Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2012

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.

October 31Edit

Jurassic turtle graveyardEdit

Article: Shanshan County (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The discovery of an "enormous" graveyard of ancient turtles in Shanshan County, Xinjiang, China, has more than doubled the number of Jurassic turtle specimens known to science (Post)
News source(s): Naturwissenschaften: An enormous Jurassic turtle bone bed from the Turpan Basin of Xinjiang, China; CBS News: Jurassic turtle graveyard found in China

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Paleontology does not often make the news like this. As it is common with bio science news (cf. Fomitiporia ellipsoidea), the actual discovery happened 3 years ago, but the journal article was only published this month, and hit the mass media news just hours ago (see the Google News search). --Vmenkov (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: I would be happier if the ITN item were associated with an article on Annemys or Xinjiangchelyid, rather than the one on the geographic location. But I don't feel competent to write one. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)}}

October 30Edit

P. and S. v. PolandEdit

Article: P. and S. v. Poland (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Court of Human Rights orders Poland to pay damages to a rape victim hindered from receiving an abortion. (Post)
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An abortion rights with implications for other Council of Europe member states. Seems to have received only modest Engilsh-language coverage, though, so maybe a longshot. --Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Meh. Only really big press statement due to pro- and anti-abortion activists. Lasting legal impact seems rather weak. SpencerT♦C 08:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If the pending Irish case is likely to be decided soon then it might be worth bundling the two; this seems to be a high-level but relatively low-profile case (not seen it reported in the news, and it's the kind of thing I'd expect the likes of the BBC or The Guardian to carry). GRAPPLE X 08:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Letitia Baldrige, "Doyenne of Decorum" Recent DeathEdit

Article: Letitia Baldrige (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph UKWashington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "The "Doyenne of Decorum", an early feminist, PR Director for Tiffany's, Secretary for First Lady in Kennedy White House, Head of Own PR firm, twenty books published over sixty-one years, long-running newspaper column, top of etiquette field, Cover of Time Magazine 1978, David Letterman 1985, last book 2007, death noted in major US and UK pubs. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support As nom for recent death, distinguished career, top of field, Cover of Time, death noted outside US. Should be updated okay and ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Aren't you the nominator? How can you nominate and !vote? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
People "vote as nom" all the time, what's your problem? μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Your support is implicit.theBOBbobato (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose At point of her death, article consisted of just 6 sentences of prose: that is an indicator of level of interest our readers/editors have in her. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- It's not that she's American that makes her insignificant, but that she had zero impact outside of America. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose not notable enough. Hot Stop (Edits) 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that she's of little impact outside America is an invalid argument per the guidelines as well as the fact that she has a small article which is totally irrelevant. She was the top etiquette writer in her field, on Time Magazine, and a whole host of other things. I am not surprised that an editorship which is overwhelmingly male and of college age will not personally be interested, but one can always hope such people can think outside their own box. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Where do guidelines state that a small article is invalid grounds to oppose? You might not agree with it as a reason to oppose, but that does not invalidate it. If you read my !vote, you would realise that brevity of article was not the reason for the oppose (the reason was lack of general interest in this person), but the evidence of that reason being present (or indeed absent). Kevin McE (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
What part of Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source is problematic for you? If I thought she were notable enough for a full blurb I'd have nominated her as such. But as it stands the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Businessweek, The Daily Mail, NPR, the Huffington Post, the JFK Presidential Library, the Telegraph, and Bloomberg, as well as Time Magazine all disagree with you on her notability. An objective look at the sources (frankly, I don't care one bit personally about etiqutte books, JFK, Letterman or Time Magazine) is what is called for. This is a ticker nom and she is perfectly suited for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Where have I based an argument on trying to use Wikipedia as a reliable source? You are constantly changing the ground on which you are trying to stand. I am using Wikipedia as evidence of how much interest there is in this person to the readers of wikipedia, which is the principle for inclusion on ITN. Average page views per day in the 3 months before her death were 32. Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Your claim that all these news services deem her notable is irrelevant for ITN. The threshold for posting a news story on an ordinary website is a lot different than our requirements. Otherwise, a lot of the people on this list would get posted, since they often get comparable coverage. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Like whom? Twelve people a year are on the cover of Time Magazine. Fewer than 12 of them deserve a ticker listing out of the 365 or so postings to ITN? Mention one person now getting that coverage we would agree is not for the ticker? μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there are 52, not 12, weeks in a year, and there are some people on the front cover who do not even have a Wikipedia article. Do you really think that Arlenis Sosa will be a shoe in for ITN inclusion if she lives the rest of her life quietly and dies at a ripe old age in about 2070?
My bad, will have to correct that in the article.
It was agreed that a ticker might allow the inclusion of more deaths that are in the news: it was never part of the proposal that it would open the doors to everyone who is included in the obituary columns of newspapers. When there were objections to the proposal on the grounds that it would become stale, the consistent reply was that the ticker could drop off in such times, not that the importance/interest threshhold would drop ever lower to maintain it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Not notable enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 09:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The underlying question is not whether a candidate is intrinsically "good enough" for the ticker or the front page in some sort of Platonic sense, but whether the item is in the news, has a good article, and won't push better candidates off. I understand that Baldrige didn't invent a first-person shooter, but she is notable, in the news, and not in competition with any better noms. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Literary great diesEdit

Article: J. Bernlef (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News source
Article needs updating
  • Comment: Article has a death update (quote should be translated into English), but the article as a whole is too brief. SpencerT♦C 07:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough doktorb wordsdeeds 07:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose At point of his death, article was a stub: that is an indicator of level of interest our readers/editors have in him. Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If the article (including the bibliography) could be bought to the level of the Dutch article I'd support this for the ticker.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeSurl (talkcontribs)
But it is past the level of the Dutch article. It has more references. -- (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The number of references is largely irrelevant to article quality. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the ticker. I thought the point of the ticker, rather than full entries, was to help names like this pass to keep systemic bias in death noms to a minimum? Guy seems to be a big name in the Netherlands, after all, and the ticker's looking pretty spartan at the minute. GRAPPLE X 22:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think strict worry about updates is necessary for big articles, but this one is just a little short. A few more sentences should be easily possible. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the ticker once this is updated. I just spent two hours updating Letitia Baldrige, so someone else will have to do this one. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: For someone considered "one of the greats of Dutch literature", his article on the Dutch Wikipedia is rather spare. SpencerT♦C 23:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Despite the size of the article, he was a pretty large literary figure. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rosneft acquires TNK-BPEdit

Articles: Rosneft (talk, history) and TNK-BP (talk, history)
Blurb: Rosneft acquires TNK-BP becoming the world's biggest oil company by production. (Post)
News source(s): BP, Rosneft reach for skies but challenges ahead, AFP
Both articles need updating
suppot if RS indicated the largestcompany is resultedLihaas (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as it sounds like while the deal to acquire is close, it is not yet finalized. It would be ITN-worthy once the acquisition is complete (any regulatory agencies need to get involved?) --MASEM (t) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if this ever happens, but as the title of the source indicates, this is far from a done deal. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The deal is tentative, and isn't making major news. Unlike the merger noted several slots down, which is actual In The News. When the deal is finalized (like, when papers are signed) and they are actually one company, and this is blowing up all of the relevant news sites, let's revisit this. --Jayron32 00:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the cited source, this isn't happening for a bit. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Penguin/Random House mergerEdit

Articles: Penguin Group (talk, history) and Random House (talk, history)
Blurb: Penguin Group and Random House agree to merge to form world's largest publisher. (Post)
News source(s): [2] [3]
Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Random House, Inc. is the largest general-interest trade book publisher in the world

  • Support - This is a huge deal. Genuine news from the world of the book industry. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Also a significant business deal – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose until clarity on what thsi creates . The world's largest publisher? Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    Random House is already the world's largest publisher. Penguin is the second largest. Their merger creates a super publisher: one quarter of all books will come from these guys. --RA (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. According to BBC News yesterday, this'll account for over a quarter of book revenues, which is a staggering market share. Obviously this is a major merger. GRAPPLE X 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support though it would be nice to have some dollar figure on the "size" of the merge. Lacking that, Grapple's 25% of market statement would be nice to work in to emphasize the impact. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question- I'm confused. Did one buy the other, or was it a merger? Will the new name be one of these two companies? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Merger; the new company is "Penguin Random House" (per the WSJ article) --MASEM (t) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A major business deal. Finally, some minority topics are getting attention! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is far more significant for the domain area than Disney acquiring Lucas Film. --RA (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Completed deal, clearly in the news, articles are in a fine shape. I'm also marking "ready". Will let another admin post. --Jayron32 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Removing ready. Both articles need more of an update than what currently exists. SpencerT♦C 07:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Specifics: In Random House, all I see is In October 2012, Bertelsmann entered into talks with rival conglomerate Pearson plc, over the possibility of combining their respective publishing companies, Penguin and Random House. The merged company would be known as Penguin Random House.[5] which doesn't go over finer specifics of the deal and is rather vague. The update in Penguin Group is almost exactly the same, and doesn't make it seem like the deal is definitive yet. SpencerT♦C 07:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A highly important development in the industry (and those industries both connected and competing against) doktorb wordsdeeds 07:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per GrappleX. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support already. This is massive, man! If ITN can showcase Walt Disney and Lucasfilms what's the hold-up here? It's Penguin and Random House. They'd be big enough on their own! -- (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The hold up is the fact that the articles are not updated yet. SpencerT♦C 21:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a huge announcement, the world's largest publishing company is merging with the world's second largest.--xanchester (t) 11:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've created Penguin Random House as a stub. Along with the Penguin Group and Random House articles, it needs a considerable amount of expansion.--xanchester (t) 11:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am ready to support this on notability grounds but the referencing in both articles needs work. Please use Wikipedia:Citation templates to name the article you are referencing to and the publication where it appeared (as opposed to using bare URLs aka. Wikipedia:Embedded citations). Also, although I am not categorically opposed to referencing paywalled publications, the Financial Times citation could be probably easily replaced by a freely viewable counterpart in a non-paywalled publication. --hydrox (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Thank you if you would please highlight a possibly shrinking industry. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - A notable and important development that is ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this ends up not being posted due to lack of an update, we could possibly revisit this story when the merger is completed (sometime in 2013, I believe). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I seem to be in the minority, but while this would be noteworthy in a business magazine, I don't feel it would be here, at least for the ITN section. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    One quarter of all books world-wide will be published by the new group. Surely you agree that is something interesting to readers of an encyclopaedia? --RA (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lucasfilm/Star WarsEdit

Articles: Lucasfilm (talk, history) and Star Wars (talk, history)
Blurb: The Walt Disney Company announces an agreement to purchase Lucasfilm for US$4.05 billion, as well as their intention to produce additional Star Wars films. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Walt Disney Company announces an agreement to purchase Lucasfilm for US$4.05 billion and produce additional Star Wars films.
News source(s): [4], [5]

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: This may be a longshot. It's not exactly hard news, but I thought it was pretty interesting nonetheless. Then again, maybe I'm just a big nerd. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support knowing that ITN normally frowns on business stories , but this is a significant shakeup in Hollywood (not to mention the billion dollar figure) which does also affect much of the rest of the world in this case. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Tend toward weak oppose on commercial grounds, but won't vote yet. But that blurb is just too, too long. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's as short as I could think to make it, but I agree that it's a bit long. One alternative might be "The Walt Disney Company announces an agreement to purchase Lucasfilm for US$4.05 billion and produce additional Star Wars films." --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe my Star Wars nerdiness is showing a little too, but I'm going to say that the sale is notable not only for the billion with a "b" price tag, but also because part of what has made Lucas so successful was that he retained the rights of Star Wars back when he first negotiated with the studio prior to production of Episode 4, more than 35 years ago. Is ILM part of the sale? I'm unclear on that. Oh yeah, and we're getting Episodes 7, 8, and 9, which brings some real ambivalence out of me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I would say so, it's a subsidiary. Same goes for Lucasarts. Snowolf How can I help? 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Weak support I like (hence weak) and think this is a suitably globally notable issue and one which is "in the news". A reasonably big purchase price, two major players in the industry, a sort-of commitment to follow up with more episodes of the most successful science fiction film franchise ever in the history of history, I'd say yay to main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There is a massive difference between this and the Microsoft press release below. Here we have a massive corporate development featuring some of the biggest names in cinema history with consequences for more than just upcoming films. Microsoft released a new operating system that looks a bit pretty. There's no contest. I think this is 2012's biggest business event. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Prefer proposed alt blurb. Major corporate deal, as well as the continuation of the 3rd-highest grossing film series of all time. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously, these are two major companies and it involves one of the most popular movie franchases of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Big news for a franchise with hundreds of millions of fans worldwide. (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just because you dressed like Luke Skywalker or watched the little mermaid does not mean this is significant. Setting one or two film records isn't significant either. LucasFilm owns two major piece of IP, have flogged them both to death, and made some dollars. Whooop de doo. Biggest deal ever? Nope. Biggest deal in the business? Negative. Lucasfilm is just an IP owner, there isn't much changing hands. This is no more significant that T-Mobile buying metro PCS. It's a totally mundane routine business deal, and it's staggeringly not news. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody says it has to be record breaking to be newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as Disney gains things like ILM, LucasArts, and the most popular franchise in movie history. Significant from a business aspect, and HIGHLY significant from a cultural aspect as Star Wars encompasses many other medias than just film, which IP98 doesn't seem to understand. --PlasmaTwa2 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I get it: Films, video games, lunch pails, bed sheets, tv shows, toilet paper, action figures, etc etc etc. But it's just one property. It's star wars. It's nothing. Universal buying Disney, no brainer, but this is powered 100% by emotion. It's worthless. --IP98 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support all $1b+ takeovers. They are sufficiently uncommon and notable enough to be recurring items. - (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (edit conflict) Huge news in the entertainment world. Star Wars is a billion-dollar franchise and one of the most popular in the world. Now that it's under new ownership, Disney could ruin it, or make it better (hopefully the latter, probably the former knowing Disney). -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only the purchase (a huge acquisition); 'oppose specifically highlighting Star Wars or any other specific franchise. GRAPPLE X
  • Support- This is huge news, but please don't mention Star Wars. That's being biased in choosing which franchise is most important. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull in light of two (and definitely one) far more significant mergers above. --RA (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not how ITN works. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-post support Major news story, based on coverage in reliable news sources, and articles are in a decent shape, with appropriate updates. Based on what ITN is, this meets the criteria. --Jayron32 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I wish I could've commented earlier, but Sandy stopped that. Regardless, this is a pretty big story. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't seem noteworthy as an ITN event, even if it is noteworthy in a business magazine or sci-fi magazine. I also agree with IP98. 331dot (talk) 6:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Hurricane Sandy stickyEdit

withdrawn --Jayron32 05:00, 31 October 2012 (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.

  • Given the widespread effects of Sandy and the frequently changing and voluminous news coming out about it, which can be expected for a few days, would it be too early to discuss converting the Sandy blurb to a sticky? We could perhaps replace the Syria war sticky with this one. While the Syrian war is still going on, the war has reached a sort of steady-state, without any "new" news on any given day. The Sandy situation is dynamic and actively changing and would be well suited for a sticky. Any opinions on the matter? --Jayron32 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a sticky would be largely redundant. The event itself is projected to last for less than a week, and I take it as given that we will update the blurb at least once more, possibly twice. By the time the updated blurb falls off of ITN, there will probably no longer be a justification for a sticky. —WFCFL wishlist 07:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong objection. The toll in the US is 20% of that in the Caribbean islands, so anything that generates coverage that is not in proportion to that is pure systemic bias. We already have the appalling position of making 65 deaths no more than a minor clause to the indignation that nature has dared to infringe upon US soil. Kevin McE (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
oh please, your holier than thou act is tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It is just as tiresome when people forget the rest of the world exists, as those in the United States are prone to do at times. And whatever about the rest of the world, what about Haiti—your neighbour (or neighbor as I believe you spell it). It's had it far, far worse. No reports of cholera in New York yet. -- (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As per WFC, a sticky is not necessary. However we could keep it at/near the top of the list until it stops being a lethal storm, which I think is what the OP was implying anyway. LukeSurl t c 10:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You cannot be serious - replace Syria with this? There were car bombings in Damascus yesterday and people are dying in their hundreds there every day. And Haiti has been absolutely pulverized, yet the only attention this got from the English-language media before it landed in the United States was its imminent arrival in the United States(!) -- (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we can put this one to bed by now. More people are killed in Syria or Afghanistan every day of the year than the damage this inflicted on the US mainland. It has inconvenienced a lot of Americans, and has flooded our news (for no apparent reason) but as stated elsewhere, dozens more were killed before the storm hit the US, this really isn't a sticky subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it flooded our news the way it flooded Manhattan streets and subway system. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But it didn't flood streets and subway systems in Europe (yet anyway) so why is it flooding the news here while Haiti is virtually being ignored? -- (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose sticky. People will be getting back to their normal routines by the end of the week. The war in Syria rages on. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The worst is past us. The point of stickies is to prevent one topic from dominating ITN. One blurb is all that is needed for Sandy. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (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.

Hurricane SandyEdit

Article: Hurricane Sandy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​It is confirmd that Hurricane Sandy has killed 16 people in the United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Sandy has made landfall in the U.S and Canada, killing 17 people, having killed 69 in the Caribbean.
News source(s): [6], [7], [8]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Hurricane Sandy has killed 16 people in the US. Should be mentioned in ITN. --> --Lucky102 (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - If we're going to include the US death toll, let's have "...makes landfall...killing X in the United States and Canada, having previously killed Y in the Caribbean." (Checking to see if more recent figures are available for the Caribbean while we're at it.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Done.--Lucky102 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the new alt-blurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Limited support for alt blurb: better than existing text, but dead people are dead people of equal tragedy, and do not need to be subdivided by nationality. Kevin McE (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kevin McE that deaths are equal, and I find the idea of subdividing by nationality troublesome. I would suggest not trying to estimate the North American deaths until the storm has passed as while the disaster is ongoing estimates are going to be very difficult to achieve. Suggest, once storm has passed, "Hurricane Sandy hits the Caribbean and North America, killing at least X" LukeSurl t c 12:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • How about an alternate, alternate blurb as follows:
      • Hurricane Sandy causes widespread damage and loss of life in the Caribbean and eastern North America.
    • That covers our bases, doesn't emphasize any one country over another, and readers can still click the blue link to learn more. --Jayron32 12:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was thinking more of the time-difference between events in the Caribbean and those on the mainland; I wasn't intending a specifically national divide. I stand by my support for the alt-blurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The effects of this have been massive. The entire metropolitan area of NY and several other cities has effectively been shut down. All mass transit is closed for at least 2 days; all bridges and tunnels to/from Manhattan and Staten island were closed; damage everywhere you look. Over 2 million people are without power. The entire financial district of Manhattan was flooded as were other districts. Several weather experts are saying this is the worst storm to hit the area in over 100 years. No, due to it being a modern country with robust disaster response resources, and that there was time to prepare, 'only' 15+ people were killed compared with over 60 in the Caribbean; but the effects in other ways are more than notable--they're historic. As far as the sticky is concerned above I am against that per WFC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Given we have damage reports, a new blurb based on that is justified. But a vaguer blurb makes no sense. Why then even change it? And being informative is not playing favorites. The US death total (18 now) seems relevant, as is the record flooding of NYC with many subways fully under water, 100 homes burnt down in Queens, the WTC site flooded and Wall Street closed for two days the first time in 100 years. But combining the death totals from events a week apart will make people think we are saying all (69+18=87) died in the US. I think something like altblurb:
Hurricane Sandy kills 69 in the Caribbean, 18 across the North East US and Canada, and causes the worst flood in New York City history.
is terse and informative. μηδείς (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe one of the mainland fatalities was in Toronto. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly support Medeis' new altblurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Added. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Which blurb should I use?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the blurb, but I doubt it's to anyone's liking. First, there seemed to be some desire to put more information about the storm's effects in the U.S., instead of just the fact it made landfall. There has been a lot of focus on the flooding in New York, and rightfully so for a major influential city, but the "worst flooding" claim is not actually in the article, so I didn't put that. The two things that people seem to keep repeating are in regards to (a) mentioning the loss of human life and (b) treating the Caribbean and the United States equally. For the first point, we are not compelled to mention death at every corner; it goes without saying that a storm that has caused widespread damage has killed people, and the numbers are imprecise at the moment. (Note, for example, that the suggest blurbs mention fewer than twenty people killed in the U.S.; the article puts that number above 200). So, we really don't need to mention it; the number of people killed is not the particularly notable aspect of this story, as is rarely the case when hurricanes strike developed countries. As for the second point, it struck Jamaica six days ago and effectively left the Caribbean a few days ago. Were it not for its effect on the U.S., Hurricane Sandy would be off ITN by now. There's no need to go into depth about what happened a few days ago when the story is what's happening now in the United States. (And, likewise, I've omitted Canada, as the damage does not seem to be as significant, even if not insignificant, so far north.) Keeping detail for the purpose of some supposed equality, at the expense of more pertinent information, is a terrible idea. -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Flooding in parts of NYC" is meaningless, that happens every time it rains. It was the worst flood in city history. "Widespread damage" is also meaningless, a death toll (up to 33 now) gives a much better visceral impression of the impact. Linking to East Coast of the United States is unnecessarily vague and quite inaccurate. Pennsylvania and West Virginia are not on the coast, the unaffected states of Maine, Florida, Georgia, etc., are. You have left out Canada. (Not that anybody cares?) I strongly suggest the much more accurate and informative: Hurricane Sandy kills 69 in the Caribbean, 33 across the North East US and Canada, and causes the worst flood in New York City history. (18 in the US and Canada is okay if you're worried about space.) μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There isn't a single point you mentioned that I haven't already refuted. (Well, the U.S. death toll must have been mistakenly input into the article; it's not more than 200, but it's still not just 18.) If you have a counterpoint to anything I said, or want to fix some of the issues, then sure, but you haven't, so no. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Not refuted? So you think PA and WV are on the coast, Maine and Florida were impacted, that "flooding of parts of NYC" doesn't happen all the time, and that this wasn't a historic flood? Your opinion that vagueness is preferable is not refutable since it is just that, opinion--but your facts are inadequate. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
So what you're telling me is it's not OK to say there was widespread damage on the "East Coast of the United States" because that includes parts where there was no damage, while it's OK to say there were people killed by this storm in the "U.S. and Canada" even though the vast majorities of those two countries never saw the storm. Okay, got it. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the suggestion that Philadelphia or Pennsylvania is on "the East Coast". Except you apparently. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Revert - There was no consensus for that change, which doesn't reflect anyone's perspective except tariqabjotu's. Can we have a civilised discussion instead of a rush to judgment, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    Making changes to a blurb is generally admin's discretion. Consensus is not needed to make changes to a blurb. That being said, if there was a consensus for something else and I willfully ignored it, sure, you might have a case for forcing a change. But that's not the case; there isn't consensus here for anything, except the fact that the previous blurb needed updating. -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
let's ignore for a second, the question of the hurricane as a whole, and just look at the flooding in NYC. Does anyone dispute that had this same flooding occured without the rest of Sandy it would have made it to ITN? If so, would the blurb read "There is flooding in parts of NYC" or "There is historic flooding in NYC"? (It is indeed the worst flooding, 13.88 feet, since the cities' founding. [9][10]. Regardless of whether we think extensive damage is more informative than 33 deaths in the US and Canada, or that West Virginia is on the East Coast, can we please change the vague "including flooding in parts of New York City" to "including record flooding in New York City"? μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't like repeating myself, so I won't. You would do well, however, to read the comments you respond to. -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure we need to dicker about the specifics of the exact wording here. If there was widespread objection to the existing wording, it would of course need to be changed, but do we really need to fight over exactly how to describe the geographic location of the damage at this point? Whether or not the blurb is perfect, it is certainly acceptable, and well within editorial discretion. If there's a better blurb anyone has in mind, propose it, and allow people to support it or not. But don't fight and make demands that the current blurb be changed. If you have an objection to it or an alternative, lodge the objective or provide the alternative, and let the community either care or not. If the community is OK with this, there's no inherent need to press forward with any changes. To simplify: Proposing a change, leaving it for the community to decide an up or down vote, and making no further comments = useful. Arguing incessantly and repeatedly between the same two people = not useful. Decide whether you want to be useful or not useful. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That's hardly fair, Jayron. I gave a detailed rationale for my blurb, which does not amount to "fighting" or insisting. Alex Tiefling supported it wholeheartedly. Yet Tariqabjotu made up his own blurb without discussion or any relation to either mine or the listed altblurb, and has just said that he's an admin, and it's his call, so there. I am quite happy to see whether others support my blurb or the one listed as altblurb. I don't see the point in my being told not to explain my reasons. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure how Tariqabjotu's unilateral blundering-in gets to be all over the home page. I like reasonably brisk decision-making, but can there at least be some attempt at consensus and process, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it simply isn't possible to develop a consensus in time to have an ideal (rather than acceptable) blurb. We're working in terms of hours or less here when changes need to be made, and if we made massive changes every time one or two people objected or request a change, it would never be stable. The current blurb may not be perfect, but I'm not sure it is terribly useful to demand that it be changed based on the opinion of two people. This isn't a contest with winners and losers. Tariq doesn't get a "prize" because his text is visible and you don't suffer a "loss" because your text is not. Tariq's text is not incorrect, it isn't under widespread opposition (judged by the lack of readers who have objected at WP:ERRORS, which will generally attract some objection to just about anything). Luke's point is salient here: We still have time to develop a better blurb here, its just that there's no impending reason to take down the current blurb because it isn't wrong. Again, if your goal is merely to "win", I have no idea how to fix that problem. You're simply not going to win, because this isn't a contest. It doesn't have winners and losers. If your goal is to develop the best possible blurb, take the time to do that here on this page, and don't change anything until that's done, and if the blurb we eventually come up with is better, but not on the front page this minute that's OK. I have no objection to crafting a better blurb on this page, and then posting it. I do have objection to demanding instant change to something that isn't horrifyingly wrong. --Jayron32 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
This situation has developed too rapidly for a blurb scripted a few hours prior to be that relevant. Tariqabjotu's blurb seems fine. Now that the storm's weakening, we can probably think about a "final" blurb for ITN that summarises the whole of the hurricane's impact. LukeSurl t c 20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support of current blurb. The situation is rapidly developing so new developments certainly could emerge that would make the current blurb obsolete, but right now it's fine.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support of current blurb Nothing is wrong with it. The worst is past us, and there won't be much else to report. The current blurb is sufficient enough. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

