he started it while working a program with Dory Funk, Jr. in Georgia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"Also, not only the mainstream media, but also the wrestling media, weren't as likely to notice you if you didn't perform at Madison Square Garden, something which has been pointed out countless times over the years by wrestlers and wrestling journalists" If media wasn't covering him then, and his death is only sparsely being covering now, that lends greater weight to not posting this based on the WP:WEIGHT of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
(Directed at Bagumba) There are two problems with your argument. The first is that Dusty Rhodes SHOULD have been posted, and an admin even admitted that, but was ignored until too much time had passed. Verne Gagne had little mainstream coverage and the nom just petered out. NEITHER of them was rejected on notability grounds. Three HAVE been included: Maurice Vachon (who Bockwinkel surpasses, except in Quebec), The Ultimate Warrior (who Bockwinkel easily surpasses on notability, although Warrior is better known to today's audience) and Roddy Piper.
The second is that mainstream media sources are largely run by idiots who cover things that appeal to idiots. A wrestler retired for 25 years who is largely unknown to today's mainstream crowd is an easy one for them to skip. This is not exclusive to wrestling of course, many very notable people who have been retired for decades have died with barely a blip in mainstream coverage. This should NOT automatically exclude them from RD. -- Scorpion0422 13:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
My main criteria is lack of mainstream coverage of his death. The other examples I gave were for perspective of past wrestler deaths with more coverage then Bockwinkel that (for either notability or content reasons) didn't manage support. "mainstream media sources are largely run by idiots who cover things that appeal to idiots:" Perhaps, but WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article seems in good shape. I do express concern that few major sources have picked up on this, but also consider the # of championships he has won and other text we have that he actually was important during his peak, but time has since forgotten that period and no major sources have really covered that. (Also considering the timing with other world events...) Swing in favor of inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Minneapolis still remembers enough for a detailed feature. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose certainly not a household name like many others of that time. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh this should be good. Name me one household name from his era. And before you go to look someone up, keep in mind that I'll have a pretty good idea of whether you're lying or not. And for the record, he was a household name in the Midwest, which is where the AWA was based. -- Scorpion0422 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Bockwinkel was as big a star regionally as Maurice Vachon but was far better known beyond than him. Article is in much better shape than when initially nominated.LM2000 (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Widely considered one of the top performers in a notable profession. Referencing has improved significantly. Let's get this posted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Eckwersheim train crashEdit

a good nomination which in other days would have been posted μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Eckwersheim derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A TGV under testing on the LGV Est crashes at Eckwersheim, France, killing at least ten.
Alternative blurb: ​A TGV train under testing on the LGV Est high-speed rail line crashes near Eckwersheim, France, killing at least ten.
Alternative blurb II: ​In France, ten people are killed when the first fatal accident in the history of the TGV occurs during a test run on a new line.
Alternative blurb III: ​In France, the first fatal accident in the history of the TGV occurs during a test run on a new line.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not linked to the Paris attacks Smurrayinchester 18:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is the deadliest crash of a TGV train in history. Serious crashes of high-speed trains are rare in Europe. BCdcc (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per BCdcc.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tragic, but this is no exception to other train accidents, especially this year's. If it's not linked to terrorism, then I shall say don't post this. I'm astonished by consensussupports here. This ain't special, no matter how "deadliest" the crash was. George Ho (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article says this happened during a test run on an unopened section of a high-speed line, with a crew of 49 technicians. Tragic, but not a regular passenger service. Brandmeistertalk 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as I honestly believe it wouldn't even get listed, or get widespread support, if people didn't think it was somehow linked to the Paris attacks. LjL (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - apparently nothing to do with yesterday's events in Paris, despite some claims to the contrary. Significant accident on a modern high-speed rail system. Death toll adds weight to the case for posting, but is not the reason to post. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the only real rationale for posting a one-off transportation accident is that if it bleeds it leads. This is tragic, but without some other aggravating factor like sabotage it doesn't reach the level of encyclopedic notability we want for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As long as its confirmed to be unconnected, a test run that involves no passengers, while unfortunate, is not really that important in the scheme of things. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose I oppose its addition. It would cause too much confusion due to the major top story, not to mention the fact that it is only getting so much attention because it comes on the heals of a more worldwide crisis. This is certainly a big deal in France, and at most western Europe as it is part of an international railway system, but not universal enough for the highly selective news blip on the front page of an enormous website who's first purpose is not be a newspaper. However I will add that despite not being a regular service passenger train, it is a setback for a major high speed rail project that will have implications beyond France, as aforementioned. B137 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose in light of the events overnight in Paris. Would give a weak support otherwise, but given the recent atrocities it's probably best to avoid posting this one in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ammend and support alt blurb II or III This nomination should be renewed with a different focus that would also cause less confusion with the attacks: In France, the first fatal accident in the history of the TGV high-speed rail system occurs during a test run on a new line. Source B137 (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Added your alternative as altblurb2. George Ho (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. As soon as I realized how many "alt blurbs" there were available I knew there shouldn't be a duplication, but then I wasn't sure if editors other than the nominate were supposed to edit the nomination. B137 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... The alts don't change the meaning. Pinging LjL, Masem, and User:Medeis. George Ho (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Given I have been pung, to be frank, it doesn't bleed enough in the current context, so it shouldn't lead. We just had 6 migrant workers killed in a crash in Arkansas. We have have plenty of such crashes that have been opposed in the past. I will remain opposed, although posting this would not normally seem terribly out of place, nor will it truly bother me if it is posted. The bottom line is that what we post depends on the context as well as the facts, and this is not the slow season. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Pinging also Cyclonebiskit and Brandmeister. George Ho (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
My vote remains unchanged for the same reason I mentioned before alongside those put forth by Medeis. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Same, although I'm leaning towards weak oppose. TGV are designed to carry passengers, while test runs might involve somewhat different conditions. Brandmeistertalk 09:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A week ago I might have supported this, but right now the Paris bombings and Russian suspension are far more significant news items. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per all the other opposes. Lacks wider significance. Sca (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose barely scratching the surface of news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support High speed rail accidents are newsworthy because high speed rail transportation is in my opinion a very good option for future development due to its high efficiency and potential for expansion. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    While your opinion about future transport is fascinating, it has no relevance to this nomination at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because fatal high-speed rail accidents are rare indeed, even if this was a test(I believe this was the first for the TGV). 331dot (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Train crash with more than 10 people dead is clearly suitable for ITN. Regarding the "it is not important compared to Paris" opposes: Now that some relatively obscure UFC news is at the top (here in Europe this is nowhere near to making headlines anywhere, and noone even knows what UFC is), one cannot argue against adding a major train accident to ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    The UFC result is linked on the home page of the website. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is not in the version of that is (currently) presented to me. Perhaps they consider it regional. LjL (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) is not the corporation's main news page; is. That's had mention of the crash and developing investigation - including whether and why children were on board - more or less since it happened. (ETA: It's gone now, but the principle is still good: if you're going to use this test, do it right.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) is the international arrival point for those using the BBC from outside the UK, I get to see both and every day, so there's no need to tell me or anyone else for that matter to do the test right. That homepage did have the UFC fight noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a train crash with only ten deaths is clearly not automatically notable enough for ITN. Suitability then devolves into questions of coverage, which is very low given that this was more of an industrial accident. Abductive (reasoning) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Closed as this is three days from nomination and there is no sudden trend toward supporting. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Move Helmut Schmidt to RD?Edit

We are getting newer stories. Therefore, shall we move Helmut Schmidt to Recent deaths? George Ho (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I don't think it should've been posted as a blurb, but it happened before I could oppose it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • When his blurb falls off, and its within 7 days of his death, it can be moved to RD, but should not be moved now. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't see why the MotoGP blurb should be bumped for the next story when Schmidt could be moved. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a reasonable suggestion given his passing does not need a blurb to be explained, while other ITN items do. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The blurb says very little that his appearance as a recent death would not. If you want to know how old he was, click the link and read about him. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. Neljack (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 13Edit

[Posted] Liberation of SinjarEdit

Article: November 2015 Sinjar offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: Iraqi Kurdistan announces the liberation of Sinjar from ISIS control.