October 29Edit

[Update made] Hurricane SandyEdit

Article: Hurricane Sandy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Caribbean, at least 65 deaths are linked to widespread damage caused by Hurricane Sandy (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​After killing at least 65 in the Caribbean, Hurricane Sandy makes landfall in Cape May County, New Jersey"
News source(s): Huffington Post Fox News AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is in the news right now (check it out if you don't believe me) and the Wikipedia article is in a decent state. Given those criteria, this seems like it is main page ready. --Jayron32 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) --Jayron32 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • ...So just update it when the news from the East Coast becomes clear? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The blurb could be reflected that much of NYC and the eastern seaboard is shutting down this afternoon in preparation for the strike, but I think it will be better to wait to see what/if damage it does to the shoreline (eg wait until tomorrow to see what comes). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Why? Isn't the article in a decent state now? There's many lines of text on the effect on the Caribbean already in the article. If and when further damage is included in the article, the blurb can be updated, but I think we have plenty here on its effects already in the Caribbean that we don't have to wait for anything to happen to the U.S. --Jayron32 14:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
        • The point it, it is already on the main page in the ITN box, after the 40+ deaths in the Caribbean. Now it is about 3-5 hrs out from hitting the NE US seaboard, and that will likely need a blurb change if there's major effects there. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A simple factual update and bump to the top will be justified around 8-10pm local time when the storm makes landfall. Something like Altblurb: "After killing at least 65 in the Caribbean, Hurricane Sandy makes landfall in Cape May, New Jersey" (or wherever it hits). This factual and encyclopedic, rather than sensationalist focus will avoid the the typical media obsession on New York City for a storm that will strike south of Philadelphia. Further updates can be made once the damage is clear in the following days. μηδείς (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this, although it's clear from storm surge predictions that although the eye will make landfall somewhere down the far end of NJ, the shape of the New York Bight means that NYC will have an especially rough time of it. But I do think that the purely technical update will be fine until the human impact on the mainland can be assessed more clearly. NYC is not, after all, the centre of the universe. (Everyone knows that's London, right?) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you mean the south end of NJ, not the far end. As a New Yorker I feel comfortable saying that. μηδείς (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Touché. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Greenwich to be precise. -- (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am an idiot. Feel free to withdraw this now. I totally didn't see it in the ITN template already. I would support an update and bump when conditions warrent, but yeah, sorry about all of that. Close this someone and someone can deliver me a whack with a medium-sized freshwater game fish at your earliest convenience. --Jayron32 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I did think it was odd this seemed higher than I remembered--that's okay Jayron, it does need updating, and this should just be treated as the discussion for that. Local news here is in a panic, but I guess that goes without saying. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A lot of edit conflicts, but the article is updated to reflect the blurb info. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support that update Just as Medeis proposed above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    •   Done per Medeis's update. A little bit of WP:BOLD and a little more WP:IAR, but I don't forsee this being opposed on the grounds of the update. --Jayron32 01:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly object to current update: merely making landfall is something we would not even remotely consider posting for storms/hurricanes/typhoons anywhere else in the world. Making 65 Caribbean deaths subsidiary to the mere fact of reaching land is an appalling level of bias. We didn't even bother acknowledging the dignity of sovereign nations enough to name them in its progress through the Caribbean: now the identity of the nearest town is considered important! Also immensely disrespectful to those who have died in the US: the loss of their relatives is ignored to record the long inevitable fact of the storm reaching land. Suggest The death toll of Hurricane Sandy reaches 78 after it reaches the US. Kevin McE (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the current update. The making landfall in the US is what is in the news right now. The current blurb also usefully discusses the Caribbean impact (a few days ago, casualties largely known) and the US impact (current, largely unknown effect) in the most succinct way I can think of. LukeSurl t c 10:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The effects of this have been massive. The entire metropolitan area of NY and several other cities has effectively been shut down. All mass transit is closed for at least 2 days; all bridges and tunnels to/from Manhattan and Staten island were closed; damage everywhere you look. Over 2 million people are without power. The entire financial district of Manhattan was flooded as were other districts. Several weather experts are saying this is the worst storm to hit the area in over 100 years. No, due to it being a modern country with robust disaster response resources, and that there was time to prepare, 'only' 15+ people were killed compared with over 60 in the Caribbean; but the effects in other ways are more than notable--they're historic. As far as the sticky is concerned above I am against that per WFC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 28Edit

[Posted] 2012 World SeriesEdit

Article: 2012 World Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The San Francisco Giants win the 2012 World Series against the Detroit Tigers. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today

Article updated

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

 --MASEM (t) 04:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: Definitely needs to specify that this is baseball ("In baseball, the San Francisco Giants..." would work). GRAPPLE X 04:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can we get a quick update on Game 4 as well? It's definitely ITNR, but it would be nice if all 4 games were updated with text. --Jayron32 04:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Somewhat notable. Jusdafax 05:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - major sporting event. --Jethro B 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Post Alreaday (sic). ITNR and updated. Are we waiting for a phone call from God? μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R (without any objection that I know of, article already updated and in pretty good shape. Should be up ASAP. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lithuanian electionEdit

Article: Lithuanian parliamentary election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Social Democrats win a plurality of seats in the Lithuanian parliamentary election (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Businessweek, NYT

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: Second round is over, results are complete. Could need some lines of prose (reactions etc.) --RJFF (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support results in, ready go. --RA (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Updated: Two paragraphs of prose about the outcome and reactions have been added. The results are complete, the article is up to date. Ready to be posted? --RJFF (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 12:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian electionEdit

Article: Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Party of Regions wins a plurality in the Ukrainian parliamentary election (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Russia Today The Wall Street Journal

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.

 --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 21:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, obviously notable.Egeymi (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Very notable election, no update, purple disambig tag not a problem. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait for result - the results aren't in yet. Exit polls put Party of the Regions on ~28% and United Opposition Fatherland on ~25%, but the count hasn't taken place. Also, if those estimates are correct, PoR will have a "plurality", not a "majority". --RA (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Now There's no need to wait for exact results that will be updated when we have them, a link to the article as it stands now is appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    Exit polls can be wrong. Image related.
    Counting is on-going, and should be completed this evening, let's wait for the result and not post based on predictions. --RA (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. An article that is not up to date cannot be featured in ITN. The incoming results are still contradictory (first exit polls showed opposition in lead, preliminary results from the electoral commission favor the governing party), the article should inform about reported irregularities, observers' comments, domestic and international reactions. --RJFF (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Jorge LorenzoEdit

Articles: Jorge Lorenzo (talk, history) and 2012 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season (talk, history)
Blurb: Jorge Lorenzo wins the MotoGP world championship Riders' title for a second year. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support ITN/R yada yada yada... --Τασουλα (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it be alarming that the last 7 races don't have articles? –HTD 05:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
That's what comes from ITNR. It should be removed as a subcategory and let all fight for their own. μηδείς (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

October 27Edit

Death: Hans Werner HenzeEdit

Article: Hans Werner Henze (talk, history)
Blurb: ​German composer Hans Werner Henze dies at the age of 86 (Post)
News source(s): BBC News

Article needs updating

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 11:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't have strong feelings about the notability or non-notability of this nom, but the article seems to fall very short in sourcing. Only 5 footnotes, one of which is to Twitter and another is flagged as "not in citation given", over 20 or so paragraphs. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If it would only be about notability, I would easily support this nomination, as Henze was a very important modern composer for sure. But the lack of footnotes is a problem. --RJFF (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion is exactly the same as RJFF. Happy to see this go up on notability grounds, if sourcing is provided. —WFCFL wishlist 17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone recommend a well received or popular work or two of his? Reader interest in him is about half Barzun's according to check views. Barzun's writing is widely available. But for a musician I'd like to heaer some of the music. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
E.g. this, this or this. The number of readers might correlate with Barzun being American, or the relatively minor popularity of modern opera music. --RJFF (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Amazon has Henze's most popular work ranked 74,000 in music, with Barzun's book ranked 60. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, the article has not been adequately updated. --RJFF (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • weak support Is this going anywhere? Several comments above seem to be supports. I don't consider myself opposed. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

October 26Edit

[Posted] Rakhine riotsEdit

Article: 2012 Rakhine State riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least sixty people are killed in fighting between Buddhists and Muslims in Rakhine State, Burma. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Los Angeles Time

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Beyond the death toll (which already is said by some sources to be worse than June's), thousands of homes have been destroyed and many more Rohingya (Burmese Muslims) find themselves caught between the Bangladeshi and Burmese borders. As for coverage, it's currently on the front page of Al Jazeera and New York Times (though it's small on the latter); was in the top five for BBC earlier today. --Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Support, nothing much to add apart from the nominator's comments. It's relevant, high death toll and a developing story. Iowafromiowa (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, as stated above notable and developing story. And it is another example of secterian conflict.Egeymi (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This appears to be a major story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The BBC have reported that the Burmese government has claimed responsibility for the burning of civilian properties. This rises above the background rumbling of this conflict, and is a clearly notable incident. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready? - This one ready, then? Lots of support, 8-10 sentence sourced update. -- Khazar2 (talk)
Yes, ready. --RJFF (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 21:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane SandyEdit

Article: Hurricane Sandy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 42 people are killed after Hurricane Sandy passes through the Caribbean. (Post)
News source(s): [12]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: More damage and disruption is expected if/when it hits the United States, but it seems to be notable enough to post now due to the damage already inflicted in the Caribbean. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Support – Agree per nomination. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support All indications are this name will end up being retired. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable death toll, and it could grow if storm grows. Jusdafax 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Significant doktorb wordsdeeds 06:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, just for ITN.Egeymi (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep this as top story and update blurb as necessary as the situation develops, only let it drop once the storm has dissipated. This is an exceptional case of a news story being continually notable for several days. LukeSurl t c 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Intellectual Jacques Barzun dies at 104Edit

Article: Jacques Barzun (talk, history)
Blurb: ​for recent deaths (Post)
News source(s): Wash PostNouvel Observateur

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Described in the Wash Post as "one of the foremost intellectuals of the 20th century", "someone to whom experts turn for help in their fields", described in Newsweek as "one of the great one-man shows of Western letters." Academic, cultural historian, noted for scholarly comments on music and baseball, Cover of Time Magazine in 1956, Published his NYT best-selling magnum opus at 92 in 2000, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner in 2003. Knight in the French Legion of Honor, A very high quality candidate. ---- μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well he was American after all, so them thinking that in New York and Washington is hardly surprising. Time 100 mainly features Americans. What does the rest of the world think of him? -- (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "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." --Jayron32 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
According to his article, Barzun was awarded a knighthood in the French Legion of Honor. His career, spawning "dizaines d'oeuvres et d'essais sur tous les genres, allant de la philosophie aux romans noirs", is noted in France's biggest news weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, which said "il a connu un rayonnement international avec la sortie de "From dawn to decadence". As for the IP editor, what a tragedy for him not to be American, or smart enough like Barzun to move to America, where everyone gets a President Medal of Freedom for just being American. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Barzun is not especially associated with America, except for his efforts in Houser of Intellect and the like. And of course he was born French. (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Clarifying a) I'm not anyone else in this thread, b) I meant Barzun subject matter wasn't assoc. with America, he himself is, and C) no opinion on ready or not, just corrected a typo when it was first marked so. (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, very suitable for RD as suggested.Egeymi (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Sorry I am unfamiliar with him but the news reports are impressive enough to justify support. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready There are no opposes and no tags. The article is updated. [13]. I am the nominator, but I am confident there is no problem marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • International for those who fear the French are biased: Rheinischer Post (de), La Presse (it), Vanguardia (es). μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support An important and impressive figure doktorb wordsdeeds 06:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not ready I'm starting to think the [Ready] tag should be discontinued considering half of the time it's put up when there clearly is no update. A single twelve-word sentence does not constitute a sufficient update, even for the death ticker. -- tariqabjotu 07:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready I am not sure how you get only one sentence of twelve words. This is indeed well updated, going from 18,719 bytes to 21,570 since his death. Compare [14]. I see six new sentences/phrases beginning: (1) and for his New York Times best-selling magnum opus, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, published in 2000, when he was 93 years of age. (lead), (2) was a drama critic of the Columbia Daily Spectator (life), (3) Barzun died peacefully in his home (life), (4) His widely quoted statement, “Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.” was inscribed on a plaque at the Baseball Hall of Fame. (career), (5) With this work he gained an international reputation. (career), (6) In his philosophy of writing history, Barzun emphasized the role of storytelling over the use of academic jargon and detached analysis. He concluded in From Dawn to Decadence that "history cannot be a science; it is the very opposite, in that its interest resides in the particulars." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
In practice the update usually is at least one full paragraph on the death itself. While I broadly agree updated content elsewhere in the article should be considered, 6 new sentences spread throughout the article is not enough IMO. I agree it's not ready. Also, the article is rated start-class. Also the ready tag was added inappropriately.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, if there is much to add to the article arising from what is published after his death, there was evidently little interest in making his article comprehensive before his death. So If his article was not of great interest to our readership a week ago, why should we assume that it is now. Therefore oppose Kevin McE (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
KevinMcE, I've certainly used that line of oppose before, and I do think there's some validity to it. But many wikipedia articles are undeveloped relative to either the subject's notability or reader interest. On-wiki interest isn't always a fair gauge.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You might not think so: fine, don't use it. I chose to, so please don't tell me what reasons I can and can't use. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Whoa. Johnsemlak, I'm sorry but you and Tariqabjotu seem to be inventing rules. Can you guys please point to where it says which five sentences matter? Because of the diversity of content, each article is unique and needs to be evaluated individually, in my view. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Super-Duper Updated I have added another 3,000 bytes to the article, three rather jam packed bits of commentary on the scope of his life from the NYT, the WSJ and The Telegraph. This should fulfill any requirement that the update relate to the death. The nomination is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Susan, the five sentence update has long been the standard for an article update (I believe that's specified in the page on admin instructions for editing the ITN template) for any ITN blurb. Whether the same update standard needs to be applied for death-ticker nominations is not something we've resolved I believe. As I've posted on the talk page, I don't think we should have the same standard for the recent deaths ticker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right, instructions for admins are pretty clear. Just keep in mind there's no requirement that those five sentences have to be about anything in particular. Sorry I reacted. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi sentenced to 4 years in prisonEdit

Article: Silvio Berlusconi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Italian prime-minister Silvio Berlusconi is sentenced to four years in prison for tax fraud (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 ---- Ashish-g55 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Highly notable figure... this would call for obvious support from me atleast -- Ashish-g55 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Conviction with a jail term for a leading politician and rich and powerful public figure is very noteworthy. --PopularMax (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly notable international story doktorb wordsdeeds 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • International? How? Thue (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Jail sentence for an ex-premier is clearly noteworthy, especially one with a history like Berlusconi, whose businesses always played a huge role in his career. Regards SoWhy 15:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Surprised this isn't up already, it should be assuming it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am unfamiliar with the rules, is it convictions that are ITN material? Or when they go to prison? Speciate (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Its upto us to decide. In this case i would say it makes no difference if he goes to prison or not, just the fact he got convicted is quite big -- Ashish-g55 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
We had some problems with the Italian earthquake story. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Conviction is for a former prime minister who was in the U.S. news frequently. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • zOMG Italian Cultural Bias! How many Italy stories are we gonna post here! We need more diversity! Oh, yeah, support Major news, former world leader gets convicted is a pretty highly important story, and this one is easy to see that it's all over the major news outlets. --Jayron32 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per those above, clearly notable. It's unlikely he'll actually see the inside of a jail cell (thanks largely to some loopholes created by laws he passed), so this is the best time to post. LukeSurl t c 19:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, certainly notable, no need to state the reasons.Egeymi (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Obviously ITN-worthy; like others I don't understand the delay. Jusdafax 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    Well, there's no sufficient update, for one thing. -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    Yep, that's why. I just read the article closely and this jail sentence appears to only be mentioned briefly at the end of the lede. Wish I could help but am unable to spare extra time. Anyone? Jusdafax 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Updated I have added three more sentences re the conviction, sentencing, reduction of sentence, fines and disbarment from office. There is a tag complaining the lead is too long, but that strikes me as bollocks for such a big article. I am marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8Edit

Article: Windows 8 (talk, history)
Blurb: Microsoft releases the Windows 8 operating system. (Post)
News source(s): Microsoft

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Featuring the new Metro interface paradigm and desktop-tablet fusion, it is not just another Windows release but a big gamble by Microsoft. A very respectable percentage of the planet's population will use it at some point. Yes, it is a product release, but a significant one. Windows has a huge monopolistic market share, so it is fair to feature this and not Mac OS X or Linux. Thue (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is a press release, not news. Wikipedia is not a billboard, PR team, promoter or commercial platform. ITN is not a tech blog doktorb wordsdeeds 12:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral, The release of a new Windows OS is important news to myself and many others, and I feel impartial news coverage could be applied here like it is on many sites. But I cannot support for reasons belonging to how much news coverage this has garnered, and the general impact of this. --Klak of Klak (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No iPhone 5, no Windows 8. Simple.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Changed to support - We did post Windows 7.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Suppose I would support if Windows 7 and Windows Vista were posted in their time, but oppose otherwise. This isn't just about tablets - it is supposed to be the next version of desktop as well. But will offices upgrade to Windows 8? I don't think they will. How many offices have or want touchscreens? Computers aren't getting much faster these days, so no urge to upgrade. (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose let's leave the advertisements to DYK. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support(edit conflict) Compared to the iPhone/iPad, Microsoft Windows is the operating system found on 92% of the world's computers. That's over a billion computers in the world running Windows. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 13:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • But how many of those are running Windows 8? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this is not about PRing or advertising, but about the most popular OS in the world. Plus we posted iPad 2 when it was launched and that product has less of a worldwide relevance than windows 8. Nergaal (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Did we really post iPad 2? I would certainly not have supported that. The Windows 8 release is much more interesting than the iPad 2 release. Thue (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      We didn't post the Ipad 2 or any iOS device release, at least going back to mid 2009.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing groundbreaking, and it'll simply be replaced with another OS in a few years anyway. Why bother posting an advert? GRAPPLE X 13:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually somewhat groundbreaking, since the are changing the basic desktop start button interface which has been in place since Windows 95. The changes are very user-visible. Thue (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • So it looks different? Oh by all means go ahead then. :/ GRAPPLE X 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
        • It not just looks differently, it behaves differently; more than a skin. And an app store, which is actually also a big deal for the global software market, with whiffs of monopoly. Thue (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
          • These are still pretty much incremental and cosmetic changes, there is nothing that this release has done, relevant to its precursors, that the previous or next ones haven't done. It's just another step along a constantly-updating road. GRAPPLE X 14:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
            • While there is no groundbreaking science that hasn't been done before here, the difference here is market penetration. The median Wikipedia reader will encounter Windows 8, and probably spend hours trying to figure out the new interface paradigm. If you take the cumulative effect on peoples' lives as a criteria for newsworthiness (and I do), then the Windows 8 release should qualify. Thue (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
              • "There is no groundbreaking science" - so it's not notable. "....difference here is market penetration" - this is not something you can't use on ITN/C. "...cumulative effect on peoples' lives as a criteria for newsworthiness (and I do), then the Windows 8 release should qualify" - Well we don't, so it won't. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nominator's comment that it is fair to post a monopolistic product is ludicrous. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • What is that even supposed to mean? Fairness doesn't enter in to it, the only point with the monopoly argument is whether the product will affect enough people to be newsworthy. Thue (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • To be honest, Thue, your nominator comments don't help. It's a paragraph of PR speak and advertiser's guff (nobody outside an advertising agency uses the term 'paradigm'). As with the discussion above, all that's changed is the look. It's not creating something new, it's just an update. This is ITN, where news stories are debated and occasionally published on the front page. "Microsoft releases an update to a service it provides" is not news, it's just a PR release. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If Apple products are rejected here, then why would we promote a Microsoft product? Even if "Windows is the operating system found on 92% of the world's computers", Windows 8 won't be. My computer didn't automatically update from Windows 7 overnight. There would need to be something truly revolutionary in this release for it to merit promotion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's the first Windows desktop OS to be heavily touchscreen-based. If that's not revolutionary, what is?--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • That's all much of a muchness. Previous Windows OS have featured multi-touch support; this one has more (OS X also features multi-touch support, although I have no idea how that compares to Windows). Either way, that's evolution. —WFCFL wishlist 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Touch-based OSes have been around for years. That Microsoft finally joined the party is hardly revolutionary. Resolute 00:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be disruptive to !vote solely on this basis, but consider the difference between Ceefax and what came before it, and the impact it in turn had on future technologies. Then consider the same questions for recent versions of Windows. I don't dispute that every version of Windows is a significant improvement on its predecessor, but most versions are evolutions rather than revolutions. —WFCFL wishlist 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an update, with some new bells and whistles - happens fairly regularly and nothing we haven't seen already somewhere else in some way or another, so not noteworthy enough for ITN --PopularMax (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a broad consensus about not posing these commercial rollouts. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since it is not very influential development in the people's life. But, a commercial development.Egeymi (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support New release of the most widely-used OS. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Largest change to Windows in my lifetime. These "regular updates" tend to happen only once every three years. This isn't one of those every other month Google Chrome updates. Also the arguments that the main page shouldn't ever be used for product news sound like the musings of an anti-corporate activist. That's not objective.
Let me pose another equally inane argument: Mitt Romney winning the U.S. presidential election is not notable enough for ITN. "Romney is not an upgrade of Obama. Romney is just more of the same narrow political spectrum. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is revolutionary enough for ITN. Ron Paul for prez 2016!" Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
"Largest change to Windows in my lifetime." Your user page says you were alive in 1995. That OS was earth shattering. --RA (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous comparison. Another incremental product upgrade is not even remotely comparable to a major political election in a huge country, nor are there neutrality issues associated with posting the winner of an election, as it doesn't suggest a favourable disposition towards one or the other candidate, when posting one business' press release and not those of their competitors does. Simply put, this is a terrible idea to post. GRAPPLE X 23:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how posting the winner of an election is more neutral than posting the release of a software product when much of Wikipedia's bad press revolves around its liberal bias. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Please explain to me very slowly what in holy fuck the idea of not pandering to one company at the expense of its competitors has to do with "liberal bias". I'll wait. GRAPPLE X 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm just another volunteer here so don't over-escalate this please. Poor, unprofitable *sarc* Apple stands to lose nothing from its 7.62% and growing market share who, like 47%, can afford to but will not switch to Windows anyway. So whatever Microsoft gains from Windows 8 (Windows directly constitutes something like one quarter of its revenue), nobody loses. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is almost the worst ITN argument I've ever seen. What bad press? What liberal bias? What on earth does any of this have to do with Windows 8? Do I really have to spell it out to you why election results are both newsworthy and not a source of political bias? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
220 years of U.S. elections have yielded relatively less progress than the last decade fueled by technology. You can use several metrics, (quantity of bombs dropped, incidence of violent crime). I don't think were electing better leaders (would we see the same progress in the 1800s if Obama was president?) He didn't build that. I'm not saying Windows 7 was directly responsible for the Arab Spring but it has paved the way. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
By that logic, so did the availability of computer hardware. Are we going to post every new laptop model too? Of course not. This is simply an advert, it is not a political statement and it is in no way comparable to politics or elections or revolutions, grow up and admit it's simply an incremental software update. GRAPPLE X 00:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Do new laptops come out every three years? No, there's another one every week, each one less revolutionary than the last. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There are new operating systems released with considerable frequency too, so singling your favourite out to post is in no way revolutionary either. GRAPPLE X 00:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Not my favorite. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Like it or not, this is in the news, I don't think any one is disputing that. There is a strong likelihood that upon hearing a news report readers will come to WP looking for information on it, having a link on the main page helps them get what they came form Mtking (edits) 22:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Very bad argument. If you want to know about Windows 8, you're likely to Google it, or search for it here in the search box. A general user is not going to look for a direct link from the Wikipedia home page, when they know it's only a search term away.doktorb wordsdeeds 06:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not comparable to elections. The idea is absurd. This is a press release, and we don't do press releases. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ultimately, this is merely a case of "big company releases new product." Oppose for the same reasons we don't post every Apple, Samsung, IBM, Research in Motion, Nokia, etc. product. Resolute 00:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually we did post when IBM's Watson computer won Jeopardy. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Again: that's an achievement, not a commercial release. If you can't tell the difference, don't expect to be taken seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
As Alex notes, that was an achievement, not a product release. When Microsoft releases something revolutionary, then we can talk. As it is, moving from Windows 6.1 to Windows 6.2 isn't terribly significant, even if they did add a new UI. Resolute 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The reason why this release is different than the release of an Apple OS is that Microsoft operating systems are by far and historically the dominant operating system for home and enterprise use (except in technical fields, towards which Wikipedia might have a bias), the world over. This dominance is why they lost several antitrust lawsuits. As for the concern that we would be posting a "press release" for Microsoft: well, our posting of the Sakharov Prize is so much more of an egregious publicity act. (1) The European Union created it explicitly for publicity and activist purposes. (2) Since this prize is not as well known as say, the Nobel prizes, it draws attention to the European Union. (3) That prize doesn't document any real change in anything, as opposed to Windows 8, which documents the release of new major software with wide impact. Shrigley (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    Products get released every day. Some of these products are released by small companies with little market dominance, some of these are released by large companies with great market dominance. However, just because a company is large and has great market dominance doesn't mean we will feature the release of a new version of its product on our front page. We're not going to feature when Intel release a new chip, for example, or when Adobe release a new version of Flash player just because the vast majority of people use these products on their computers. Their release is just another product released by a mega corporation — or which there are many. --RA (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    @Shrigley, if you oppose the listing of Sakharov Prize, please take your debate to WP:ITN/R. If you wish for all Windows updates to be added to WP:ITN/R, please take your debate to WP:ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this is posted, every product by a large company would need to be posted. I agree with the other oppose comments. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another Windows update. Why give undue prominence to an OS which most likely will not be adopted by a vast majority of the universe? Why give undue prominence to a commercial enterprise designed to make money out of its poor users? This piece of commerce is not even mildly interesting and barely scratched the surface of the IT world who know it'll be junk for a couple of years until all the major flaws are ironed out. Not news, just advertising. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a significant event that affects/will affect a lot of people. Windows makes up a signficant portion of OS market share, and previous versions of Windows have been in ITN before. Those using the "advertising" argument forget that the term is quite subjective based on one's personal interpretation, and I could say that every year we're advertising boring film releases, sporting competitions and political uprisings that have nothing to do with me. And before someone says that I'm biased or whatever, I personally think Windows 8 is a load of crap and I hope it sinks like the Titanic, unless they do something about that horrible Metro UI. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 17:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Sakharov prizeEdit

Article: Sakharov Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Iranian dissidents Nasrin Sotoudeh and Jafar Panahi are awarded the 2012 Sakharov Prize. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News)

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.

 bender235 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - I don't know much about this award apart from what the Wikipedia page says, but I do see that the list of awardees includes such persons as Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan. That seems notable to me.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I hereby create the "Thue prize", and award it to Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, and myself. Since the list of awardees includes such persons as Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan, I assume you will support that for an ITN news item too? While I don't know whether the Sakharov Prize is notable enough to post ITN, trying to judge it by its awardees is not a valid argument IMO. Thue (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you claiming to have the same authoritative status as the European Parliament?.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
        • What authoritative status does the European Parliament have? Most right-minded people give it the disregard it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Since you have cited "most right-minded people", my opinion has been swayed. I am changing my !vote to oppose (not).--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per it being in WP:ITN/R, as long as article(s) adequately updated. Really folks, come along now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If someone will update the two articles on the recipients, I will post this. The main bolded article is updated, but as yet there's not even a single word in either article on the recipients articles. Fix that, I mean, give it a mention of some sort, and since this is ITN/R I'll post. --Jayron32 17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, worthy candidates, even though they are not Americans. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added some text to both articles, but haven't had a chance yet to proofread them as a whole, so won't !vote yet. Also, Sakharov Prize is ITN/R, so I've marked the nom as such. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, and ready? I've now read through both articles and they appear to me to be ready to be prime time players. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Marked as such, I also bolded the winners' articles, not the prize one. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 25Edit

World Cup winner John Connelly deadEdit

Article: John Connelly (footballer) (talk, history)
Blurb: John Connelly (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph Fox News Radio New Zealand

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

  • Oppose I don't feel as though he was notable enough. From the article, it appears as though he wasn't a standout player, but I could be wrong on this. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose, not notable enough. Τασουλα (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose One of those players who will be good for pub quizes, but not for front page on Wiki doktorb wordsdeeds 05:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since not notable. Also, if this news is posted, then whenever any player of any World Cup winner team dies it should be posted, too.Egeymi (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not sufficiently prominent or significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Didn't even make it to the front page of the BBC. Not exactly one of the most famous players of all time. --Klak of Klak (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is what 'Recent Deaths' is for; this clearly is not of enough global note or impact for ITN. -- PopularMax (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Emanuel StewardEdit

Article: Emanuel Steward (talk, history)
Blurb: International Boxing Hall of Fame-inducted trainer Emanuel Steward dies at 68 (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Legendary boxing trainer Emanuel Steward, who trained 41 world champion fighters, including Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis, dies at 68
News source(s): LA Times, ESPN, Sports Illustrated

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Legendary trainer in the sport of boxing. Steward was one of the most influential and most recognized trainers in boxing history. He, along with Freddie Roach, was one of the two top trainers in boxing today. Huge loss to boxing. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose- I might support if his article is expanded, updated, and references are added. Unfortunately, his article consists of mostly a list of trainees and has just one reference announcing his death. Far from the best WP has to offer. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I realize that. I am working on it now. Check back later. Updated the article, and continuing to work on it. Should be more than sufficient enough to meet standards now. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "Alternative Blurb: Legendary boxing trainer Emanuel Steward, who trained 41 world champion fighters, including Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis, dies at 68" is misleading. Half asleep, I caught the end of it and momentarily thought Lennox Lewis was dead. -- (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I know nothing about boxing beyond the obvious, but I notice this death is being reported in a lot of places and being inducted to a Hall of Fame is a sign of notability doktorb wordsdeeds 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, it may be added to recent deaths.Egeymi (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, little known trainer. Speciate (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not even for Recent Deaths, where the explanatory blurb wouldn't appear. I'm just not persuaded that this person's achievements are sufficiently notable and attention-grabbing. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I feel as if there are far too many recent deaths proposed, and ones more notable than this one are often put down. On its own merits, I can't see figure being that notable in the world of Boxing or his death impacting. --Klak of Klak (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm floored as to the comments saying he was "not notable in his field". Either those who are commenting know nothing of boxing, or are not being convinced by the article (or aren't reading the sources). I will expand the article further later tonight (so please keep checking), but I would encourage people to read the sources in the meantime, which will make it very clear how notable he was. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 13:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This is what 'Recent Deaths' is for; this clearly is not of enough global note or impact for ITN. -- PopularMax (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are voting for recent death you should specify that rather than oppose. Otherwise you'll be tallied as oppose. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 24Edit

October 23Edit

Wilhelm Brasse recent deathsEdit

Article: Wilhelm Brasse (talk, history)
Blurb: Recent deaths: Wilhelm Brasse - Russell MeansYash ChopraGeorge McGovern (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very well known in Poland and Holocaust community; source says "few photographic records of the death camp," and he had 50,000 photos. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I am not sure I see the need for hurry here, the ticker can add someone every other day and stay full. Brasse is far less of reader interest [15] than Sunil Gangopadhyay [16], whose nomination I might could support if it were made separately. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No disrespect to the deceased or his relatives, but it was never suggested that the bar would drop this low in terms of the profile of the people we would post. Better to let the ticker occasionally drop off the page than to lower the expectations. If we have names that are not being reported in widespread news, and are recognisable only to a tiny proportion of readers, then an unadorned name is purely an opportunity to press a link the reader has no specific reason to press: we already have "Random page" for that. Kevin McE (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It doesn't hurt to have Wilhelm Brasse listed. He got some meaningful coverage in the Spanish-language media and the article is in good conditions. ComputerJA (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is getting out of hand, and your in-your-face approach is off-putting. The death ticker is not a license to nominate every single person that dies. We don't need you browbeating people into supporting your nominations under the pretense that the RfC demanded it or that the section will otherwise go stale ("that is completely controlled by you"!). This is still the In the News section, not the Obituary section, and so (a) we don't need half the nominations here to be deaths and (b) we are not putting more than three deaths in the ticker; that will push it onto two lines for most people, giving it way more attention than it needs. Especially while there is still significant opposition to this experiment, can we take things down a notch? Your actions are realizing some of the concerns people have. -- tariqabjotu 10:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Thank you for pointing that out to me, and I apologize for being too aggressive. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough. We already have a 'recent deaths' ticker, trying to replicate here is pointless. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is decent and points out Brasse's notability. But have we waived the "at least a paragraph of prose" rule for articles to be featured in the recent deaths line? Currently the update is very sparse. --RJFF (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The standards have to be fairly low? I certainly hope not. There is no need to promote just to keep the ticker moving. It is perfectly acceptable for the ticker to be removed occasionally when it is stale, and returned when it is needed again. And for the blurb section of the template, I think it would be sufficient to just put "recent death" or something - it makes it a little confusing to have four names listed there, especially when two of those names are due to be rotated off soon. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not ITN-worthy. This changed recent deaths thing is broken, and should be put back the way it was. Jusdafax 00:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with all those who say this is an item for 'Recent Deaths'. For the death of an individual to be on ITN in addition to Recent Deaths, it should be of global note or significance - this clearly is not. --PopularMax (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, if you think this is good for recent death, vote recent death--otherwise you are simply opposing any listing.
  • Recent Death This is significant enough per check user and the subjects involved for a ticker listing. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceefax ceases to beEdit

Article: Ceefax (talk, history)
Blurb: Ceefax—the world's first teletext information service—ceases to be after 38 years, as the UK's digital switchover is completed. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
  • Support Quite a landmark. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I find myself agreeing with Lugnuts again, this is quite an unusual feeling. A landmark service, one of the first of its kind and a precursor to on-demand information through televisions and computers, Ceefax was the 'ghetto Internet' for millions of British and Irish viewers. It's passing marks the switch over from analogue to digital, and as such is a major development worthy of the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 07:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's an interesting story indeed. The cease of the very first in something related to technological issues is a big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only national relevance, no major attention outside the UK. --RJFF (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's somewhat a trivial news story even in the UK. LukeSurl t c 10:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since it has only national effects, not global.Egeymi (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Several opposers are being "unproductive" - according to the instructions on this page - by opposing something they see as relating only to a perceived small area. "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Absolutely no one enforces that "instruction"; you only need to look at the past few months of U.S.-centric nominations and their respective opposes for proof.--WaltCip (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • ^^ If no one opposed certain items on the basis of it not having enough international significance, we would probably have too many stories to post...what I will not stand for, and nor should anyone else, is country-centric voting or "Revenge" voting.--Τασουλα (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • What are you saying? That the nomination (which was made by separate editors in separate countries at the same time! - such was the belief that it should be nominated) is some sort of "revenge" for something else going on elsewhere? That's very hard to credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I think the suggestion is that people would oppose this nom in revenge for some US-centric items having been opposed. (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
            • I didn't say any of the votes in this nom were revenge votes...nor any-other... --Τασουλα (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
              • I don't really see how it is possible to have too many stories to post... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a notable entity as the first such service of its kind, so if looked at as a "recent death" of sorts, Ceefax certainly passes the bar for notability in its field. GRAPPLE X
  • Support. End of the first major, mass-market, public text transmission technologies. Leaky Caldron 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The death of teletext is hardly consequential. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is merely the technical closure of a system with no users left. (Northern Ireland just went over to digital TV, so no-one is broadcasting or receiving the appropriate signals any more.) AlexTiefling (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's notable news not just because it was a British teletext system that has been shut down, but because it was the first teletext system that has now been shut down, regardless of country; "only national relevance" shouldn't really apply. As a comparison; if Ceefax was only the BBC version of a system that had been invented first in, say, Germany, then the shutting down of Ceefax wouldn't be notable whilst the shutting down of the original German system I would support. I would also draw comparisons to the shutting down of the French Minitel online system earlier this year, on ITN it was successfully nominated with no opposes, only to not be posted due to a lack of update in the article (which I hope you'll agree doesn't take away from the comparison).--23230 talk 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I nominated this but then 5 minutes later another user renominated it and reworded the blurb and after I reverted then he rereverted to his blurb but added my IP as the nominator. Since it is the blurb of his nomination which appears above it should be his IP that appears as the nominator, which means I feel it is legitimate for me add my !vote to this discussion even though I originally nominated. Reason for support is that it is notable event of its kind. A nice different variety of new item for ITN. (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The two were at the same time. There was an edit conflict. Your one got in first. And your blurb did not use the standard simple present tense as specified in the instructions so required a change. Someone else would have done it later anyway. And you can have all the credit for all that. -- (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Ceefax has passed on! This teletext-service is no more! It has ceased to be! Ceefax has expired and gone to meet its maker! Ceefax is a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! Ceefax is off the twig! Ceefax has kicked the bucket, Ceefax has shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-TELETEXT-SERVICE!! (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd better replace it, then. [pause for effect] Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of analogue. -- (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is Bolton, is it? (with a fake mustache) No, it's Ipswitch. (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I see. I see, I get the picture. (Or at least I got it until the screen went blank.) -- (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support I wasn't quite sure what to say here. It does have some claim as to the genesis of interactive TV, albeit in a limited way, but I'm always reluctant to over-estimate the importance of British stories internationally. OTOH I see a parallel between this and the closing of Minitel. Since looking on looking it up I gave that a weak support I'll do the same here too. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose companies go under every day, I fail to see how relevant this is. Hot Stop (Edits) 19:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a company going under; it's the BBC discontinuing its once-remarkable digital-text-over-analogue-TV service. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
That's even less exciting. Hot Stop (Edits) 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Bordering on an equivocal meh. This story has less than a tenth the interest of Lance Armstrong, is limited to one country in impact, and hardly outweighs the other current posts. I am not opposed to its listing if it doesn't push some other story off ITN. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd certainly say it's of interest in its field...but "meh" news wise. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent deathsEdit

Articles: Russell Means (talk, history) and Sunil Gangopadhyay (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Recent deaths (Post)
News source(s): Means Sunil