Alternative blurb: ​Kurdish forces retake the Yazidi city of Sinjar from ISIS militants.
Alternative blurb II: ​Following the recapture of Sinjar from ISIS control, Kurdish forces discover two Yazidi mass graves.
Alternative blurb III: ​Following the retaking of Sinjar from ISIS control, Kurdish forces discover two Yazidi mass graves.
News source(s): Press TV AP via TOI, New York Times, BBC (on the recapture);
Al-Arabiya, Deutsche Welle (on the mass graves)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The Sinjar/Yazidi issue was hot on the news when it was first captured by Daesh. Seems to be resolved after ages with the announcement that the place has been brought back under Iraqi control from Daesh. Lihaas (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support once merge tag is resolved. At last some good news. Brandmeistertalk 09:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously support. This is a hugely relevant step within the struggle agaist ISIS. Rather than merging the articles I would create an umbrella article covering the whole Battle of Sinjar though (compare fr:Bataille de Sinjar) with the two offensives as specific sub-topics. Also added a photo and an alternative blurb stressing the actual liberation rather than the announcement. PanchoS (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support First, I have looked to verify that other western press agencies are reporting this, so this isn't just posturing on the local press. That said, I do see the importance of this but worry that this is only one step against a longer war, so posting every update like this might be a problem. We did post when ISIS took hold and destroyed ancient ruins of other cities, the focus being on the latter part, here this is just one strategic target. But I also realize how big this victory is in the efforts there, so I would still support it, just caution to avoid posting every victory in the future. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't like the use of the word "liberate" in the blurbs. One man's liberation is another man's occupation. Thue (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Re User:Thue: While I'm yet to hear who feels occupied now in Sinjar, I agree "recapture" is more neutral. Added this in another blurb propsal. Now let's get forward, before it's yesterday's news. PanchoS (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Recapture is absurd, and the opposite of liberate, not a neutral alternative. The city was always part of Kurdistan. "Retake" is neutral, I have posted that as an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, "recapture" is absolutely neutral regarding to whom some area "really" belongs. But more importantly, I added the discovered Yazidi mass grave which is today's news. PanchoS (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sinjar was never captured by the Kurds in the first place. If it was, provide a link{.{cn}} Otherwise, let's use English. The town was taken back (retaken) from ISIS. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This is getting waaaaay into grammar pedantry, but how do you see 'retaken' as grammatically different from 'recaptured'? If it was taken by ISIS and then retaken by the Kurds, then surely it was captured by ISIS and recaptured by the Kurds? Not important for this nomination, though, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2: Significant development in the war against ISIL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that I withdrew the proposed image as the Paris bombings image of the Bataclan theatre should better remain there. PanchoS (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - widely covered and significant event. Banedon (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If we continue like this, then we'll have to announce the full defeat of ISIS, before getting this posted. This is really getting ridiculous.
    I mean, we're not talking about some minor battle amongst hundred others that are taking place every day. We're talking about the largest offensive in months, an offensive discussed in public days before it began, an offensive that was supported by Kurdish, Yazidi, Iraqi and (for the first time officially) even U.S. Special Forces. An offensive that effectively split ISIL's controlled area in two, and reversed control of the town that last year was the reason the U.S. got involved in the war against ISIS.
    If for whatever reason we delay the most spectacular defeats of ISIS like this one, until it falls off the breaking news ticker, while always being quick posting every single shocking act ISIS committed, then we're effectively participating in ISIS' recruiting propaganda. No, we're not taking sides, and exactly therefore this may not longer be withheld.