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: We need to have fairly low criteria on deaths if we want to keep the ticker moving, and I think these people meet that threshold. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Support adding both. The original nomination said "McGovern + Chopra + two recent deaths" and the two weren't posted so there is still space for two others. Russell Means, nominated separately below, appears to already have overwhelming consensus for some sort of inclusion on the Main Page. As for Sunil Gangopadhyay, well he seems a top notch writer of international renown. Not every Bengali writer gets his own BBC obit. President Mukherjee has called him "one of the greatest Bengali intellectuals." And it has also been said that "It will be extremely difficult to fill the vacuum in Bengali literature after his death as Sunil had heralded a new style in Bengali literature." I think that sums it up nicely. -- (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Object to nominating two candidates at once. Per the RfC regular nom procedure was to be followed. Noms like this are in effect packaging support or oppose votes or inviting a huge amount of confusion. This should be separated--and Means has already been nominated, there is no problem voting "recent death" under his nom. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
But this is not a vote. And there's no need to separate them if one is elsewhere. -- (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Support also I think for Wilhelm Brasse, who was very famous in Poland and was probably at least as important as McGovern. And he has a nice article. I wonder if five will fit together. Maybe if someone makes the section bigger and pushes down "On this day..." a little bit. Or maybe "Syrian civil warWikinewsMore current events..." could be slightly restructured and stacked vertically just under the Lance Armstrong photo? Would that look better? -- (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- It looks like I have been forced to make this point again: the nomination is not a package. You can support one and oppose one. As a side note, this eliminates the only objection to posting either death thus far. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Why shouldn't someone want to support them all? Or, alternatively, oppose them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The orange tag in Gangopadhyay should be removed (if the item is posted). Sunil_Gangopadhyay#Works needs references. (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose combo noms. Too confusing. At a glance, both look pretty borderline, even for the death ticker. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close I call on an admin to shut down this "nomination" immediately. There was strong opposition to, and absolutely no support in the RfC for changing the regular one-at-time nomination process for deaths. There is no existential emergency to wikipedia that justifies multiple combined nominations, overlapping nominations, and nominations that are expanded to cover new candidates by random passers-by! Deliberation is called for, not anarchy. If you want to vote for Russell Means, please do so--there is already a full majority in favor of a ticker listing. If you want to nominate others then please do so, separately, and let them be voted upon according to their own separate merits. Note also that the two "supports" we have for this "nomination" are by the same editor. Let us please stick to the results of the RfC both in implementing the ticker and in sticking to established procedure and respect for consensus. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. First of all, the "random passers-by" are the people who decide consensus - Wikipedia could not function without these "random passers-by" of yours. Second of all, admins do not have some sort of special powers to shut down friendly conversations that other non-admin editors do not have. Third of all, Wikipedia is not censored - why do you want to shut down valid interactions between users which are doing no harm and are used to help determine consensus? Fourth of all, the two supports are for three different things and that is pretty obvious. Fifth of all, this is not a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because it is not appropriate to squeeze an arbitrary selection of people together for a single nomination, disallowing full discussion about each on their own merit. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Please list Lincoln Alexander (the first black Member of Parliament in Canada) on that section, if possible. He is getting a state funeral in a few days. ~AH1 (discuss!) 15:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. That's a good idea too. So that's Sunil Gangopadhyay, Wilhelm Brasse and Lincoln Alexander, all of which have no individual valid opposition so far. Note that the only opposition is based on the procedure used to nominate. -- (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a mess. It would be better to nominate each person one by one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose. I agree with the above - nominate these one at a time please. Modest Genius talk 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. This is a mess. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sock Puppet Do I need to file a formal sock puppet accusation against IP 86 40 XXX XXX? Why are we allowing multiple votes by the same abusive user? Other than presumed support by the nom, all three support votes are by the sam IP voter. Comment by an admin would be welcome, since I don't want to waste my time, but I would like to get this user down to one vote per thread at most, if not blocking of the IP for bad faith. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • OH gawd...and ITN/C had been so peaceful until recently. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't you "oh gawd" me! All three support votes on this abomination are by the same IP user, and although I have called for the thread to be shut down, no "admin" has done so. Talk to the admin. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Chill, it was a general "Oh gawd" XD --Τασουλα (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake. This is ridiculous. It's obvious the supports are for separate nominations in the same thread and there is no attempt to hide this. What do people expect if there are multiple nominations? Under "McGovern + Chopra + two recent deaths" there are four opposes by the same user. So I followed that example and did nothing to hide it. But it's blame-the-IP time over here then, is it? If you disagree with them that badly just strike them out. In fact I'll do it myself to save everyone the bother. Note: I did try but was edit conflicted and generally can't be bothered trying anymore, such is the prevalence of bad faith assumptions around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A landmark visitEdit

Article: Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (talk, history)
Blurb: Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (pictured) pays a landmark visit to the Gaza Strip. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Aljazeera

Article updated
  • Oppose. Sorry, I just don't see the significance, nor major media coverage. Besides, you didn't even bother to point out that he's the ruler of Qatar. Modest Genius talk 18:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Meetings are rarely notable for ITN. (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC) (Bzweebl on leave)
Why should it have to be pointed out every single time that he's the ruler of Qatar any more than David Cameron is the UK Prime Minister or Barack Obama the American President or Angela Merkel the German Chancellor? Is that really a valid reason to oppose something? Major media coverage from across the world calls it "landmark" and "historic". It's completely unknown for a foreign ruler to visit there. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] There have been deaths. [23] And it is not a meeting. -- (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Diplomatically interesting, but nothing beyond that. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That's what these things are though. What else can anyone expect but for them to be "diplomatically interesting"? Where is the rule saying "diplomatically interesting" things are banned from ITN and who decides whether something is "diplomatically interesting"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Typically there has to be an article on it at the very least, and then it has to be super duper extraordinary. Like Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland landed on the front page, but a similar event regarding the IRA or something like that (some party head meeting with QEII, perhaps? It's too far back to remember) was !voted down. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I think you meant when the Queen met with Martin McGuinness, which had nothing to do with the IRA...because McGuinness is no longer a part of the IRA, it was to do with the Queen meeting the leader of the main Irish Republican party in Northern Ireland. Sadly, because the whole thing was much more low-key it didn't get the attention/support on ITN/C. I supported that story's nom, so I can hardly oppose this. But I don't know enough about it. And personally, because I won't/shouldn't support anything when it comes to Israel/Palestine for personal reasons. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

October 22Edit

[Posted] "Falsely reassuring" scientists convicted of multiple manslaughterEdit

Article: 2009 L'Aquila earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Six scientists and a former government official are convicted of multiple manslaughter and barred for life from public office over their failure to predict the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Article updated
  • Support I was just coming to nominate this myself. An unusual case with wide ramifications for scientists who issue public advisories; it's also on the front page of the New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera. But I'm not sure the blurb is quite neutral. The prosecution's case was that the defendants "provided "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger of the tremors". (Adding the public office thing may also be making the blurb wordier than necessary). How about "are convicted of multiple manslaughter for underestimating the danger of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake"? -- -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, for uniqueness in the annals of the modern world. It sounds like something out of the Dark Ages, except I don't want to give the Dark Ages a bad name. Speciate (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As I understand the story the best they could have said was there is maybe a 2% chance of a major earthquake in the region some point in the next 12 months or so, I guess L'Aquila would not have been evacuated until it happened based on that, even if they had screamed that from the rooftops, so locking them up for 6 years even seems a 'bit harsh'.EdwardLane (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. I left out the "and barred for life from public office" part for brevity, since being convicted of multiple manslaughter is surely more significant than being barred from public office. Thue (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting as too early. According to [24], "The seven — Bernardo De Bernardinis, Enzo Boschi, Giulio Selvaggi, Franco Barberi, Claudio Eva, Mauro Dolce and Gian Michele Calvi — are appealing against the verdict. They will remain free until the appeals process is finished, which could take years." They aren't actually in jail, and might not ever make it there. This fact isn't mentioned in the article. I'd support later if the conviction is upheld after appeals. SpencerT♦C 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as Spencer. The verdict is not yet legally binding, as long as there is an appeal trial. It should be pulled. Only five hours of discussion was a bit quick. --RJFF (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the issue here is that they've been convicted of manslaughter at all. Whatever happens that cannot be undone, they'll still have been convicted for being incapable of predicting an earthquake. It is a unique case. And it was mentioned above that them being sent to jail was left out of the blurb for that reason. -- (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
commentSenior members of an Italian government disaster assessment body resigned in protest - president, vice president and emeritus president according to the BBC, reuters has the same names with expresident rather than emeritus [25] and incidentally the telegraph says 'a day after the watershed ruling that sent shock waves through the international scientific community' EdwardLane (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulled. The headline for this news item is false and I've pulled it from the main page. From New Scientist: "...failure to predict the quake is not, in fact, what the seven men have been convicted of. The prosecution made it crystal clear all along that their case was about poor risk communication;".[26] Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
True. No one can exactly predict earthquakes. So this is not what they are accused of. They "gave a falsely reassuring statement", they wrongly downplayed the danger of a possible major earthquake after the population was anxious because of the preliminary tremors, even though it was scientifically impossible to rule out a major eathquake. This is what they are accused of. --RJFF (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with the pull (I noted the same issue above, but was disregarded), but still think it should appear on the main page in a revised form. This is a major international headline, and therefore something a Wikipedia reader might logically want to read about; waiting for further developments in the case could take years, and are likely to receive far less attention, and have less impact, than this initial verdict. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I've reposted a corrected version. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Support This is major world news, a Soviet-Style show trial that sets a bad precedent for the West and free thought. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. After reposting, I just want to add my support. The conviction is major news. Down the line the appeals process may lead to more news, but the story is nonetheless major news right now and worthy of inclusion. Dragons flight (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy pull- I don't think the posting administrator is familiar with the ins and outs of ITN, but it has become unwritten law that we don't post rulings until all appeals are completed. The first admin to see this should pull. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    "[W]e don't post rulings until all appeals are completed." That's news to me. -- tariqabjotu 22:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Well to be fair, we should if we don't doktorb wordsdeeds 22:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      And we do. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the above commentators miss the point that is a unique conviction and that even if were appealed it would still have occurred. It is the conviction that has caused so much international debate among scientists, media, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The mere fact of a conviction in this kind of case is huge news and transcends normal boundaries--it's inherently newsworthy, and of interest to our readers now, not if the case is upheld two years from now. If it's overturned that will be separate news. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I don't think an "unwritten rule" requires pulling; if it's a "speedy pull" level rule, we ought to codify it as one. But in any case, I've never seen the logic of waiting until all appeals are completed. In some US cases (the legal system I'm personally most familiar with), appeals and retrials can drag on for decades after the original case, and it's often difficult to tell when appeals are fully exhausted; later discovery of evidence and procedural irregularities can be the foundation of new appeals. Even in legal systems which note the irrevocable end of all appeals, posting then--which often receives only minimal coverage--instead of when an item is receiving a large amount of international coverage, and therefore of greater interest to readers, seems like an unhelpful standard. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
See Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi for the endless appeals in the Italian legal system. I've also never heard of this standard of which Bzweebl speaks, nor do I understand it to be an unwritten rule around here. Support posting on the merits: this is either a noteworthy aberration or an historic first in criminalizing scientists' work.--Chaser (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Chaser and Tariq are right, there is no rule about waiting for appeals to be exhausted. In fact, the practice is usually quite the opposite. Dragons flight (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Bzweebl has invented this supposed rule as far as I can tell. Often, people vote against final appeal decisions because if they go against the appellant, they do nothing to change the status quo. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Russell Means diesEdit

Article: Russell Means (talk, history)
Blurb: Russell Means, Oglala Sioux activist for the rights of American Indians, dies at age 72. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press (Washington Post)

Article updated

 At first I thought no (he was 72 years old) but then read this: wikinews:Lakota activists declare secession from US. Maybe the least we can do for U.S. stealing their land. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) More for the IP's list below: Means tried to run for President of the U.S., losing the nomination to Ron Paul. He was also the subject of 18 portraits by Andy Warhol. The "1973 uprising" the IP mentions turns out to be the Wounded Knee incident which was really well known at the time.

Means in 1987
  • There's an orange tag in the "Writing" section of the article that would need to be dealt with. --LukeSurl t c 15:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Does it look better now? Because of a complaint on the talk page that we had only negative reviews, I removed all of them. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The deceased certainly seems to have been "a very important figure in his or her field", if we take the field as being anything Native American. Apparently he helped lead the 1973 uprising and brought "the grievances of Native Americans to national and global attention"? And it would make a timely change from all the dead white "non-native" American politicians that have been featured over the years. He was Pocahontas's father. And Daniel Day-Lewis's too. -- (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the IP above. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Means was a significant voice for Native American rights. His death is ITN-worthy, in my view. Jusdafax 04:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Recent Deaths Agitator with no accomplishments outside playing an Indian in movies. Means was a subject of contempt among his own people as a showboater. [Changed vote per comments below] μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Significant Native American activist, involvement in the Republic of Lakotah movement, etc. Ks0stm (TCGE) 05:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this for the "recent deaths" line or for the regular ITN? If recent deaths, I support. If regular ITN, I oppose, because it fits recent deaths better. --RJFF (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment RJFF points out another reason why Recent Deaths/death ticker is unworkable. It's added confusion and uncertainty. I happen to agree that this nomination should go on the front page (so Support), but not knowing whether this will get the full treatment or not doesn't fill me with confidence. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    This is, by far, the lamest reason to oppose the recent deaths ticker yet. I don't believe I've participated in any of the ticker discussions and I don't think chronicling deaths should be among ITN's priorities, but the notion that it's a poor idea because it's too hard to do exactly what RJFF did -- say he supports this for the ticker and not a full blurb -- is ridiculous. The ticker will likely lower the bar slightly or make it less controversial for certain deaths to make it onto ITN (via the ticker, I mean) and should raise the bar for getting a full blurb. I'll be honest; I don't know how or why this should meet a raised-bar standard for a full blurb. Even if you disagree with the ticker solution, it is quite apparent that over the past year or so, despite efforts to make the death criteria more concrete, we post too many deaths. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Per the RfC, deaths should only get a full ITN listing if they are highly notable, like sitting heads of state or the death of Princess Diana. They can still get listed as ITN if there is sufficient majority support for that. But people can support recent deaths only for deaths they consider of lesser notability. If there are insufficient votes for a full ITN listing, but still a good consensus for recent deaths, say 1/3 oppose, 1/3 ITN, and 1/3 recent deaths, then that would be tallied as 2/3 in favor of recent deaths at least, and the nom would go up. I do see the benefit of writing up a policy on this based on what was discussed in the RfC, but I don't see the benefit of having the opposing editors making an issue of this with every nom--the matter of Recent Deaths was settled in four votes separate votes since May at least. I am still strongly opposed to this nom for a full ITN listing. Means was a very minor actor and a self-promoting agitator who accomplished nothing with his "activism". I am personally acquainted for many years with Miniconjou Lakota who view him (and other "professional" Indians--they have an insulting Sioux word for it) as an inauthentic poser who doesn't speak for them or represent their values. As a matter of good faith, though, I will change my vote to support recent deaths only. There will be readership interest given the press coverage. But he nowhere near equals McGovern in statecraft or Chopra in film, so I remain opposed to a full listing in the highest degree. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment According to check stats, Means has a little more than half the readership interest that McGovern does, quite a bit less than Chopra. Given there are no opposes at this point, three supports and two supports for recent deaths, I do think it would be appropriate to add him to recent deaths now. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You should know more than most that readership stats don't count round here. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Updated? I'd hardly call the article updated. -- tariqabjotu 19:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of reversion going on, note the number of intermediate edits not shown. After this edit [27] I count five sentences with refs. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Tariqabjotu, it is updated. When I saw it there were zero sources for the whole section "Final years and death", which is sourced now otherwise it would all need to be removed. I added the Associated Press quote and some kind of a source (in one case a video of Means speaking). I agree, a GA-level article it isn't. μηδείς, good job restoring somewhat balanced book criticism. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Please note that Bzweebil and IP have expressed their support for Means as a recent death nom in an above thread. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this was nominated for a full mention so it's a completely separate issue. -- (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You and Bzweebil (whose good faith seems a lot clearer) have both expressed your support for Means going on the death ticker above. Feel free to remove your multiple votes above and vote no here. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
We must be reading different articles. I see only one sentence that couldn't have been written before this year, let alone this week. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
All I see is: The following year, however, his health continued to decline and he died on October 22, 2012, less than a month before his 73rd birthday.[37] . SpencerT♦C 06:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
It's better now. Can the blurb be posted please.
Why not post it in the "recent deaths" line? --RJFF (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Because this discussion was for a full blurb and consensus is to that effect? The only delay was lack of update which was then resolved.
  • Comment - This was marked as ready by an IP who is also pushing for the story to be posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Jesus, the "IP" is now taking away the [ready] after putting in the necessary effort to overcome the one sentence update alleged above. Talk about stalling a process.
  • Posted to ticker. -- tariqabjotu 13:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lance Armstrong now stripped of 7 Tour titlesEdit

Article: Lance Armstrong (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The governing body of cycling, the UCI, strips Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France wins. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - big news in cycling. This is, effectively, the reversion of 7 items (Tour wins) that would have been ITN posts. While the story has been stretched over a few months, the UCI rescinding the titles is that thing that means a large change in the content of this encyclopaedia, hence we should post now. Need to make sure Tour de France is in order too. Do the titles now go to the highest-finishing clean rider of those Tours? LukeSurl t c 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the next highest placed (clean) rider becomes the new "winner". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Tour de France is going to need a lot of revisions before we can post. LukeSurl t c 11:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Lugnuts, that its not correct. Reuters: "Other issues such as the potential re-awarding of Armstrong's Tour titles will be discussed by the UCI Management Committee on Friday. // Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said he believes no rider should inherit the titles given doping was so widespread at the time." --hydrox (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well that goes without saying. Which is why I didn't say it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is it, finally. THE sporting news event of the century so far. --hydrox (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A highly important and notable event, scratching seven TdF titles from history and blackening the name Lance Armstrong for good. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Results revisions aren't usually big news, but this is colossal. So high profile, so wide-ranging. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The significant change in how Armstrong is viewed along with the number of titles makes it noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to see some more update in the doping timeline in the article, ready to post then. --Tone 12:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
See Lance Armstrong#UCI_decision --hydrox (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Fix blurb UCI didn't exactly "strip" Armstrong of his titles as the blurb says, but merely decided not to contest the recommendations by USADA in arbitration, as explained by this NYTimes article. I suggest fixing this by just leaving UCI out. Furthermore, Tour de France awards three different titles each year, out of which general classification is the most important. Suggest new blurb: "Lance Armstrong is stripped of his seven Tour de France general classification wins." --hydrox (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    General classification in the Tour de France isn't a particularly great article, I'd prefer not to front-page link it if we can avoid so. LukeSurl t c 14:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Fix blurb The UCI have confirmed a retroactive disqualification of all results (not only seven events) that Armstrong had since August 1998 that had been passed down several weeks ago by USADA. We really ought to give correct info rather than the media headlines. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    There's nothing incorrect about the blurb. This is the main story. That he was stripped of several other results that no one cares about is beside the point. With unlimited space, as we have in the article, everything that he was stripped of can be detailed. But the main story for the Main Page is that he was stripped of the Tour de France titles. -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
So we re-tell the inaccurate summary that mass media use, and totally ignore what ought to be the advantage of an encyclopaedic viewpoint. The International Cycling Union confirms the removal of results of seven time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong for doping offences. Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That was totally not what you were complaining about before. -- tariqabjotu 06:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
In what way? It addresses both issues that I raised. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Azana Spa shootingsEdit

Article: 2012 Azana Spa shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four people, including the gunman, are killed in a spree shooting at a spa salon in Wisconsin, U.S. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

 Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, not enough casualties or news coverage. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - it sounds insensitive, but four deaths is fewer than would normally predicate a posting. LukeSurl t c 13:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This appears rather ordinary by the standards of the country in which it occurred. Now if it had happened in Singapore or Japan or New Zealand then maybe... but not in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 21Edit

McGovern + Chopra + two recent deathsEdit

Articles: Fiorenzo Magni (talk, history) and E. Donnall Thomas (talk, history)
Blurb: Recent deaths: Yash Chopra, George McGovern, E. Donnall Thomas, Fiorenzo Magni (Post)
News source(s): Chopra, McGovern, Thomas, Magni.

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: The recent deaths ticker has already been passed in an RfC. This is not the place to discuss it. If you wish to protest its existence, please start a new discussion on the talk page. The four people I have chosen are of varying notability, and this nomination is not only for the purpose of a posting, but also to gauge the threshold of notability people have for recent death nominations. If Chopra and/or McGovern are posted, they are ineligible for the ticker. The blurb is in chronological order by day, but not time, like standard blurbs. Additionally, the ticker will not be italicized like shown in the nom; that is an automatic function of the nomination template. The sources section is not working, so I will add them here: Chopra, McGovern, Thomas, Magni. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

    • I've fixed the template issue (that was entirely my fault) that made the sources not show and added 'em into the template for ya. LukeSurl t c 23:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Woah, woah, woah You can't just hijack existing nominations like this, surely? Do all existing support/oppose votes become invalid? doktorb wordsdeeds 22:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Outright oppose. This implies Chopra and the presidential nominee are in the same league, obviously that is not the case. Fairer to post Chopra sepratately. If lesser people are to be included like that then that is a different matter. -- (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • On a procedural note, I suggest we adopt Ticker or RD only or something similar as a type of !vote, indeed it looks like people are starting to do this already. In some cases items could be added to the ticker on the basis of an initial consensus and then "promoted" to a main blurb if sufficient consensus formed for that. Indeed, Doktorbuk, these current cases could be considered like that as well (it's just that we have to start with several rather than adding one-by-one so there's no easy way of doing that). All in all it'll probably take a few weeks to iron out how best to do this however. LukeSurl t c 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chopra Inadequate update. Other than being prolific, no indication he was significantly influential in the field.
  • Oppose McGovern A presidential candidate does not satisfy ITN/DC. Otherwise, a respected but not overly influential politician.
  • Oppose Thomas no update at all, article is practically a stub.
  • Oppose Magni inadequate update. Retired 50 years. Even less impact on society that McGovern.
    • 4 noms in 1 gets 4 opposes in 1, sorry Medeis. I also strongly suggest that some time be spent working out how to implement the "death ticker", and get it added to the template instructions before trying to railroad it into existence. --IP98 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Medeis? This was me, Bzweebl. Medeis is not the only one behind the death ticker. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- I would like to address some misconceptions that have been brought up. This is not a replacement for the McGovern and Chopra nominations. Those are still eligible for a standard posting. Additionally, as IP98 correctly realized, this is not a full package, and you can support/oppose some or support/oppose all as long as you have explanations for each. Finally, ITN/DC is not being applied to this. That is strictly a ruleset for standard blurb postings. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Wait wut, what's with the unsigned votes above? And why is there confusion over who nominated it!? --Τασουλα (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The confusion over who nominated was temporary, and there are no unsigned votes. IP98 signed those four comments at the end. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not not accept the validity of the "passing" of the discussion on recent deaths. The idea that an old discussion can be modified while still in archives to say what you want and then cited in support of your case is frankly ridiculous. It seems people have taking to riding roughshod over policy and procedure in favour of bully boy tactics. I do not accept that and I will be disputing this "decision". Since Eraserhead effectively reopened the discussion by editing it in archives he may in no way be considered uninvolved. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that Eraserhead added any comments to the discussion other than the closing rationale so challenging that he was 'uninvolved' seems to be a slight technicality at best. However, I will oppose the nomination as proposed and agree that the recent deaths tickers should be set up before we decide on which names to add; and we should not 'rush' to add any particular deaths. I'm not opposed to any of the nominated deaths individually.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Eraserhead was definitely uninvolved. I found him at the "request for uninvolved admin closures" board. This is not a case of "an old discussion can be modified while still in archives to say what you want" because Eraserhead never had anything to do with the discussion. See the talk page for more details. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: LukeSurl and Speciate both supported McGovern for recent deaths in the thread below.--Chaser (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Slightly off-topic comment: If the article on him was better, I'd say E. Donnall Thomas would be worth consideration for being posted on his own, because he performed the first performed the first bone marrow transplant and won a Nobel Prize for it (which means he's extremely notable and influential in his field). But two days have passed and the article is rather small. -- Scorpion0422 04:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting to see that I am the bugaboo of certain editors in this discussion--without my even having participated in it. That being said, I would have been opposed to McGovern as a full ITN nom, but am strongly in favor of him as a Recent Death nom. The other three have to stand on their own though. Perhaps a collective vote is not appropriate, since individual noms is what was promised in the RfC and arguments in favor of it, and opposition to the RfC was mostly due to a fear that the individual nom process would be bypassed. Support McGovern and Support Chopra for recent deaths--and suggest we set up separate threads for all noms. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - There's a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on with regard to the Recent Deaths ticker. There's a clear consensus for it. Can we please implement it already? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Post McGovern for recent deaths Already We have people above voting no four times on one nom because they are voting on the wrong criteria, we've got people voting against a nom because they oppose a closed and passed RfC. We've got opposed votes in the full ITN Nom for McGovern which were actually support votes for recent deaths. Some admin needs to step up and do their job and implement the consensus for recent deaths and the consensus in favor at least of posting McGovern there. This is getting to be a shameful farce. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted as ticker There haven't been a heck of a lot of opinions provided, but there seems to be enough support for the concept of a ticker to at least give it a try, and enough interest and support for both the McGovern and Chopra items (more for the latter) to use them as the test subjects. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Question: How long does the ticker stay up for deaths on ITN? SpencerT♦C 07:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose this discriminatory conclusion that Chopra is somehow equivalent to McGovern. Is there and has there not been a separate consensus for Chopra to be highlighted on his own, and was this not already the case before he was taken down. This would simply not be allowed to happen if the two people in question were Clint Eastwood and Lakshmi Sahgal. This is ridiculous, cruel and unjustified treatment of Chopra who should not be subjected to some kind of sick racist experiment like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for acting on this, Tariqabjotu. Presumably names will stay up till they are pushed off the line by new noms. That can be discussed at talk, it's not a problem with the nom itself. As for "sick racist experiment"? μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Yash Chopra diesEdit