    Please think about it, and now post whatever you like, just post it, and post it now rather than tomorrow. --PanchoS (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems to me that someone is reluctant to postmerger proposal is preventing this story from being featured, making this story stale. The Kurdish recapturing of the city is not similar to terror attacks in Paris (or in Beirut), but it is still... well, bigger news to Western media. Unsure about how other regional media (e.g. Russian or Chinese) in global news treat it, but it's still big. Can we just post the recapture already with or without mass corpses of women? George Ho (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Merge proposal wasn't going anywhere (no support !votes, three oppose !votes, and apparent momentum toward building up the new article with additional information and updates), so I closed it. This should be ready to post now, unless there are any other issues that are eluding my attention. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we have multiple blurbs to choose from, many of which include the finding of a mass grave. However, this fact is deemed so insignificant that it isn't even featured in the lead. Please make a decision on what needs to be done before re-marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Rambling Man, there is already a consensus to post the recapture Sinjar blurb in any form. If you can't decide which one, at least pick the least surprising blurb (for now) until consensus decides to pick. Otherwise, let's wait for another administrator to do this. Also, I've started a discussion on multiple blurbs. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop adding so many alt blurbs, it's not helpful AT ALL, for the very least the reason I've added above. Stop disrupting the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Can't you just vote if you won't post yet? George Ho (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not here to "vote". I'm here to make sense of the mess of multiple alt blurbs added at different times. Stop now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Post with Altblurb II. --bender235 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted take all complaints about the choice of blurb to WP:ERRORS so we don't continually bloat this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Russia athletic suspensionEdit

Article: All-Russia Athletic Federation (talk, history)
Blurb: Russia is suspended from all international athletic competition following a World Anti-Doping Agency's report into doping in athletics.
Alternative blurb: Russia is suspended from all international athletic competition by the IAAF following a World Anti-Doping Agency's report into doping in athletics.
News source(s): [17], [18]

Nominator's comments: The article could do with improvement first, if a new one specifically regarding this aren't created. KTC (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • support - Definitely notable and groundbreaking decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - That's a response that I would have wanted to see based on the previous nom. I've added a altblurb regarding that it was the IAAF that did the suspension. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An actual suspension is better to post than a suggestion of a suspension. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Surprise, surprise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Obviously noteworthy when a major sporting country is banned from international competition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom and Muboshgu. APK whisper in my ear 01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the primary source says that the suspension is provisional, and that all possible steps will be taken to make sure Russia competes in the 2016 Olympics. Until Russia is actually excluded from or boycotts a competition we have a declaration, not a fact. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Although I continue to "Support", you make a valid point. The last argument in the initial WADA announcement was that "nothing has happened yet". Using that logic, still nothing has happened yet, except another announcement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Russia is suspended *right now*. IAAF may/will have a meeting ~next month where they may change their mind over the suspension (unless Russia say they're happy to be suspended), but that doesn't affect the fact that the suspension is active. If a person is convicted of a crime, they may still have (possibly many) avenue of appeals but we say they have been convicted of the crime, we don't wait until all the appeals go through first. The suspension is in force until it's overturned, either because IAAF changes their mind, or Russia is deemed to meet whatever criteria that are yet to be set out, or possibly the passing of a fixed timeframe but that one's unlikely. What's "in the news" is that IAAF have suspended Russia from its competitions. By next month's European Cross Country Championships, that's not news anymore since it would be "yeah they're still suspended". If you don't think this item isn't right for ITN then that's fine but make that the argument, not maybe later ... until the story is not actually in the news anymore. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree that this should be supported - in fact the original WADA item should have been posted and this would just be part of "ongoing", which would make more sense. I can easily argue that until Russia actually is unable to participate in something, this is nothing more than an announcement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - Given the magnitude of events, may I suggest, if posted, that we post this below the Paris attacks blurb? Thanks. Jusdafax 02:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • And also below the news story that "Jihadi John" may well have been killed in an air raid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This should be posted but the linked article si in terrible shape. It doesn't even explain well what IS the current situation. Nergaal (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Last week there was a story (quashed here) about the initial WADA announcement. Is that the same article as the one being discussed here? If not, it should be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. -- KTC (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article is in acceptable shape. Event significant enough. sst✈discuss 03:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support seems pretty obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Shall we pull this? The article looks poor, and I don't see how "acceptable" the shape is. George Ho (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    Feel free to adjust the article to your taste, this is Wikipedia, you don't need to ask for permission to improve articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Are we not supposed to feature a poor quality article in the Main Page? I don't see why quality is used to normally not feature articles, but somehow quality of the article may be misinterpreted. George Ho (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Also, I notice that some portions are exactly copied from this source. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    As I said, it would be more helpful to the community if you actually helped fix the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    Can you also do it? Re-editing it wasn't easy, and I had to notify the person about adding such copyrighted material. --George Ho (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Paris shooting/bombingEdit

Article: November 2015 Paris attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 18 people are killed amid shooting and explosions in Paris, France.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian,

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Significant attack in Paris with at least four killed, and many others seriously injured in two shooting incidents (unknown if they were coordinated at this time). Three explosions reported at Stade de France where President François Hollande was present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support notability, obviously, massive multiple attacks which are now suggested to include 18 dead, in a country where gun-toting freedom is unacceptable. The article needs work, but as soon as it meets the minimum acceptable quality, it should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment This implies that this would have been non-notable if it had happened in another country (i.e. one where "gun-toting freedom" is acceptable). The obvious political swipe is beneath comment, but even on the face of it, what a profoundly cruel thing to say. I really wish you'd think before you speak so recklessly, especially when it isn't even tangentially related to the story or how you voted. - OldManNeptune 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • ITN has regularly ignored war event, like the taking of strategic cities with many dead, with a "meh, business as usual for the Middle Eastern chaos". I personally disagree with that de facto policy, but it is de facto policy. Thue (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Article has just about everything (i.e. very little) that media currently know. LjL (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on principle, oppose in current state. Much must be learnt on perpetrator and motive '''tAD''' (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This will be the biggest news story for many days to come, and possibly weeks. Article very sketchy, as noted, but I agree we should post as quickly as it gets to a decent level. Jusdafax 22:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, article will develop rapidly due to mass interest. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • post-posting support. In obviously notable cases like this, where the article will obviously be massively updated as more information becomes available, I think it is perfectly fine to post at this stage. Thue (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This should have been posted very very quickly, and it was. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. The article is pretty much a skeleton at this point. Certainly later when we know more about this incident but this feels rushed to me. The ITN section should be showcasing Wikipedia content like any other MP section, not rushing to cover breaking stories. — foxj 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    No, bollocks I'm afraid. We're talking about dozens of people killed, this needs to be posted (as was) and needs to be updated accordingly. This is Europe, not America, most uncommon and will be headlining for days to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Heck, it's so notable that it might have been posted even if it had happened in America. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that's true, if a co-ordinated attack at different locations which resulted in multiple deaths had taken place in the US, I'd probably be in favour of supporting it at ITN, unlike the daily mass shootings that take place in just one location courtesy of the amendment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we cut it out with the unwarranted jabs at the US? They're entirely unnecessary. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was making the point that multiple shootings occur every day in the US and not in Europe. Bongwarrior took the point further. Feel free to collapse this sideline detritus as typical US mass shooting nonsense, as we see every day. In the meantime, the posting of this item was exactly right. This kind of thing doesn't happen in the civilised world, and it's shocking to the core. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
9/11? 3,000 dead? But yes, even the amount of organization of Paris 2015 alone makes this exceedingly notable. Damn terrorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Was 9/11 a multiple mass shooting? I didn't think so. Move on please. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The London bombings of 2005? 52 dead? </end nitpick> Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you deaf, or unable to read or something else? Bombings aren't mass shootings. Move along now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The article says this event was both shootings and explosions (3 of them). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