Article: Yash Chopra (talk, history)
Blurb: Bollywood film-maker Yash Chopra dies from dengue fever in Mumbai. (Post)
News source(s): BollywoodLife BBC News

Nominator's comments: With reference to the comments below, I accept that we will have to take a more 'legalistic' approach to the nomination than usual. I accept that it could be argued that a lack of English language sources dilutes claims of notability. In response I can only point editors towards the current media coverage and towards the links in our own article to help research the width and breadth of his career. --doktorb wordsdeeds 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. Came here to nominate this myself. Much more notable than McGovern. -- (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this was said last time a Bollywood actor was nominated; because of language/cultural separation the vast majority of us here on en-wiki won't have heard of this man. We know that's not a reason to oppose, but neither can we write an argument in support either. There's a danger that there ends up being minimal discussion on this nomination. We can gather a bit from the article, but it would be really useful if the knowledgeable few could be particularly verbose in their arguments for the benefit of the rest of us. LukeSurl t c 21:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, to start with, the report at the top of BBC News Online link calls him "one of India's most influential film-makers", says that "over five decades, Chopra, dubbed the King of Romance, gave Bollywood some of its biggest blockbusters" and "his film studios Yash Raj Films helped establish some of Indian cinema's biggest names, including Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan." Prime Minister Singh has called him an "icon of Indian cinema." His death has left Bollywood "shattered", "shocked", "numb" and "heartbroken." link -- (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's one of the top entertainment stories on the BBC's news website (pushed down by the omnipresent top story, that of Jimmy Savile), and would help counter the systemic bias of the main page. GRAPPLE X 22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, his article has gotten 229,946 page views in the last 90 days, suggesting great interest in him. Speciate (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, highly influential man from a highly influential industry. His death mention would be ideal. Secret of success (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

George McGovern diesEdit

This has been effectively withdrawn by the nominator and no one currently supports posting it in its own right. If anyone wishes to support posting this as a separate story, then please re-open the discussion. If you wish to support it for the recent deaths ticker, please contribute to the discussion above. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2012 (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: George McGovern (talk, history)
Blurb: ​U.S. Representative, U.S. Senator, and the Democratic Party presidential nominee in the 1972 presidential election George McGovern dies at age 90. (Post)
Note: Seb az86556 made the nomination, but deleted it after just one oppose. As deletion of one's own nomination has been declared unacceptable in the past (I tried to defend the right to retract a nomination on a previous occasion, but consensus was against me), I undid his self-deletion. He subsequently changed the template to present me as the nominator, a title I reject. I am Neutral as to the proposal: I has received TV news coverage here (UK), but his historical role is very much a footnote. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not the nominator. Do not use my name here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Calm down. You were the original nominator, yes, but you removed it with this: [28] ...really? --Τασουλα (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since he was not actually president, I feel he doesn't quite make the high notability cut for his death being ITN. Thue (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, good recent deaths material if we can get that up and running.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he was just a candidate for presidency in 1975.--Egeymi (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - He was mentioned on the BBC, and was notable for his...thing...with Nixon. However, he was never president. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Once again, this would be a good fit for the recent deaths ticker we keep saying is a great idea. LukeSurl t c 20:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Recent Deaths Ticker only. Speciate (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2012 (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.

[Pulled] Canonization of new saintsEdit

Article: List of canonizations (talk, history)
Blurb: Pope Benedict XVI canonizes seven new saints at a ceremony held in Saint Peter's Square. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Pope Benedict XVI canonizes seven new saints, including Kateri Tekakwitha, the first Native American to be canonized.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Every canonization is notable enough and proves to be a fine ITN material. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Is it worth noting that Kateri Tekakwitha is the first North American native to be canonized? A number of news sources in Canada have headline stories about it. -- Scorpion0422 13:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's worth considering. I remember that we usually note to a specific person that was canonized, so it shouldn't be any problem to do it again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support, but name all or name none. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, every canonization is not remotely notable, the death throes of a decaying church. If this was the 1500s Wikipedia, it might be relevant. Speciate (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Kindly keep your political opinion out of this discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's not a political opinion, it's a comment on the complete irrelevance of this moribund institution and its actions to the modern day reader of Wikipedia. Speciate (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as written, or some similar variation. Story is notable, no need to list all seven. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – As per Bzweebl; not all seven have to be listed. Only Kateri Tekakwitha is the most notable canonization. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I just can't see the significance, and neither the nomination nor the bold article (which has no prose update) contains any information. Modest Genius talk 00:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'd prefer to link Kateri Tekakwitha and then link the six remaining with the list. ComputerJA (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, it's embarrassing that this isn't on the front page already. Shii (tock) 03:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added an alternative blurb that includes the mention of Kateri Tekakwitha. -- Scorpion0422 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Posted with this alternative blurb per general consensus. Shii (tock) 05:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Procedural point - it would be better if an uninvolved administrator had been the one to judge consensus, not one who had 2 hours earlier !voted support and stated that 'it's embarrassing that this isn't on the front page already'. Modest Genius talk 11:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Do we normally link to a list of links? I'd have thought that it was a candidate for being pulled. EdwardLane (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
In this case I think linking to the list is OK. If he'd only canonised three or four we could have linked to all of 'em in the blurb, but with seven this is the simplest way to provide readers with links to their articles. LukeSurl t c 12:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Err yes, I forgot about that. Where is the prose update? Should be pulled for lack of this. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulled per the above comments. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Speciate (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Repost We have a rather openly bigoted oppose that should be ignored entirely and a technical complaint about an ad hoc link that is solved entirely by using the alternate blurb. The central fact here enjoys overwhelming support, and should not be brought down do a side-objection regarding a blurb that doesn't require using. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Limited Support if the blurb does not include "first native american to be canonized" as that is false. The first seems to be Peter the Aleut. Though you could clarify the statement by saying first canonized by the Roman Catholic Church75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


Frankel winning at Doncaster in September 2010.
Article: Frankel (horse) (talk, history)
Blurb: Frankel, the world's top-rated racehorse, retires having never been beaten. (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times, BBC
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable because of unbeaten record, world #1 and all-time top Timeform ranking. A suitable image is also available. --RA (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, whether or not it is commonly covered by media outlets. Because if it is posted, ITN of WP will be more varied.--Egeymi (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb should specify when Frankel was top-rated (in 2011 and perhaps 2012 I assume). Brandmeistertalk 09:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment even more convincing if, when released, the official BHA ratings show him to be the highest rated horse ever. Leaky Caldron 09:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but agree very much with Leaky Cauldron's comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article says "highest-rated racehorse in the world since May 2011", so not that long or historically significant. I would much prefer ITN to rather feature some more news about fx the financial crisis; sports news like this seems too much like trivia to me in comparison. Thue (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • ITN isn't really a zero-sum game like that, posting one thing doesn't mean that another won't be posted. LukeSurl t c 14:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    Frankel was only born in 2008, getting to world #1 as a 3 year old isn't bad. I assume the retirement is happening now because of the huge stud value.JMiall 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can put world's top-rated racehorse in the blurb. Those ratings only consider a handful of countries from what I can see.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as far as I know these are the widest ranging horse ranking systems in the world and Frankel gets the highest score for a flat racer ever.JMiall 17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We usually omit to post retirements of very important people, so there is no way a retirement of a racehorse is worth considering for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. Any human retirement would only be vaguely considered for retirement at the end of a career of ten years, or maybe many more. Additional legs should not reduce our expectations. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with any comparison with humans, even human athletes. The point I find most notable about this horse is his success over such a short career. I suspect many others think the same way. It even suggests that horse-racing is taking a very different direction these days to the one it had even 10 years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarification The very highest rated flat racehorses retire at either 3 or 4 years for a lucrative stud career. It is rare for an entire horse to progress in terms of speed and stamina whereas a gelded horse can have greater longevity. A further point about Classic and Group 1 winners is that they have enormous earnings potential as stallions, in Frankel's case estimated at £100m. There also seems to be a misunderstanding about ratings. He is recognised by all bar the British Horseracing Authority as the highest ranked horse EVER in history. BHA had him rated 1pt lower before his final race. Leaky Caldron 18:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks LC, that is very clear. But, if BHA didn't agree, is it still fair to call him the "world's top-rated racehorse"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on the horses he beat yesterday the BHA may give a higher rating this week. There is an element of subjectivity in these things and different factors weighted by different handicappers, especially when comparing performance over many generations. Leaky Caldron 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, retirement of a horse? Doesn't pass the laugh test. Speciate (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- We have had sports retirement nominations, but this is one of an athlete that may be the greatest in his sport of all time. That's something we haven't had. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question--If he's so great why did he never race in the Grand National?--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but the National is a steeplechase, and Frankel is a flat racer. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The great myth about the Grand National is that it is considered by many to be the greatest race in the world. It is a spectacular race made notable through media and cinema coverage, but it does not equate to the best race for the best horses. Even within National Hunt racing, it rarely attracts the absolute top horses in that sphere although there are recent exceptions. It is a race for long distance staying chasers, 4 and a half miles. On the flat the optimum distance regarded as the greatest test are the so called middle distance races from 1 mile to 1 and a half. This is what bloodstock breeders aim for and where the Classic and highest prize money races throughout the world are targeted. Leaky Caldron 09:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Frankel never even left the British Isles to race nor did he race on any surface aside from turf. In a sport where the top horses in the world ship every year to Dubai for the Dubai World Cup and the US for the Breeder's Cup, Frankel did neither. We didn't post Zenyatta - and you could make a very similar argument with her. She never left the States. The only reason to post a horse retirement is if it ended some sort of record-breaking winning streak. -- (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

October 20Edit

October 19Edit

[Posted] Royal wedding, LuxembourgEdit

 --Tone 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wedding of the heir to the throne. We usually post those. There is no separate article but the basic update is there. --Tone 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support For a monarchy, births, deaths and marriages are as significant as elections in a democracy. --RA (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per RA. We always post weddings of royal members.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this is big news from a small country. The blurb should use the bride's maiden name, though. There's enough material on the Grand Duke's official website, the BBC, etc, for articles on both the bride and the event to be created, which I heartily recommend. I'm currently stuck in a hospital, but I'll gladly contribute when I'm out. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to be a relevant news for the Royalty world. Iowafromiowa (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, we posted a certain other royal wedding only last year, so I think posting this one is not inappropriate... --Τασουλα (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but use the maiden name and ideally create an article, per AlexTiefling. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, with the maiden name/title. The primary blurb makes it sound like he married a close relative. LukeSurl t c 10:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just realised the wedding itself has an article: Wedding of Guillaume, Crown Prince of Luxembourg, and Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy. LukeSurl t c 14:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated Strong Oppose. I came to this page expecting a discussion about this, and here I am totally shocked that this was posted with unanimous support. We cannot simply operate on catch-all principles like "royal weddings are by default important" or flimsy precedent-based arguments like "we always post these". These stories have to be held against standards that we give other articles for general notability, not just notability in a specific topic. Even the royal wedding of William and Kate spurred pages and pages of discussion, it would just seem totally ridiculous for this story to get a 'free pass'. Colipon+(Talk) 07:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, I was going to oppose it, but didn't because it's Luxembourg. I agree that the reasons you mention are not sufficient for the next case, should it arise. Speciate (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
@Colipon. But it's Luxembourg.. Luxembourg I tell ya! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated comment. Does it make a difference that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is not just a figurehead? He has some real political power in his country, and has used it. (laugh - remember to add the "royal" into it if a President of France ever marries while in office. He is also legally among the royalty.) - Tenebris 11:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated oppose. Figured it should be put on the record even if this isn't likely to be taken down. William & Kate should be the exception not the rule; the British monarchy is unusually well-known and rule over several countries, and its members are celebrities as well. The nobility of Luxembourg are not international celebrities, so that's out. There is the political argument since Grand Duke of Luxembourg isn't a figurehead... but still not convinced. If Angela Merkel's stepsons got married, would this be worth of ITN? I hope not. Alternatively, if "heir" is seen more as "likely to come into power in the future," should the marriages of up-and-coming potential Chancellors in German politics to be reported? Obviously not. And Germany is far more important than Luxembourg. It'd be one thing if the actual ruler was getting married while in office, e.g. Sarkozy & Bruini, but a non-celebrity heir in a minor country? No, pretty well fails all the potential valid reasons to post it. I hope this posting isn't used in the future as an example of a non-controversial case that shows Wikipedia should post any noble's wedding. SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I fully agree with User SnowFire. I can see this used as precedent to post other similarly non-notable events in the future, such as the crown prince of Swaziland taking on another wife or something. That would be highly unfortunate. I'd still opt to take this down, if nothing else to set the record straight on this matter, or even a retroactive 'retraction' of the legitimacy of this posting, so that it cannot be cited in future cases. Colipon+(Talk) 06:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Beirut bombingEdit

Article: Assassination of Wissam al-Hassan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four people, including Wissam al-Hassan, are killed and 110 are injured in a car bomb in Beirut, Lebanon (Post)
News source(s): CNN, TDS

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Blurb is yet subject to change as full extent of damages is being assessed. Current estimate is 4 dead and at least 110 injured. --hydrox (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems to be a targeted bombing. Such bombings seems to be rare enough in Lebanon to feature ITN. Thue (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Multiple fatalities, including that of a senior political figure, in a bombing that happened against the backdrop of the Syrian Civil War is a notable event. --Droodkin (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - significant event in the region, likely to have significant consequences. LukeSurl t c 10:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, since it is significant in terms of its triggering factors and potential outcomes.--Egeymi (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Destabilization of an important area in the Middle East; notable news. Jusdafax 11:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons stated above. The article is up-to-date and in a decent state. Are we ready to post? --RJFF (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Signs X and Y mean nothing to me. The change in the deaths and injuries reported will continue even if we post the blurb, so there is no reason to avoid use of any numbers. Saying at least 100 or something else seems to be fine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support seems relevant. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted (I also voted, but since there is unanimous support I feel I can post too) Thue (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Major support - this is major. All over the news, plus huge huge implications. --Jethro B 00:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln AlexanderEdit

Article: Lincoln Alexander (talk, history)
Blurb: Lincoln Alexander, Canada's first black Member of Parliament, dies at the age of 90. (Post)
News source(s): CBC News Toronto Star CTV News The Globe and Mail

Article updated

Nominator's comments: His election as MP was a watershed moment for Canadian multiculturalism. He's also the first black person to hold a viceregal position in Canada (as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose on face value. His election may have been a watershed moment. If so, I'd like that expressed in the blurb. If his significance can only be captured by the words, "Canada's first black Member of Parliament", then ... meh. --RA (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose His election was big news. His death is not. ITN is not an obituary. --RJFF (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:ITN/DC#Deaths, Alexander more than satisfies criteria #1 and 2. He was in a high-ranking office of power (a cabinet minister [Minister of Labour] and the 24th Lieutenant Governor of Ontario) and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region (his election as MP and appointment as LG, both unprecedented firsts in Canada, led to more acceptance and tolerance of black people in Canada). He was also widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field (reasons stated above; also, in his profession as a lawyer, he was both a QC and part of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think a secretary of labour, or a lieutenant governor really qualifies as a 'high ranking position of power'. I don't know if he's widely regarded as a very important person in his field, but I'd like to see some sources confirming he was. I think we'd need multiple reliable sources saying 'one of the most important MPs', or 'considered by many to be one of the most significant MPs' etc. The fact that he was the first black Canadian MP seems to be where the real significance is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Also I think the death section needs a bit more expansion. Normally the update should contain more than details about his death and funeral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
He held those political offices over 20 years ago. Neither are 'high ranking' in the way we usually interpret those guidelines, which for a country the size of Canada would be Prime Minister or head of state (were it to ever become a republic). As far as I can tell from the article and nomination, Alexander did not have a great lasting impact on his country or region (in the sense of a supernational area, not subnational). There are many hundreds of QCs and Privy Counsellors, so that doesn't mean much either. Sorry, I'm still opposed. Modest Genius talk 10:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
He wasn't in a high-ranking office at the time of his death, he resigned a long time before. It would be ITN if an incumbent officeholder died. --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RJFF. Modest Genius talk 21:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the sort of event the recent deaths ticker could be useful for. Didn't we decide we were going to implement that? LukeSurl t c 12:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
It never made it into policy. Ergo it is not policy. There were unanswered objections to the proposal. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It was closed, until you decided to undo it. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was closed and archived, and then Eraserhead decided to modify the archive to make it say something other than it had, in the apparent hope no-one noticed it. There was a discussion on adjusting the bot only recently and its behaviour reflects consensus. At the very least this kind of imposition needs current debate to reflect current consensus, not citing an old failed proposal as evidence to enact something now. I will re-revert now and any further attempts to re-write history will go straight to AN/I. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. This is what a deaths ticker is for, and it should be implemented per consensus. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose'. If he was currently a member of Parliament, his death might be noteworthy, but he isn't. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

October 18Edit

Benue killingsEdit

Article: Benue State (talk, history)
Blurb: ​30 people are killed in religious violence in Benue State (Post)
News source(s):

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Saw this quickly and not sure of the notability of this. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  • It seems crude but on experience 30 deaths is about borderline for the magnitude of a disaster that is posted, though that threshold is generally somewhat lower for violent deaths. Currently the article linked to is of very low-quality and makes no mention of the incident. LukeSurl t c 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Seems like the violence is serious, but the blurb mentioning a federal subject is too naive. I think it's better to mention Nigeria in the blurb, which gives a full orientation for the reader.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no article, and 30 people with no exceptional circumstances is borderline notability anyway. Mocctur (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No article, no update. --RJFF (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

October 17Edit

[Posted] Alpha Centauri has a planetEdit

Article: Alpha Centauri Bb (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Planet found around our nearrest neighbour Alpha Centauri Bb. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ESO announces the discovery of an Earth-sized planet in the Alpha Centauri system, the stellar system closest to Earth.
News source(s): [29]

Article updated

 Typesometext (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Neutral - This is much more exciting exoplanet news than the two mentioned below. But I'd still like to wait and see how enthusiastically this is taken up by non-specialist media. I've also added an altblurb which distinguishes planet, star and system correctly. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Scientifically unsurprising, but required impressive precision. Bound to make a splash with the public, given that it's a really easy star to point out by eye. Nice outreach topic, but of minor scientific interest beyond the instrumentation aspects. I don't really mind if this does or doesn't get posted, but the article needs some work first (one-paragraph stub at present). Modest Genius talk 11:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the closest new world is a big deal, newspaper articles quote normally reserved astronomers as saying "Wow." Hekerui (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Since when were astronomers 'normally reserved' when talking to the media? Modest Genius talk 11:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - closest possible extrasolar planet, and Earth-sized to boot; smallest planet ever discovered by radial velocity; now also covered by mainstream media (NY Times and many others) after embargo has been lifted. Planet is close enough that it could technically be visited by a (multi-decade) spacecraft [30]. (The blurb should technically say "announced" instead of "found" since it's not yet independently confirmed. But there seems to be no serious doubt on the results.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Your first point is wrong - Proxima Centauri is closer and might have one or more planets. Plus there's always the possibility of there being even closer rogue planets. Modest Genius talk 18:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support but if it is an Earth-sized planet, the blurb should say its mass. Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting news being picked up my major outlets. I've done a few edits and article is no longer a stub, is organised into sections, and the facts are now all cited. (I wish people wouldn't add things without citing, especially with news stories) LukeSurl t c 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support That there actually are planets, not just in theory, in our neighbouring solar system is huge news - and not just from an astronomical perspective. Njardarlogar (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-post Support. Detecting a 51 centimetre wobble? That's quite the precision... I mean sure, it's only 4.37 ly away, but still! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
51cm per second. The actual displacement is much larger. Still incredibly impressive though! Modest Genius talk 21:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-post Support. Given that the discovery of exoplanets is now routine, posting in ITN requires something extra. In this case, proximity and survival in a trinary system are the kickers. Next, a planet with water in the habitable zone. Speciate (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