So what does 9/11 have to do with this? Or are you unable to discuss a terrorist attack without dragging that up? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You said this kind of thing doesn't happen in a the (typo) civilized world and I gave at least one example where it did. Is it really that important if it's mass shooting instead of bombing or a building falling on you? You'd still be dead and I was nitpicking that this scale of mass death does happen in the civilised world (at least twice once before). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The attackers, be it 9/11 or today, are not civilized. Also, while shootings happen frequently in the US, I can't recall any significant Islamist-driven terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, while they continue to happen in countries where citizens are not allowed to own guns. So there ya are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article and its not thin now, but I'm going to assume that even if it had only 4-6 sentences of text, as long as it was confirmed by a source like the BBC that it involved what appeared to be multiple simultaneous bombings and the taking of hostages, it was going to be ITN; details are going to be thin but obviously this is the type of current event that we know will be notable and we should hasten to get eyes to help out with it as was the case on the Boston Marathon Bombing a few years ago. The article's in good shape now, in any case. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - We are seeing the death toll climb alarmingly in the past hour. I am seeing reports as high as 50. Any solid numbers should be updated responsibly on the blurb. Jusdafax 22:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jusdafax: best to stick with confirmed totals from the French police for now since media reports will fluctuate wildly. Whenever media cites them directly, we can update it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      • 100 hostages mentioned in the article. That should be in the blurb, in my view. Extremely serious development. Jusdafax 22:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Well since things are moving on, it's probably just detail that's unnecessary. It appears there's another location that's been attacked. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I agree that it's unnecessary. There's far too much going on right now to focus on a single event, as horrific as each one is. I've updated the blurb to reflect the confirmed 40 deaths, however. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support for obvious reasons. epic genius (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jusdafax, Epicgenius, and The Rambling Man: contrary to my previous statement, it might be worth mentioning that President Hollande has ordered the closure of the nation's borders. Thoughts? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree that the closure is blurb-worthy. Huge development. Jusdafax 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course post-posting support and update with closing the borders. This is a major terrorist attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the calls to update the blurb, closure of the borders is most unusual. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Not that closing the borders is a drastic, significant step, but I think that the criticality of the news story is already there by what we have now; if anything, a more critical fact is 100 ppl being held hostage still, which should be in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That is, that implies that this is an ongoing/developing story, and will help draw more people to help edit/improve, over the border closure. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Perhaps where you live closing borders is easy, but in France, quite the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm watching the Sky News feed and their expert said this is the first time a nation has closed its borders since the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
            • And it will be extraordinarily difficult for that to happen properly given the land borders that are usually not monitored between France and the rest of mainland Europe. Hence the futility of Masem's comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Again, I'm not trying to diminish the action of closing the borders, but the fact that there are known to be people still at potential harm, to me, is much more serious than the reactions, even one as serious as closing the border, since those reactions aren't going to help those hostages right now. As it reads in as short a blurb we have, it makes it sound like something severe happened and people reacted and the major apparent threat is gone, but that's not the case. Now, if it is the case that the hostage situation will be dealt with in the next few hours, sure, then the border closure is the big point to attach in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
                • TLDR, you said "Not that closing the borders is a drastic, significant step". Move on now, and try to be more succinct. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Media gag request apparently made by police regarding the hostage situation. Likely will be resolved relatively soon as that's the general signal of a raid (which was just reported by AFP as I type). The border closure will have large-scale ramifications (not that this tragedy won't on its own) that will extend far beyond the immediate gruesome actions. I believe Germany has already confirmed the closure between the two nations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
                • You're behind the times, the raid on the hostages has already started. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
                  • And now it's over. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
                    • Still, the consideration of border closure is noteworthy.epic genius (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Photo suggestion - Though numbed, we continue. The article has a picture of the Bataclan concert hall where many died. Suggest we go with that as the photo. Jusdafax 01:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Jusdafax and Crisco 1492: Added the picture used in the article. Wish there was more space to give it context but the blurb is rather long as-is... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
        • It's good, thanks. You might make the word "shooting" plural, to acknowledge there were multiple attack points, but it's a small point compared to the photo. Thanks again. Jusdafax 02:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post posting Support. Note that Nytimes says border controls are only "Tightened" not closed entirely. I believe this was a clarification issued recently by a French agency. -- Callinus (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Based on what I've read online, I think at this point it would be reasonable to revise the blurb to something like this:
'Islamic State' claims responsibility for attacks that killed 128 people in Paris (Bataclan theatre pictured).
Sca (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I would support updating the blurb to reflect that RSes are pointing out that ISIS has claimed responsibility. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Nigerian President announces CabinetEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 09:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cabinet of President Muhammadu Buhari ‎ (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Six months after his election as President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari announces his Cabinet Ministers
Alternative blurb: ​Six months after his election as President of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari announces his cabinet ministers.
News source(s):

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Interesting points - took 6 months to decide on Cabinet ministers; appointed himself as Minister for Petroleum - a ministry which has been full of corruption and mismanagement for years MurielMary (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
support ALTBLURB itd be more notable with context (And youve got the 6 months of instability). Also I changed the wikilnk to the updated one.
comment We posted last Australian and Canadian and UK election more than once (one before the most recent). And Nigerian is Commonwealth too.
btw- this is from 11 November. I updated befoe.Lihaas (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@MurielMary: Feel free to add your links analysis to the page.Lihaas (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment @Lihaas: You have substantially changed by nom by changing both the target article and the blurb. Could you make those alternative options instead of replacing my suggestions with yours?? Thanks MurielMary (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
TRYING to improve it but okey I changed it.Lihaas (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cabinet appointments are a routine part of assuming a presidency(though I concede it is unusual to appoint one's self to a position). I'm not seeing what makes this stand out- and it's not top level news from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unusual for the time frame and the self-appointment, but cabinet appointments are still a routine process after a leadership change. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose results of elections or other changes in heads-of-state are usually posted, the minutiae of organizing a cabinet usually haven't been posted in the past. --Jayron32 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Only notable aspect is how delayed this was and that Buhari appointed himself to a position, otherwise it's a routine procedure in any nation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose banana republic acts like a banana republic. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Myanmar electionEdit

Article: Myanma general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The National League for Democracy win a majority in Myanmar's general election (party leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, pictured)'
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: National election. Jolly Ω Janner 06:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I have since updated the article's lead that vote officials have declared the winner. Most of the results are in the article's infobox, although all results won't be updates for a few days. Jolly Ω Janner 06:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In that case well hae to wait for a few days. it wont be stale because the news is when its announced. Can renom them.Lihaas (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This is rather a shame since CNN has reported it will take at least two weeks for all results to be tabulated. I sense there isn't much certainty on the timescale. Hopefully if is in a couple of weeks, the article will be in top shape. Jolly Ω Janner 06:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The results most certainly we be stale if we wait. Now that NLD has crossed the 66% threshold for a majority, the result is certain and the rest is just a matter of how big the majority. No-one will report when the very last seat is called (especially since the vote in a few constituencies is postponed due to violence). By this logic, we should have waited four weeks to post the results of the 2010 UK General Election because Thirsk and Malton's results were delayed. Article could do with more explicit referencing, but it's better shape than many election articles we post. Smurrayinchester 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it may be preferred to use the term "gain" rather than "win" for an election blurb. An electoral majority is not a prize to be won nor an award to be bestowed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This delay in releasing the full results in interminable. By the time we get every single seat back the overall result will be old news. In that situation the natural point to post is once the majority is reached - regardless of what happens with the remaining seats that cannot be changed. That's the point we're at now, so I think we should go ahead and post it. As long as the article makes it clear that there are still seats to declare, we're not misleading anyone. I also support saying 'gains' rather than 'wins', not for the reasons WaltCip gave but because there is a change - we wouldn't say gains if a party was simply renewing and existing majority (perhaps 'regains' in that situation). Modest Genius talk 14:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posting. Someone upload the photo, please. --Tone 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Support this should have gone up once the ruling junta conceded. The news is not so much the specific races, but that an election was allowed at all, that Aung San Suu Kyi was not excluded from the race, and that there will be a peaceful transition of power. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
There were 2 supports. While its ITNR he timing is aso relevant.Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 12Edit