October 16Edit

Picasso/Monet stolenEdit

Article: Kunsthal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Multiple artworks including those from Picasso, Matisse and Monet are stolen from Kunsthal museum in Rotterdam (Post)
News source(s): BBC

 ---- Ashish-g55 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is popping up all over. And considering the works stolen it seems fairly notable. Please change blurb if needed. The article to update will be that of the museum. -- Ashish-g55 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The article requires significant expansion, more than just a one paragraph update. It needs to have several paragraphs of referenced prose. A fair bit of work, and it might be difficult if there aren't a lot of sources in English about the museum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually considering this museum is only there for temporary exhibitions perhpas this update may end up going elsewhere. any suggestions? -- Ashish-g55 18:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the heist itself worthy of an article?--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Well either way i updated the article as much as i could about the heist. add few refs. It may need a bit more work. -- Ashish-g55 19:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Heist of famous artworks is a very big deal. I remember that we've posted similar stories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The theft section looks solid, but I'd like to see more information about the museum itself. SpencerT♦C 20:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Info on this museum isnt easy to find since this seems to be the only major event. Its empty space for temporary exhibitions so i just added another line in there mentioning some of the recent artists that were featured. -- Ashish-g55 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support though the update is brief. Also the timing is crucial, as this is closing in on stale. Interesting story however. Jusdafax 21:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Even though i nominated this i'll mark it as ready since its going stale and i dont see objection to it. -- Ashish-g55 03:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd support this but the article is two stubby right now (at just two paragraphs) for it to be marked ready. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

PH 1Edit

Article: Planet Hunters#Discoveries (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An exoplanet in a four-star system is discovered (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Initially, when reading the nomination below I was not impressed. However, when reading more about Planet Hunters 1, it is indeed a really unusual planet: until now only six planets are known to orbit two suns, and the fact that this has two more stars orbiting it is really unusual and will probably have repercussions on the planet formation theories; secondly, this planet is the first one to be discovered by a crown-sourcing project such as Planet Hunters. Nergaal (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This research has not even been published yet, much less reviewed. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been nominated below already! Please go through currents noms next time. Thanks -- Ashish-g55 17:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Initially, when reading the nomination below -- I think he has read it! Nevertheless, the paragraph that is linked (in it's current state) to doesn't suggest front page content to me, Oppose. LukeSurl t c 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes i didnt read the comment but saw the nom and it looked awfully familier... lol -- Ashish-g55 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. a) this is a re-nomination of an item which is already under discussion below, which furthermore fails to address any of the existing opposition b) it hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, c) it's really not that big a deal in terms of formation theories, as the orbit is no less stable than various other circumbinary systems, and d) being discovered by crowd-sourcing is irrelevant. Modest Genius talk 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Man Booker PrizeEdit

Article: 2012 Man Booker Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Hilary Mantel wins the 2012 Man Booker Prize for her novel Bring Up the Bodies, becoming the first woman, and first Briton, to win the award twice (Post)

Nominator's comments: The Booker will be announced today, and it's a recurring item, so shouldn't be a problem. I'm posting this to inform that, for the first time, I have written a rather extensive article on the current Booker Prize, so we won't have to link simply to the generic Man Booker Prize page. Lampman (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- A wonderful article to read, and ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks; still needs to expand the lead. BTW, got big money ridin' on Self (Self, not self, obviously...) Lampman (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Good article (unusual for an event yet to be held) - and notable enough award. --Klak of Klak (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if Will Self wins, otherwise don't bother. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support whoever wins (obviously) - this is one of the most prominent and prestigious book prizes in the world. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very good article, very notable prize doktorb wordsdeeds 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable award, excellent article (take it straight to GA once the attention has died down). Could do with another sentence or two in the 'Winner' section, but otherwise this is good to go. Modest Genius talk 21:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus + update = ready. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted I didn't think the fact that she was the first woman or first Briton to win it twice was that big of a deal. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

October 15Edit

New planets discoveredEdit

Articles: PH1 (talk, history) and 55 Cancri e (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A planet with four suns and one twice the size of Earth made from diamonds are discovered (Post)
News source(s): and

Nominator's comments: Scientific curiosity of two planets, the kinds of which are unlike those we have discovered before. --doktorb wordsdeeds 16:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I love exoplanets. I don't love repeated 'news' stories about them. 55 Cancri e is not a new discovery - I'm sure the existence of at least 5 planets in the 55Cnc system was known quite some time ago. The 'made from diamonds' claim is an exaggeration; it's made from a large amount of elemental carbon, some of which may be diamonds, but lots of which is likely to be graphite or amorphous carbon. Nothing particularly stands out about this announcement. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I think that this is a news-worthy story, I believe that the articles mentioned should have been created first, and then later nominated. --Droodkin (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Exoplanet discoveries have become routine now. Also, impossible to assess an article's quality if it doesn't exist! LukeSurl t c 16:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm an astronomer myself, and my immediate reaction is 'so what?'. Mildly interesting, but neither are particularly significant. In addition, the diamond one rests upon a huge number of rather shaky assumptions. Modest Genius talk 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Note: 55 Cnc e did already exist, and is even a GA. The link was broken due to incorrect syntax, which I've fixed. No idea about the other one, which doesn't seem to follow the normal naming conventions. Modest Genius talk 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a BBC article about the other one:[] AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Bloody hell, it's not even been published yet? Just 'submitted for publication'? Strong oppose on that basis. Modest Genius talk 11:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per astronomer Modest Genius.--Egeymi (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The professional astronomer opposed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - good for DYK, not ITN. --Jethro B 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, bad for DYK. One of the articles doesn't exist and the other is already GA. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic SciencesEdit

Article: Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (talk, history)
Blurb: Alvin E. Roth and Lloyd Shapley are awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for 2012 (Post)

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: A further Nobel prize and one which concludes this year's run. --doktorb wordsdeeds 13:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb that calls it "Nobel Prize in Economics". A Nobel Prize in Economics doesn't exist. If posted, the blurb should use the correct name of the prize. Mocctur (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: But agree with the above in regards to the blurb. Economic science is a lot less vague anyhow, even if it wasn't the official title of the award :-) --Klak of Klak (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support notability as per ITN/R. Usual comments about article readiness - I think both articles need at least a paragraph explaining exactly what the Prize was awarded for. As per the name, it's the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics". I'm happy with either, though I prefer the brevity of the latter over the precision of the former. LukeSurl t c 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It is not a Nobel Prize as stipulated in the will of Alfred Nobel. It has only been awarded since the 1970s. It is not as important as the Nobel Peace Prize (and even the importance of the Nobel Peace Prize is eroded by giving every second one to warmongers and criminals). -- (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously here please post comments with little less POV oozing from them -- Ashish-g55 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's a n official Nobel, regardless of Alfred's will. I suggest getting ready for the blurb on the Nobel won by The Onion.[31] – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not an "official Nobel". It has nothing to do with the Nobel Prizes, that is, the prizes established by the family named Nobel. It's as much a Nobel Prize as the "Alternative Nobel Prize", one of many prizes trying to use the prestige of Alfred Nobel's prizes. Nobel is the family name of a Swedish family and the only prizes that are "official Nobels" are obviously prizes established or at least approved by that family. The Nobel family explicitly forbade any use of their family name in connection with this prize. Mocctur (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not a useful measure of the notability of this prize. 'Officialness' is, ultimately, irrelevant. The question is, will I see this in tomorrow's Financial Times? To which the answer is 'yes', unless it was it today's. (I didn't check, tbh.) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I strike the word "official". That the Nobel family forbids this clearly hasn't had any effect. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- It isn't a Nobel Prize, but it is notable and ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of any controversies surrounding the naming and provenance of the prize itself, it is a widely-regarded prize and has as prominent a place in the news media as any of the other fer realz Nobel Prizes. --Jayron32 02:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this ready now? I really don't know enough of the topic to know if the articles adequately cover the prize-winning research?
  • Comment: Lloyd_Shapley#Contribution needs references. Roth's article looks good content-wise.SpencerT♦C 20:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Doktorbuk asked me to look at the this to see if it's ready, but I don't know which article(s) I should be looking at. Neither the Roth article nor the Shapely article looks ready. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Scottish independence referendum 2014Edit

Article: Scottish independence referendum 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron signs an agreement with First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond to pave the way for an independence referendum in 2014 (Post)
News source(s): Daily Telegraph

Nominator's comments: Constitutionally important for the United Kingdom, especially in the context of the Catalan independence movement --doktorb wordsdeeds 13:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak support: I can see the significance of this & and the amount of media coverage it has garnered in the UK right now, but as it's just the announcement of a deal we all knew was coming anyway, I can only lend a weak support. It's a support all the same, however. --Klak of Klak (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose This has been in the works all year. Wait for a result. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support "Historic agreement"[32][33] Major readership interest. Developments in this story have been proposed but not posted before AFAIK (correct me if I am wrong..) --hydrox (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The result of the referendum will be ITNworthy, the bureaucratic processes that lead to it are not. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We'll post the result for sure. But minor negotiations over the technical details, two years beforehand? No thanks. Modest Genius talk 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would quibble with "technical details"; one of the points decided here is what the referendum will actually be about. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment being a non-Brit is can be hard to understand the significance here but it sure seems more important than a 'bureaucratic process' or a 'minor negotiation'. We now have a set date for a vote on Scottish independence, and given that it's two years away I think it's a bit long to wait for that result. But here's a question I have--will this referendum actually be a mechanism for Scotland to secede, or is this like a lot of similar referenda in places like Quebec where there's no clear picture as to what will happen if voters vote for independence?--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
We do not have a set date: it is to be sometime before the end of 2014, nothing more precise than that. Kevin McE (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's true. But isn't the 'imprecise' time of this election normal in UK elections? UK general elections don't take place at a definite date but they definitely happen. Is there any chance that the referendum won't take place?--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The current news is merely about the UK allowing Scotland to hold a referendum. They haven't actually decided to hold it yet, but the ruling party has clearly said they want to. In 2013 it's expected that a bill about holding the referendum will be introduced in the Scottish parliament where it will probably pass, but we don't know whether something will happen and stop the bill from being introduced or passed. The bill will set a date for the referendum, presumably in the autumn of 2014. If we bring anything in ITN before the referendum then I think it should be when it's actually decided to hold the referendum and not one or more of the many other steps. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, thank you. ON that basis I oppose for now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
UK press sources are saying it's a "legally binding referendum". The article seems to hint that if the vote is "yes" for independence, the secession would not be immediate, but would rather lead to negotiations between the Scottish and British governments. --hydrox (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
That's how it's generally understood. I don't think anyone believes it will be a count and then independence by lunchtime! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this will be a legally binding mechanism for Scotland to secede. --RA (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a routine part of the process. The Catalan situation is different precisely because of the massive popular protests there. This has been a much gentler process so far, and today's signing was a mere formality, albeit an important one. As I understand it, as the referendum will be legally binding, a 'yes' vote would inevitably lead to secession (barring, you know, a war breaking out or something), but not immediately. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We'd post things like secessionists and governments agreeing to talks. This is the culmination of such talks. There may be no war involved (a good thing) but it is just as significant. The UK government has agreed that there will be a referendum, if Scotland votes to leave the UK, then it may leave. --RA (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As pointed out when this topic was nominated in both January and May of this year, it is the results of this repeatedly postponed referendum, if it is ever held, that matter, not every minor step in the process of determining if or when the referendum will be held. --Allen3 talk 21:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait' Until the referendum succeeds. --Jayron32 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose until Scotland drifts away Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Lugnuts, I'd be the first to defend WP:NOTCENSORED, but was there any particular reason for the spectacularly crude choice of words you employed in your edit summary for this !vote? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Ever had the misfortune of being around anyone from Scotland? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't regard it as a misfortune. Have you considered not airing such flagrantly prejudiced views? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Not really prejudiced when you've seen it first hand. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
May I draw your attention to the section of WP:CIVIL which specifically mentions "derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities"? You also appear to be engaging in false generalisation. Please consider apologising and retracting your statements. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You may. Thanks chief! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with AlexTiefling, that was clearly inappropriate and prejudiced. Modest Genius talk 21:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Philippines accordEdit

Articles: Bangsamoro (talk, history) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A peace accord is signed by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippines government ending a 30-year conflict which sees a new autonomous Muslim autonomous region created (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A peace accord is signed between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippines government ending a 30-year conflict

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 07:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply Good point! Changed 08:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I just noticed their acronym is MILF :) Fortibus (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I heard about this in the radio a week or two ago and they mentioned that there were two previous similar peace accords signed before (Tripoli 1 and 2), but they were never applied and thus this isn't that significant unless words and turned into actions. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support notability, but Moro Islamic Liberation Front has orange tags. Is there a page for the conflict itself? LukeSurl t c 10:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unlike Sudan where they parted ways, the Muslims and Christians sectors agree to a broader scope of autonomy rather than independence. --Exec8 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Defer to 2016 when they finally agree on the final peace treaty. We've waited 40 years for a preliminary agreement so we can wait for a few more years for hopefuly the final treaty. –HTD 16:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
strong supprt by precedece, deal signed smething happened. Dint we post FARC's talking?Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Basically, "the deal" was that they'll make a deal that would be approved by 2016 at the latest. That's the deal. Kinda like the Scottish nom above. –HTD 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Malala YousafzaiEdit

Article: Malala Yousafzai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Internationally celebrated child activist Malala Yousafzai is sent to the UK for further treatment after being shot in the head by a Taliban gunman. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Pakistani child activist Malala Yousafzai is sent to the UK for treatment after being shot in the head by a Taliban gunman.
News source(s): (Reuters), (BBC)

Nominator's comments: Celebrated figure after the attacks -- seen as the global face of girls education movement, and a sign of the continued dangers of the Taliban. Attack was denounced by world leaders, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Ban Ki-moon. Yousafzai was nominated in 2011 for the International Children's Peace Prize by Desmond Tutu. Finally, the content of the Wiki is high quality, in my opinion. -- Fortibus (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - I am a contributor to the article and I support this. - Metalello talk 08:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with alt blurb ("Internationally celebrated" is a bit POV). It may be a bit late in this story to post something, but the article in question is excellent. LukeSurl t c 10:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we phrase the blurb to make it clear the shooting was a few days ago? Currently it sounds like it was very recent. LukeSurl t c 11:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It gets a little wordy. Maybe something like: "Celebrated child activist Malala Yousafzai, shot in the head last week by a Taliban gunman, travels to England for further treatment. Fortibus (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's time to put something about her on the Main Page. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have some minor contributions to the article talk page. The topic is continuously in the headlines on Al Jazeera and other TV channels.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Appropriate. Rothorpe (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and remove. While we all can feel sorry for a girl who has been shot, this isn't main page material at all. Numerous people get shot and brutalized all over the world every day. Mocctur (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
But most of them are not prominent youth activists shot by terrorists for their activism. Support, as the victim is clearly notable, and her story is making the headlines world-wide. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Malala_Yousafzai#Assassination_attempt, especially the "Public reaction" section helps clarify why this is different from the "[n]umerous people [who] get shot and brutalized all over the world every day." SpencerT♦C 21:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose- She was shot a week ago, and all this is reporting is that she was brought to the UK. This is just an excuse to post it now because we missed it last week, which isn't a good reason for posting otherwise insignificant news. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This should have been posted when she was shot. As the blurb reads right now, the news being highlighted is her being sent to the UK for treatment. How she receives medical treatment is not really the news (and not relevant/significant enough to be mentioned in the blurb), it was the fact that she was shot and that there was widespread condemnation of the shooting in Pakistan (and internationally). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 14Edit

[Posted] Norodom SihanoukEdit

Article: Norodom Sihanouk (talk, history)
Blurb: Norodom Sihanouk, former King of Cambodia, dies at the age of 89 in Beijing, China. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, CNN

Article updated

 --Paris 16 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Note - the refimprove tag should be worked out.... – Connormah (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, a recent death that actually meets the Recent Death criteria. Sihanouk was important, worldwide. Speciate (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with change - some other mention should be made as to the myriad of leadership posts held in between those two reigns. User:Simfan34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but hook can be changed to just "former King of Cambodia". --Soman (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but as stated Soman, the hook should be shortened through the use of "former King of Cambodia".--Egeymi (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support important and notable news, with modified blurb doktorb wordsdeeds 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting immediately. Very important political figure in the world and former head of state who hold numerous other political offices during his life. The death section seems to be sufficiently expanded and the consensus is clear here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize it, as it wasn't noted on this page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It had a posted tag, just not the usual comment on the bottom. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd really like to have an image, and I see File:Norodom Sihanouk.JPG, except that it says it's a crop from another file in Commons. But it's not a crop from that photo, and I don't want to post something that's potentially unfree. Are there any other images? I can't say the other ones in the article are of good enough posting quality. SpencerT♦C 01:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Montenegrin electionEdit

Article: Montenegrin parliamentary election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ruling European Montenegro coalition wins a plurality in the Montenegrin parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): [34]

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.

 --RJFF (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per most discussed and deliberated ITN/R category and it has remained standing. Also just their third election as a sovereign state. Update is non-existent though. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article needs a prose update. At the moment it's only a few sentences of lead and a results table. Modest Genius talk 12:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support All elections important!--Lucky102 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Arlen Specter for Recent Deaths tickerEdit

Article: Arlen Specter (talk, history)
Blurb: ​no blurb, for recent death ticker (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post [35]

Article needs updating

 -- μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose we institute the recent deaths ticker see most recent RfC with the death of the longest sitting Pennsylvania US Senator Arlen Specter.(See Washington Post) Since I am proposing this for the ticker, I am not suggesting a blurb. The change would be to one line of ITN, from the current:

Syrian civil warWikinewsRecent deathsMore current events...

to the new:

Syrian civil warWikinewsRecent deaths; Arlen SpecterMore current events...

This is a minor efficient change which has had strong support every time it has been suggested, recently and in the past. As for specter himself, he served on the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of JFK, chaired Supreme Court nomination hearings, was a Republican who opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and switched parties enabling the passage of Obamacare. There should be significant US readership interest, justifying a ticker slot, if not a full ITN listing. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the idea, but should we rather put in on another line? This is what I understood was actually suggested in the RfC. I.e. from the current:
Syrian civil warWikinewsRecent deathsMore current events...
to the new 2-liner:
Syrian civil warWikinewsMore current events...
Recent deaths: Arlen Specter, John Doe, more...
Also, the names were bolded in the proposal. --hydrox (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't his name go below the line of bold entries? That line already fills the width of the template, and it looks whacky having a blurb of unbolded text adjacent to all bold text.
Syrian civil warWikinewsMore current events
Recent deaths: Arlen Specter
-- Floydian τ ¢ 18:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess edit conflicts no longer happen. Same thing as Hydrox! - Floydian τ ¢ 18:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support perhaps with that cloning guy; RfC already has consensus so no need debating that here; all we need is an admin who will agree to make the change. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this as a rush to implement the "death ticker". Specter wasn't a particularly special politician, other than being old. --IP98 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose deaths ticker. I know I missed the RFC, but how to we "pick and choose"? Would rather a bot just keep the area updated with the last three from Deaths in 2012 (or whatever), and never see another death nom on this list. --IP98 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
They would be nominated exactly as I have done here and approved before they are posted. And could you please consolidate your oppose into one bold vote? People should be voting on the nom, not the ticker. There were three votes ion favor of the ticker in August, including the 18 to 11 RfC with some opposes being to specific versions, not the entire idea, and previous votes such as back in June, all in favor. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I oppose both. I oppose the death nom, I dont think it stands on it's own. I oppose the death ticker too as redundant overkill. --IP98 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I am curious if you think everyone who supports this should have two bold supports, IP98, and Doktorb one bold support and one oppose? Please consider unbolding one of your votes, not retracting your comment. The purpose of bolding is to emphasize the consensus on a cursory view. I don't vote oppose to ITNR itself and to individual ITNR nominations in the same thread even though I might oppose both. Is this double voting a precedent we want to set? μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed one to italics. The posting admins aren't vote counting robot scripts. I'm sorry that you're so hung up on it, and I hope that this change makes things better. I am, however, going to bold the following comment: the death ticker is an unnecessary knee-jerk reaction to the perception that too many death noms are posted. A death nom is a nom like any other, which either stands on it's own or doesn't. There is absolutely no need for the ticker. I don't think I had "support" or "oppose" in there anywhere, so it ought not cause any further consternation. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion on the ticker is finished and has been archived with a clear consensus for implementation. This is not the place to debate that. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find myself in an odd position. I support the concept of a death ticker, but not supportive of the nominated person chosen to 'start' it. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Opposing the nom is not a problem, although I think he will be of enough interest in the US to have a lot of readers looking for him, and he was a senior statesman while in office. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If only Specter is listed, there is no need for an extra line, we should be economical. If we add Campbell, which I support, then a second line is fine--people should presumably vote their support for that under his nom for the recent death option. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Assuming there is consensus to list a recent death like this, Specter is an appropriate person to use it for. He was a leader in the US Senate, shepherding Supreme Court nominees through confirmation hearings, regardless of the political party of the nominating president. An actual moderate, he was one of the last of a dying breed. Before he was a Senator, he was a driving force behind the single bullet theory put forth by the Warren Commission during the investigation of the JFK assassination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I find myself echoing the concerns of doktorb. SpencerT♦C 19:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean someone else's concerns? Doktorb has simply voted no on the nom, presumably as not notable enough, but not expressed any addressable concern that I can see. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, notability concerns. although long-serving, Specter was never the president pro tempore of the Senate, was not among the longest serving members of Congress, and did not have the impact in Pennsylvania as other senators, such as Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens had on the economic and social development in their respective states. And I have to admit, after reading Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2009 about Ted Kennedy, Spector's accomplishments seem much small and I'm changing my !vote: perhaps he didn't have as much traction as a more moderate voice to have a greater impact. SpencerT♦C 22:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The death ticker proposal didn't gain consensus. If you want another crack, you need to start a new centralised discussion. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. But if you honestly think that, request a neutral close. Formerip (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The death ticker proposal has been supported at least four times, in discussions arranged by three editors, 18 to 11 in a formal RfC, and even higher in other informal votes, with some of the oppose votes in the RfC not actually opposing the proposition itself, just various versions. If you want to vote oppose for the nom itself, FormerIP please do so--but don't make stuff up outright about the result of former discussions of this issue. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I have. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Jolly good. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose I appreciate your anxiety to force some breaking of a current impasse as to the creation/rejection of a death ticker, but a formal resolution of that issue, and incorporation of the facility into instructions and provisions of ITN should precede any proposal to implement them. We cannot implement functions before they are unveiled. Kevin McE (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, I Support the idea of a recent death ticker. One caveat; some of the recently deceased are redlinks, so the bot should not add them to the ticker. Breaking impasses is good, no matter what some WikiLawyering users might think. Speciate (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As for the ticker, it could work, though may work better if we have a couple people in a row. Wizardman 04:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of a ticker with a somewhat lower notability bar than deaths on ITN. I think it would be best to have exactly two names in the list at all times. If implemented, I think it would be wise to set up a small group to figure out exactly how it would work and draft policy. I have no opinion on Specter however. LukeSurl t c 10:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support it looks like someone finally closed out that discussion. So why not? Hot Stop (Edits) 03:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like the link to the former closed discussion (the one that gets mentioned in rational for the closed out discussion Bzweeble linked to, and Hot Stop mentioned) got archived - and I don't want to mess with the archive or the closed discussion but I think that leaves a broken link or two in there that ought to point to here. Incidentally I think I'm broadly neutral, or possibly weakly opposed to the recent deaths getting front page links, but if they are to happen then I prefer the bare links format after rereading the discussion. And I think that if we were to trial the format now, then for Arlen Specter I'd support for a bare link, oppose for a blurb EdwardLane (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Felix BaumgartnerEdit

Articles: Red Bull Stratos (talk, history) and Felix Baumgartner (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Skydiver Felix Baumgartner sets the records for the highest manned balloon flight, highest skydive and fastest freefall speed. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Seems pretty well established we all think this is hella cool, I thought I'd bust out an 'official' template. --LukeSurl t c 18:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This guy might become the first free-faller to pass the speed of sound. Nergaal (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • lol i came here to nominate this. Ofcourse support iff he breaks the record and article is updated as such -- Ashish-g55 02:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support proviso to the record being broken, though I feel this nomination is a little premature. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if he merely breaks the record: incremental improvements in performance is the nature of human development and record brreaking. Perhaps I could be persuaded if sound barrier is broken. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Provisional support, subject to ITN criteria being met and sound barrier being broken (regardless of whether he lives to tell the tale, that'll still be in the news). However, I agree that this is a premature nomination and will need to be evaluated in the context of other events. -- Trevj (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if he breaks the speed of sound. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if the sound barrier is broken; oppose otherwise. I'm generally against this kind of story, but breaking the sound barrier does seem very notable. Question: the speed of sound is affected by density. Will he be breaking the local speed of sound at the height in question, or the speed of sound down here on the ground? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If he does it. Lugnuts And the horse 12:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support either if he breaks the record. Though I also propose that we have an alternate blurb for if he dies in his attempt.--WaltCip (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note even if he does not break the sound barrier, he should break the altitude record, which has stood for more than 50 years [36]. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The attempt has now been postponed until Thursday. Lugnuts And the horse 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    And once more, this time until Sunday. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- If he dies and it gets significant news coverage, I might consider that too. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - Capsule has been launched finally, so we should know what kind of story we have in a few hours or so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
He's gone past 100,000ft! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It looks like Red Bull Stratos would be the better primary article, rather than Baumgartner's. LukeSurl t c 17:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've moved it up here since there is no reason for this to be in Oct 9th. One more note to be made here is Highest manned balloon flight which will be broken at 113k feet. -- Ashish-g55 17:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Live Link: Live Feed of Jump. - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Or if you live in the Free World, you could switch your TV on. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad I stuck with the live link, appears CNN broke from the live coverage right as he was about to jump. Not sure about others (BBC World News, MSNBC, Fox News, etc). - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
BBC showed the whole thing. So I was OK. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of sound barrier being broken. Record has stood for 52 years, I think we have enough room to include further human accomplishments of this nature when it happens again. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Success! Highest manned balloon flight, highest jump. Speed still needs verification. LukeSurl t c 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
And longest delayed drop. 4 world records in 6 minutes. BAM! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And all he had to do was JUMP! you couldn't pay me to have those cojones - Floydian τ ¢ 18:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- That was unbelievable to watch. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I didn't watch it - I was watching Strictly Come Dancing - but I understand something important happened today doktorb wordsdeeds 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be nice if the information about the actual mission had some more prose, and not just the bulleted timeline. -- tariqabjotu 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - according to the BBC: "None of the new marks set by Baumgartner can be classed as "official" until approved by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI)". I don't know when that's likely to happen. Probably gives us a few hours to get the article in order. LukeSurl t c 19:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I would guess several weeks while they pore over the data. Modest Genius talk 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I thought this was a little too cute-sy and niche interest when it was first nominated, but it's #1 on my Google News page in addition to many top publications individually, and it's blowing up Twitter and my Facebook feed. That's enough for me to see it's beyond a small audience. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- Article now has sufficient update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC report suggests he made 833.9 miles per hour, smashing the sound barrier. And he landed on his feet, from 128,000 feet. The last fact alone should be on ITN, let alone the speed of sound record!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you willing to post? Preferably not with the part about him landing on his feet, as I assume that was meant in jest. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

October 13Edit

Stirling Prize 2012Edit

Article: Stirling Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Sainsbury Laboratory wins architecture's Sterling Prize (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Architects Stanton Williams win the Stirling Prize for the Sainsbury Laboratory at Cambridge University (altblurb proposed by Kevin McE)

Nominator's comments: The United Kingdom's most prestigious architecture award --doktorb wordsdeeds 08:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Not feasible to give every national award, even for "major" nations (as though we will ever agree what they are). Buildings do not win this award: architects do. I note that neither the architects', not the building's article has had any update yet: a measure of the degree of interest? The suggested article to embolden would not be appropriate for a 5 sentence update: it is a tabulated list of winners.Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Very weak oppose: I have to admit that this prize really doesn't get that much attention, even in its home country. It's a nice award for an interesting subject, but media coverage wise, not very significant. --Klak of Klak (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Although the award is notable, and I'm always interested in the event, it's quite restrictive in terms of what can be entered (UK designed or built in the UK). The Pritzker Prize is already on ITNR, and is the global equivalent (upon further investigation, the Pritzker is for a body of work, rather than the Stirling's single building). If we posted the UK national award then it would be difficult to argue against posting the national awards for every developed country. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While I believe that it's a relevant award, we can't give a front page for every award. Iowafromiowa (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The fact that it is only a national award counts it out, but it is a minority topic if those still exist. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mauritanian President shotEdit

Article: Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz (talk, history)
Blurb: President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz (pictured) is shot by army troops. (Post)
News source(s): [37]
  • Oppose- It's becoming clear that his life is not in danger and the shot was accidental. Not such big news unless he had been assassinated. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per Bzweebl. Sounded significant at first reports, but as this story has developed it became less remarkable. LukeSurl t c 10:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: One simply has to look past the title to see there's nothing much significant in this. --Klak of Klak (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As said, it was an accidental event and not worth of a front page. Iowafromiowa (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Very rare event in country with a recent coup. If Dick Cheney had shot him you can bet we'd post this. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. What the hell does Cheney have to do with this? What purpose is there in bringing him up? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Lol, about my ballsy aunt. Cheney is known for accidentally shooting people. If the US president were shot accidentally you can bet your own aunt's balls we'd've posted it. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Meh, around these parts there'd be more value placed on Dick Cheney's shopping trolley than the massacre of the entire population of Mauritania, never mind its president being shot. -- (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The U.S. equivalent of this event is probably half Reagan assassination attempt, half George W. Bush's pretzel incident. It's meaningless to compare a nomination to a theoretical incident that hasn't happened. And, if you look at the data, ITN does a fairly good job at being international. LukeSurl t c 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see, it's another attempt to scream "AMERICAN BIAS!!!!1!!!1one". Please give it a rest. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Please look at the nomination above involving a white American senator, who not only died from an illness aged 82 but received actual support. Then compare it to this unexpected incident involving a 55-year-old black African president who was not ill in any obvious way before his own troops shot him. -- (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Arlen Specter's death wasn't posted or widely supported. If anything that example disproves your point. The nomination wasn't even for an ITN blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's enough of the going-off topic and accusation throwing, all of you. ^.^ --Τασουλα (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting, even curious, but just not important doktorb wordsdeeds 02:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

October 12Edit

UN resolution on MaliEdit

Article: 2012 Northern Mali conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UN Security Council passes a resolution to prepare plans for foreign military intervention in Mali. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC UN press office

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A major development in the conflict. Blue berets aren't marching yet, but this is the first stage of the authorisation to do so. --LukeSurl t c 22:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I've expanded the relevant section a fair bit. LukeSurl t c 22:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "The resolution gives 45 days for "detailed and actionable recommendations"[88] for military intervention which would be drafted by ECOWAS and the African Union[89], with a figure of 3,000 proposed troops reported" -- Sounds premature to post. We should wait until there is action outside of committee discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support- There has been a lot of buildup to a possible UN resolution, so it's only fair that we post it now and not wait, because that would just to lead to opposition that will want to wait for something like an end to the conflict. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait We should post this when something actually happens. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the biggest thing that will happen. It'll be hard to point to a single ITN-worthy posting once peacekeepers are deployed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't boots on the ground be bigger than a resolution that discusses the possibility of boots on the ground? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, though as Kevin McE says below, that development may not occur. The possibility of future even bigger stories doesn't necessarily preclude this story from being posted. LukeSurl t c 11:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't, but the fact that nothing may come of this puts this in perspective. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It is to be hoped that this will be the biggest story in the conflict, that once UN military intervention was on the table the parties realise the inevitable and seek peace. Those saying that the actual deployment is to be the bigger story seem pessimistic. Kevin McE (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose here in lies the challenge. Kevin McE raises a good point: this might spark the end of the conflict, in which case it's certainly "ITN Worthy". On the other hand, Medeis is also right, "authorize the planning of force" seems pretty weak, and it makes sense to wait until something like "authorization of force". No one here has a crystal ball. A quick look at the Google world news top 20 shows no sign of this event, but ITN posts all sorts of items which doesn't get massive media coverage. Ultimately I oppose, (for whatever that is worth), based purely on the gut instinct that this resolution won't make a lick of difference in Mali and that either the UN will authorize force or that the conflict will worsen. --IP98 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I would say that we have to wait a little bit more. Iowafromiowa (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Keith CampbellEdit

Article: Keith Campbell (biologist) (talk, history)
Blurb: Keith Campbell, cloner of sheep Dolly, dies at 58. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

 Iowafromiowa (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose- He isn't nearly as famous as the sheep, though the timing of his death with the medicine Nobel Prize is curious. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I probably would've supported Dolly's death had I been here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. If a guy who cloned the first mammal from an adult somatic cell doesn't pass "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", I don't know what would. Secondly, deaths are posted of people who "had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." I think being a pioneer in the field of cloning means he had a pretty big impact on the entire world actually. Questions concerning how much of a "celebrity" he was or how "famous" he was are not reflected in those criteria. The second opposer did not even give a reason to respond to, just said how much they favoured Dolly.
  • Oppose, this really is not in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? A pioneering British cell biologist whose death is reported in The New York Times "really is not in the news"? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Deaths are reported every day in the NYT. This is not globally significant news. Dolly the sheep was significant. The death of someone who worked on cloning her isn't. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You've just opposed with the statement "this really is not in the news." Why is something that is in the news not "in the news", and how does something that is not "in the news" get to be "in the news" when it is already in the news? -- (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Obits appear everywhere. I don't see this anywhere in my news. By the way, you won't convince me, ever, I'm afraid, so focus your energy on the other opposers. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, though your statement still looks inaccurate. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
As I've already asked you, please sign your comments. And no, no change in my position. Go chase other opposers now please. Or better still, do something constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand BLP1E. That's for people who are the subject of current events. Keith Campbell was clearly notable before his death. -- (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Speciate meant the cloning barely pushed him beyond BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the Telegraph leads with the headline that he "was the man primarily responsible for the scientific breakthrough that led to the birth of the cloned sheep, Dolly." [45] -- (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: sometimes a discovery/achievement gains great public attention, but the people behind it don't garner the same limelight. Some might consider that unjust, but that is the way of the media, and unfortunately it is the mass media that determine whether an individual has a high profile. This is such a case. Campbell was not the team leader in the project, Ian Wilmut was, and Campbell worked under him, even if Wilmut does credit him with the majority of the work: Wilmut was the one, if anyone, who received noteable personal acclaim at the time. People really need to start distinguishing between prioritised news product and recycling of agency releases when they scream about how many places a news item appears in: there are many many deaths every day that receive equivalent coverage, which is why most newspapers maintain a daily obituaries column. If we had enacted the deaths ticker, this could have been worthy: not for a full blurb.
  • Support We really would be making a laughing stock of our 'rigorous' nomination process if someone who achieved so much is objected to whilst an eccentric on an oil rig is voted through. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral the update is too thin. Do the minimum update, post some reactions, show me it matters. I want to support this but the current article is inadequate. --IP98 (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Death Once again, this is perfect for the recent death ticker. Will someone please advise what other than having three RfC's in favor of the death ticker has to be done to get it instituted? μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not recent death, the update is inadequate. There was no consensus to throw out the article quality guidelines so that we could sustain some intermittent "death ticker". --IP98 (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keith_Campbell_(biologist)#Research has a passable update, but the rest of the article is a tad brief for a Deaths posting content-wise. SpencerT♦C 23:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and AnotherEdit

Article: Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The High Court of Botswana rules that women have the constitutional right to inherit property. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A big milestone in Batswana women's history, with implications for women's rights in the region as a whole. Currently on the front page of the BBC, and a good chance to feature a non-election/war Africa story. --Khazar2 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, a good news coming out of Africa is worth of a front page. Iowafromiowa (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could we get some context? How many jurisdictions don't allow women to inherit property? Speaking of women's rights, why hasn't anybody nominated Malala Yousafzai? Are we waiting for her to die? Speciate (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
My (limited) understanding is that it's not so much a question of different provinces/jurisdictions as two parallel systems, one of which has now been conclusively overruled. I added a small background section that hopefully clarifies. Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with you too. Something about that girl should be posted on the Main Page. Iowafromiowa (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Interesting news, reminds me of בנות צלפחד. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - while the notion may sound foreign to us (what? How could a country not grant them rights? Or what's the big deal?), it is actually quite shocking that such concepts do exist, and often represent a society. When they're overturned, it's extremely significant, a new leaf to say. So I support this. And welcome back Khazar to ITN. --Jethro B 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Half the people of an entire nation are recognized as humans? μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - It's a judicial ruling in a small nation, albeit an important-sounding one. The article is a bit average at the moment. Could we expand by about 50%, including getting some demarcated sections? A clear background section would be nice. LukeSurl t c 00:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I added a bit of background, but not enough has been written on today's case yet for an additional 50% expansion without devolving into trivia--or at least, I can't find it. I'd be glad for another pair of eyes, though, if you'd care to take a pass. Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good story for ITN, but how many countries still have rules against women inheriting property? Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Peace PrizeEdit

Article: European Union (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Union is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (Post)

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.

 LoopersdeBruges (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Support as per ITN/R. I'm assuming this baffling award was a favour by the committee to Wikipedia - the EU article is already pretty extensive (and a Good Article), and as the Peace Prize is such a minor development in its history the current simple update is perfectly sufficient. Can't see any reason not so post ASAP. LukeSurl t c 09:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Support as ITN/R. This award has got the UK's Eurosceptic press absolutely SEETHING, by the way. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Posted per above, only added a full stop. Amalthea 10:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R, suggest changing image to EU map. Europeans awarded Europe a prize for making Europe better. LOL. Fail. --IP98 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Norway has voted twice to NOT become an EU member, it's not quite such a stitch up ;) doktorb wordsdeeds 11:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support though I can scarcely contain my simultaneous laughter, mirth, and utter utter disbelief.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support First they give it to Obama before he could even pull out of Iraq, and now this? Weird choices. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 11Edit

Lance ArmstrongEdit

the recent report seems to be in the news suggesting massive cheating, should itn be covering it ? EdwardLane (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I think we should cover it, but it's tricky to determine at what point in this continually developing saga we would place an item. There are also BLP issues to consider in regards to allegations still under investigation in some organisations. I think a good time would be if/when the UCI officially rescind his Tour de France titles. LukeSurl t c 12:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe we posted earlier that Lance Armstrong is not contesting the charges against him. I think whatever occurs as a result of this story to him or his career will be superfluous since he simply doesn't care.--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • i would say that iff all the relevant parties (WADA, UCI, TDF) agree to formally strip LA of his titles then yes this should be posted. The USADA report contains new info that is damning for nearly all of US cycling, and several bans have been handed out.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The UCI will apparently release a response in 'late October'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a press release implying criminal guilt, not a court verdict determining it. Eventually these inquisitors will burn him at the stake based on hearsay, then we can post it. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until someone with the power to prove guilt (if any) actually does. Lugnuts And the horse 17:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not about "proving guilt" I'm afraid. In a couple of weeks, unless anything changes, a seven-time Tour de France winner will be stripped of all titles and no replacements made. That's news. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Then we wait a couple of weeks until this happens. Lugnuts And the horse 18:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree. By 31 October we'll have some actual facts to deliver, i.e. that Armstrong will have been stripped of all Tour titles, plus possibly others. That'll be ITN at that point. (it still doesn't prove guilt, just that's the decision of the governing body)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - if he gets stripped of his titles/medal sometime --Klak of Klak (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait Explanation of the situation as it stands: USADA (U.S. Anti-Doping Agency) made a large investigation into the use of doping by Armstrong and his teammates in the US Postal Service cycling team. The full report was released on October 10. The report provides proof (such as testimonies and blood sample analysis) to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" that Armstrong has been using doping in professional cycling (including EPO, blood doping, testosterone and cortisone) at least since 1998. USADA is now recommending a life-time ban to Armstrong from all regulated sport, including his post-retirement discipline of triathlon, and stripping him of all his professional results since August 1998. However, Tour de France is sanctioned by UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale), a French organization. Under the rules of WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, UCI now has 21 days (since Oct 10) to either appeal USADA's ruling (in which case the case will be heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, CH), or accept its recommendations. UCI has previously been critical of the USADA investigation, so their response is yet up to speculation. I strongly support posting this once the ruling is final, and UCI (as the official sanctioning body of cycling who have the power to do so) has actually stripped Armstrong of his titles. This is the likely outcome, and due before the end of October. Sources: BBC ,USA Today. --hydrox (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that Hydrox, that's really useful. LukeSurl t c 21:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose we posted his ban and being stripped of all results since 1998, including 7 Tour de France in August, 2012. Everything after that is a staggeringly irrelevant incremental update. Would support another post IFF the USADA says they made a mistake, and re-instates his awards. --IP98 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not exactly right because we did not post him being banned or losing any titles, rather only that he had decided not to contest the USADA investigation in arbitration. Here's the original discussion. Posted on Aug 26 and removed 2½ days later. The real story is of course when he actually loses the titles, displacing him as the most successful Tour de France rider in history. --hydrox (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The body of his article says "When Armstrong dropped his appeal against the findings, USADA announced that he had received a lifetime ban and that all his results since August 1998 were null and void". If we didn't put that in the blurb, then we'll need a time machine. Posting incremental updates about the sports career of one man will not fix it. --IP98 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right, we did not put that in the blurb. The decision was not final at the time of posting. If all things work out, he will be stripped of professional results by the end of October, for real. --hydrox (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that there is considerable confusion over which body has the right to officially strip Armstrong of his titles. The USADA insists they do and that they have already done exactly that. However, as Lance hasn't failed any drug tests, the rules on this are a bit murky. The UCI haven't confirmed that Armstrong has lost his titles. Last time I checked Wikipedia still listed Armstrong as the winner from 1999-2005. Another issue here is that the UCI or officials within it may have in fact covered up for Armstrong and so it's possible that that explains the UCI's unwillingness to rule against Armstrong so far. The Tour de France itself could also strip Armstrong presumably. Finally, another issue is that there isn't really anyone to award the titles to if they're taken away from Armstrong. All in all, I just think the cycling world as a whole hasn't figured out how to resolve this, in no small part because this scandal involves many more people than Armstrong. As Hydrox said the UCI should probably have the final word here but it's still possible they will try to avoid ruling anything.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
As we are an encyclopaedia, any posting should happen when we change the encyclopaedia's content (i.e. of Tour de France and Lance Armstrong). I'm guessing this would follow any UCI decision. LukeSurl t c 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

October 10Edit

[Posted] Nobel prize for LiteratureEdit

Article: Mo Yan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese novelist and short story writer Mo Yan, purveyor of hallucinatory realism, is awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize in Literature. (Post)

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: Nobel prize is highly significant. -- (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking for updater's on this. This is my first nomination here so be nice. -- (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have now created an account. --Klak of Klak (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per ITN/R - and it looks like a good "Nobel Prize in Literature, 2012" section has already been written. I don't think the orange tag at the top of the article is necessary. As this is BLP it may be worth aggressively cutting anything we can't verify from the article. We should bear in mind a lot of English language sites will have taken unverified info from this article to form hastily-written biographies in the last 24 hours. LukeSurl t c 14:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I noticed there's a few more Nobel Prize nominations up, I look forward to them all being posted. --Klak of Klak (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we can find a way to describe his work in the blurb. His current wiki article is a tad lacking in anything hook-y for it. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"Hallucinatory realism". Courtesy of the Swedish Academy. ;)
As a cautionary note, the hallucinatory realism article was just created today - but before cries of WP:NEO go out, the term does appear in news searches. --MASEM (t) 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There are two books - connecting it to two other different people and dating from 1981 and 1983 - so it couldn't possibly be neo. Unfortunately there is a person on the article's talk page who is under the impression that hallucinatory realism is a figment of Peter Englund's imagination and that he must have concocted it over breakfast this morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
In the notable works section of the article, he has three works listed. Could we perhaps include the most notable of those? --Klak of Klak (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Masem that the blurb needs a bit more detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A welcome respite from the usual government and politics entries, and significant as the first Nobel prize that China can be proud of (ie, not given to people trying to Balkanize the country or to overthrow its government). Shrigley (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, due to its apparent significance.--Egeymi (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A clearly significant nomination, both nationally for China and internationally. Nobel Prizes are ITN/R and this nomination satisfies all policies related to that doktorb wordsdeeds 20:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. We've still got the physics one below. Can someone tag it as ready? If it is, I'll post that one too. --Jayron32 21:04, 11 October 2012 (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.

[Pulled] Roy BatesEdit

Article: Paddy Roy Bates (talk, history)
Blurb: Paddy Roy Bates, Prince of Sealand, dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Paddy Roy Bates, founder of the Sealand micronation in the North Sea, dies at the age of 91.
News source(s): Sealand News BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know that this will be easily disregarded as a non-famous man, died of old age and natural causes, and some will consider it a joke, but this is a serious nomination. Sealand is revered by all in the micronation community and those familiar with Sealand, and Roy Bates was the man behind Sealand. This has been getting news coverage in Britain and American sources- a simple Google search will prove that. Readers will no doubt find the story of Sealand interesting, fulfilling the third purpose of ITN: To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Additionally, although I know few will accept him under ITNDC1, he definitely fits criteria two for the field of micronations. Sealand may not be as famous as it deserves to be, but it is certainly interesting, and while it may lack importance, it doesn't lack notability. This story is definitely worthy of note. I ask that people take this nomination seriously and consider it under the ITN death criteria and ITN purpose three. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Head of state dying is ITN worthy, even if the state has only been de facto recognised by two nations. Bates is a noteworthy individual for his actions and for the legacy Sealand provided the microstate movements globally. GRAPPLE X 03:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- I have expanded the update. It definitely meets ITN requirements now. Also, the ITN candidate template is having problems, so I'll put some sources here: Sealand News Associated Press BBC Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm happy to take this nomination seriously, but the self proclaimed microstate is not taken seriously in the world at large, and it would be potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation if we appeared to be doing so on the main page. If a microstate is a statement of the wish for self determination of a nationality of people, the homeland of a culture and history, it is to be respected: this was never any of those things: it was a light-hearted piece of business opportunism. Sealand not so much a country as a pirate radio station base that happens to be fixed to the sea floor rather than floating. Recognitions mentioned by Grapple do not amount to acknowledgement of the microstate's independence, merely of Bate's claim of such. Kevin McE (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, partly per Kevin McE. International recognition is a big component of what makes an entity a sovereign state. Sealand simply doesn't have it. It's a fascinating story in it's own right, but I don't think it makes the cut for ITN.--Chaser (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kevin has put this much better than I ever could. Sealand is not Kosovo or Western Sahara, it's a cultural curiosity but nothing more. It's a very British attitude and a very British story, but in the wider context it's just not important enough for Wikipedia. I'm sad to hear that he has died. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - But not as a head of state. Roy Bates was a pioneering figure in the microstates movement, and it's for that that he deserves recognition. Let's not get distracted by the validity or otherwise of his claims. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above, especially Kevin. LukeSurl t c 10:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't see the significance in a very minor head of state dying in old age. -- (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with a more neutral blurb, and let me explain why. Per the death criteria, specifically #2:
    • "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field."
Sealand is a major topic in the field of micronations and Paddy Roy Bates was the founder of it. Micronations may not be taken very seriously but they are a valid field of knowledge for an encyclopaedia. In that field, few if any are more important a figure than Bates and his achievements were.
Arguably, criteria #1 is applicable as well ("The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region."), but I don't feel like getting into that argument. --RA (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think death criteria 2's "field" is intended in a broader sense (e.g., chemistry). If micronations are a field, then that field is an obscure subtopic in political science. Not enough.--Chaser (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Only because readers will be interested and may not even know such micronations exist. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with above, only to make people know of such small nations. Iowafromiowa (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, primarily on the basis that this is the only hope in hell micronations have of ever getting coverage in ITN. Sealand is arguably the highest profile micronation, and in terms of notability derived from involvement with micronations, Paddy was almost certainly the most well known person involved with one. Most of the opposition here is based upon personal opinions about micronations, which while not totally invalid certainly weakens the arguments. To respond to the one oppose which does not appear to be affected by this underlying factor, neither Britain nor Canada (nor their enemies for that matter) would dream of recognising Sealand, yet this made the media cut in both countries. Admittedly it hardly caused a ripple in America, but neither did the Falklands dispute until the U.S. changed its stance from neutrality to backing the British. —WFCFL wishlist 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. I find the rationales given by those who support this nom more persuasive. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Objection No disrespect intended here to BorgQueen, whose contribution here is usually impeccable, but I find that a ridiculous call. The micronation movement is of microscopic influence, so his role within such a "movement" (is there really any evidence of a cohesive movement?) is irrelevant. Just because a topic is claimed to be "encyclopaedic" (which in this case seems to mean loosely related to facts while being neither mainstream nor academic/professional) it does not have a right to ITN inclusion. The last three supports don't even have anything directly to do with Bates or his death: they simply think that at some stage, for some unspecified reason, micronations ought to be mentioned in ITN. Why on earth should they be: Almost by definition, they have no effect on anyone or anything else. Just because Reggie Bosanquet's dad is on TFA, we don't need ITN to become like ITN and start an and finally... slot. News coverage of this death has been miniscule: I live in the TV region that covers Bates' hometown, and it wasn't among the top three stories on that regional news programme the day it was covered. It is currently the 7th story on the BBC's page for the county of Essex, behind a parish putting an advert for a new vicar on youtube; a couple damaging walls in their house to find the source of a noise that turned out to be a smoke alarm in a drawer (hey: smoke alarms are important, therefore ought to be on ITN at some stage, and this is one of the few occasions they will actually be mentioned in the news) and the redesignation of some lanes on a motorway. Wikipedia leaves itself open to ridicule by pandering to a self-promotion gimmick that largely failed. Kevin McE (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per KevinMcE. I'm frankly surprised this was posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull a "micronation" is not a nation at all. It's a curiosity created by rich people trying to dodge taxes. Please pull this silly item. --IP98 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would question whether his death is worthy of being in the News part at all, unless we are going to list the deaths of all people who claim to create a micronation in the news feed. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Transferred from WP:ERRORS by Kevin McE (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I doubt there are very many people in that category.--Chaser (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. I will formally oppose it(after my above improperly placed comment) He was not a "head of state". Just because two governments have dealt with his situation doesn't mean they consider him a nation, either. I agree with KevinMcE about the lack of a cohesive "movement" here. As IP98 says, this "movement" is just used either as something humorous, or to avoid taxes or laws(in Bates' case, illegal radio broadcasting) If the goal is to publicize this category of articles, there should be a better way to do so. It's certainly worthy for articles, just not as news. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep it up I didn't support posting it originally, but BorgQueen's evaluation of consensus is within the discretion vested in administrators. Going back and forth about whether something is on ITN would be odd, and this is going to cycle off of ITN relatively quickly anyway.--Chaser (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet in the discussion of the ready tag, we were told, by an administrator, "But admins don't have any special privilege in "determining consensus" than any other editor does". Can't have it both ways. Kevin McE (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep and Support. Whether one disagrees with or finds it unusual or strange or whatever, Sealand is a valid self-determining entity that has been around for several decades and is no less "silly" than Palau, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe, East Timor or the numerous others to have since asserted their independence. He was a very important figure in his field - micronations - regardless of whether that field is not taken seriously by a few. This is an encyclopedia - there should be enough room for every high achiever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
You have just equated a man-made structure the size of a football pitch with a country that, if it were in Europe, would be the 4th largest by land area. I would seriously question that you have sufficient grasp of the facts to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
That's uncalled for. You have no insight into the IP's intellect--keep the criticism on the argument, which BTW, was not one of size but of new nationhood. If you think size is important at ITN, stories out of the UK should come out less often than stories out of Montana. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I said nothing about intellect: I said grasp of the facts. A contributor's grasp of the facts is key to the validity of their reasoning. Kevin McE (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Intellect literally means "discernment",[46] i.e., grasp of the facts. You need to focus on arguments and not what you think is going on in other's heads. There's nothing unfactual about the OP's argument. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Before you quote a meaning at me, try to discern between definition and derivation. Otherwise it might appear that you don't have a grasp on the point. And you still haven't justified your accusation of multiple attacks or emotional attack. Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Rubbish, Palau, Vanuatu, Zimbabe and East Timor are real countries with international recognition, representation in international bodies, and all the structure of a real state. "Sealand" is absurd and irrelevant, with practically no recognition. It's as silly and pointless and childish and irrelevant as the Conch Republic. I was so certain that this nom would be defeated that I didn't login to oppose it. I wish I had. Please remove this foolishness immediately. It's not been widely reported, and it's frankly not news. --IP98 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull Another glaring mistake from BorgQueen. This nomination does not have wide-ranging support, there is a clear doubt amongst both oppose and support editors about the person's notability, a clear question mark over the notability of Sealand, and overall a sense that the nomination is a desperate bid rather than genuine hope. I can't see why the nomination was put on the first page, and hope we can get it off as soon as possible. It's remarkable that Nobel Prize nominations are left to gather dust in place of this doktorb wordsdeeds 17:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I opposed this (and kept my comments short because Kevin McE said it all) but, mneh. It's one from the bottom anyhow. It's best we find a new item and just push this out of ITN. Economics Nobel soon, if not something else. LukeSurl t c 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Death This is yet another good time to instate the recent death ticker with Bates and Heriberto Lazcano. But I am loath tell tell BorgQueen to back down in face of emotional and personal attacks. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Make that singular, and remove anything about emotional: it does nothing to affect the clear weight of opinion, nor the right of other admins to act on it. Kevin McE (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull / Change Criteria This is truly unbelievable. Deaths seems to be among the most contentious items to be posted, and this is the kind of death we put up? There was no reason for this to be put up; we're not desperate for new news, the article is not exceptionally high-quality, and the consensus is not overwhelming. Not to mention, seriously, look at the news story. If our criteria allow this kind of thing to garner so many supports by well-meaning people (and the criteria were even specifically cited on occasion), we need to change it. We argue over news items that get much greater coverage because they're deemed as potentially "provincial", and yet we post the death of a name few people have ever heard of because he's "the leader in his field"... of micronations? Is that a field? -- tariqabjotu 17:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    Most of them are. GRAPPLE X 17:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    Few people are familiar with scientists - aside from one or two like Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking - either. It does not make their achievements in their fields any less worthy. If it's about how famous the dead are then Wikipedia is reduced to nothing more than a tabloid newspaper full of glitzy stars and celebrities whose achievements amount to no more than having been born beautiful. This guy was a clear innovator. That he is such a divisive figure is probably indicative of how innovative he was.
    This rebuttal, and the comparison it makes, is beyond absurd and needs no further response. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    Why exactly? The comparison is not with Einstein or Hawking. It's with those scientists who aren't Einstein or Hawking. Those scientists who work quietly in the background and whose lives and deaths are hardly noticed by the media. But scientists is just one example. You could take any field. -- (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull Wow how the hell did this get posted? I didn't bother to vote oppose on this one, though I read through it and opposed, because I figured it's rejection was a fait accompli. That and I didn't have anything else to add to the arguments against, which I thought clearly demonstrated no consensus to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull. This is a joke. There is absolutely no way that the self-declared head of a non-existent country meets our criteria. No significance, paltry media coverage, utterly irrelevant. Pull. Modest Genius talk 18:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Uh, Sealand has its own coins and postage stamps. It even has an album title referring to its history. It has a National Football Association and a national football team, which is in 55th place. So the arguments that it has "no significance" and is "non-existent" are, at best, an absurd paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
None of those things are particularly significant; two are publicity stunts and the other two purely an attempt to make money out of a made-up place. And none relate to the current nomination. Sealand is an interesting and/or amusing bit of history. But the death of it's 'founder' is nowhere near the level of significance required for ITN. Modest Genius talk 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull per above, also 91 years is quite an expectable age for passing away (with all due respect to micronations). Brandmeistertalk 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove from main page. A 91-year-old man has died. The "fact" he was a head of "a nation" is utterly questionable. The fact this isn't in any way ITN-worthy seems to have passed the supporters by. Ring the death knoll, this is by far the worst decision I've ever seen at ITN to post a "news story". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "A 91-year-old man has died." For goodness sake, what an blatantly ageist comment. People of every age die. Old men are constantly on ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The point is it's not newsworthy. His death is neither newsworthy nor particularly interesting. That's why this shouldn't be on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
        • That's not a very objective analysis. His death is of obvious interest to the people of Sealand, just as George Washington's death is significant to the people of the United States. That his death "is neither newsworthy nor particularly interesting" is a matter of opinion, not based in fact. -- (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
And my death will be important to the people of my family, who are more numerous than the people of Sealand by a large factor. I do not, however, expect my death to be noted on ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Honestly, no need to chase just my opposes, there are plenty of others above you could harangue! Bates ran a pirate radio station and died old. Big deal. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
            • The nomination concerns his foundation of Sealand. Running a single pirate radio station would not be enough of course, I agree. -- (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Okay. Thanks for your clarification, not that I asked for it. Please now focus your concern with all the other people that object to this being run on the main page. Honestly, this is a depth to which I didn't believe ITN would drop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't take it so personally. It's not a competition. I have also given valid responses to the opposes claiming Sealand is "non-existent" and that its founder is "too old" to be "worthy" of inclusion. If the criteria are "wrong", as one oppose suggested, then that is up to those who want to change the criteria and not the fault of the nominator or those who support this nomination. The "I didn't bother to oppose" one hardly merits anyone "bothering" to respond. Many of the earlier opposes, being from before it was posted, were judged to be similarly unsatisfactory when the decision was taken to post. -- (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
No, not personal at all, agreed. Take your arguments to the other opposers, especially the many that opposed after the ridiculous listing of the article on main page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Pull, what is with this business of British deaths not following the consensus on recent deaths the rest of the world has to follow? Speciate (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Guys, this is the bottom story. If we get a newer story ready and posted (I've proposed one above) this whole thing becomes moot. LukeSurl t c 23:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Which means we have only a few hours for someone to acknowledge that this was an incorrect decision by removing it rather than pushing it off. That should ideally be BorgQueen, but any admin who hasn't commented here could just as well do it. And, to be honest, considering there are only four items on ITN, it may very well reappear if it's just pushed off. Even now, I imagine on some resolutions another item needs to be added. Not to mention that OTD has been taking up more than its fair share these past few days (or DYK has been too short?). Four items on ITN is a bit on the low side, especially when the news items we have are still fairly recent. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a clear consensus that this should be pulled. Yes, post-posting comments are often on the negative side but they've been well-reasoned and nearly unanimous. The consensus at the time of posting rough at best. I'm marking this as 'attention needed'--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This has turned chaotic. I'm sorry I nominated it, and am fine with it being yanked from the Main Page. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not your fault. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I still do support my nomination and stand by it, but am fine with it being pulled. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It was a reasonable nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
For someone who founded something so insignificant he has received a lot of attention and obituaries in the international media. The New York Times, The Australian, TIME, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times -- (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulled Nothing further. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorsing pull as uninvolved editor. The only support argument I see is giving visibility to micronations, which isn't Wikipedia's role. Vote count also favors pull. Churn and change (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2012 (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.

[withdrawn] Voyager 1 leaves the Solar SystemEdit

withdrawn by nom --Jayron32 04:23, 11 October 2012 (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.

Solar wind at Voyager 1
Article: Voyager 1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Data from the Voyager 1 indicates that the probe became the first man-made object to leave the Solar System. (Post)
News source(s): Huffington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Previous similar nominations were shot down because of the lack of clear evidence of passing the heliopause. This time, there is evidence for having passed the limit. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely we can find a more reliable source than the Huffington Post.--WaltCip (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (although I though we did post this last time--or at least there was a consensus, wasn't there? in any case...) This needs to be posted at some point, it's one of the biggest landmarks, if not the biggest ever in human history so far. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Caution - let's see if major news organisations run with this story. It's somewhat arbitrary where the edge of the solar system is, and I wouldn't want to run with the story just on the word of the HuffPo. LukeSurl t c 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Dubious source and nothing in the article. Leaky Caldron 22:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Check back the the expansion I did to the article. Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Posted on 15 June: this is simply an imprecisely timed inevitable consequence of what we posted then. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Huh, you have a link? Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
[47]. However, that was for when the craft was considered to be entering the heliosphere; as we have no idea how thick it is, the time to exit could have been months to years. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Notification of posting on talk page of Voyager article, discussion in archive (use the search box immediately above this thread), history page of template... (appears that the note on the talk page is in error: it was actually posted on 17th June) As to Masem's observation: if the journey time leads NASA to announce a discovery re the previously unknown depth of the heliosphere, that might be worth considering, but that is not the current proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Also [48] Modest Genius talk 23:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the previous blurb. I'll withdraw the nom. Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment That bolded proseline made me want to throw my computer monitor through the window. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait. Unless I'm missing something, we're still waiting for an announcement by the Voyager team. Lots of people have been making their own interpretations of the data over the last couple of weeks, but that's not the same thing. If the people who actually do this research aren't claiming it yet, nor should we. Modest Genius talk 23:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Caution Sources from last month give "within a year" as the date for Voyager to leave the Solar System. Let's see if a major news outlet, or NASA, announce it. --RA (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait till NASA announces it. No source except NASA should be considered reliable for this -- Ashish-g55 01:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • How many times is Voyager 1 going to leave the Solar System? Our Voyager 1 article said it left as early as December 2004 and we posted a news item in June 2012 saying it basically left. -- tariqabjotu 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tariqabjotu. This is like herpes. You think it's left, and a few months later you learn it's still there.--Jayron32 01:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Lovely thought. Perhaps you can keep it to yourself next time?--Chaser (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until there's wider confirmation that this particular bit of data is actually news. The suggestion of waiting on an announcement from NASA seems reasonable, assuming they'll make such an announcement.--Chaser (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose- I'm as confused as everyone else right now, but I think we should wait for NASA to confirm something like this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:58, 11 October 2012 (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] Nobel Prize in ChemistryEdit

Articles: Robert Lefkowitz (talk, history) and Brian Kobilka (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Drs. Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka receive the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on G protein-coupled receptors. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize award, both articles do appear updated to reflect this. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nobel prizes are ITN/R, will need to get articles in right shape of course. LukeSurl t c 23:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Both articles now seem to have resonable sections on their research. Is this enough to count as [Ready]? LukeSurl t c 10:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a separate posting for each Nobel Prize. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly notable award. -- (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support since it is ITN/R and also, significant.--Egeymi (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone else – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking as [Ready?], the "?" because I'm not 100% sure exactly what merits the tag. Other editors: free to delete the ? or the whole tag depending on your more qualified assessment.LukeSurl t c 17:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Both articles cover their research, I think it's ready. Narayanese (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. Articles look good. SpencerT♦C 20:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reggio CalabriaEdit

Article: 'Ndrangheta#Government of Reggio Calabria (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of Italy led by Prime Minister Mario Monti dismisses the government of Reggio Calabria for alleged links with the 'Ndrangheta. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Government of Italy dissolved the city council of Reggio Calabria out of concerns it was being taken over by the 'Ndrangheta mafia.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: notable for a number of reasons: 1. action of the unelected government of Monti, 2. precedent as a first since this is the dismissal of the government of the provincial capital (in US terms the dismisaal by Washington of a state capital, or in UK terms that of say Scotland (though with N. Ireland itd be less ignificat, i guess)) and has a sizable population. 3. While we're on organised crime, as in Mexico below, this is a fight against 'Ndrangheta, which is said to be bigger than the famed Cosa Nostra now. --Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose A regional story which has not enough weight for our front page doktorb wordsdeeds 08:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - 'Ndrangheta-related violence and corruption is a long-running issue in Calabria. I'd like to see us run a front-page story about it some day. But I'm not sure if this is that story. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The comparison with US or UK is misleading. Italy is a centralist country, not a federal one like the US, nor a devolved one like the UK. In both countries this step would most probably be unconstitutional, in Italy it is legal. --RJFF (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The dissolution of a significant democratic body in a Western state because of fears it was being infiltrated by a criminal gang is notable. Alt blurb given. --RA (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a municipal government, not exactly a huge impact. Also, stuff like this can happen in other countries as well. For example, this, this, or especially this. The difference is that in the USA they police use evidence to build a case and make arrests, in Italy trumped up fears and vendettas rule the day. Strong oppose. --IP98 (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per IP98. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • could I could support this if I understood it better. Our article is hardly helpful. Why does Calabria have a "mayor", and not a "governor"? Is it just that the governors of the largest divisions of Italy are called mayors? If the US Supreme court somehow convicted a US governor, I would expect it to be posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Is mayor not the normal term for the political leader of a city? Why would this be confused with a governor? While there is both a city and a region of the same name, the blurb is quite explicit that this is about the city council. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I am confusing Reggio Calabria with Calabria. Must have clicked on the Calabria link when reading the article. I now Oppose, mayors are arrested all the time. Oh, wait a minute, the province is also called Reggio Calabria? I blame someone else then. Let's say George Bush. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: In Italy, the nation contains 20 regions, which in turn contain provinces. Calabria=one of 20 regions in Italy; Province of Reggio Calabria=a province within the region of Calabria; Reggio Calabria=the capital of that province (it's common for a province and its capital to share the same name). Comparisons to other countries' systems probably aren't helpful. In Italy, both regions and provinces are relatively important units of government. The bottom line is that the mayor and city council in Reggio Calabria were dismissed by the central government. They haven't been formally convicted or even charged with any crimes at this point, AFAIK.--Chaser (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very clear and informative. You ought to consider writing encyclopedia articles. :) μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Syria blurbEdit

Article: Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Turkey sends fighter jets to its border with Syria amid cross-border shelling. (Post)

Nominator's comments: A SIGNIficant international turn of events, thinks its worth a blurb of its own. Additionally we can remove the sticky at this point and then re-add/re-discuss it later?
also note, the news of additional deployment of fighter jets is fresh, so its a bump from the below discussion/ --Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose For now. There is a sticky and that seems to be fit for purpose. We are not a news ticker doktorb wordsdeeds 08:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
an int'l conflict across borders between 2 UN states is a "news ticker"? I fail to see how this is not a new phase of conflict, perhaps the biggest issue of the entire conflictLihaas (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the article is a mess. Turkey and Syria exchanged artillery fire for the sixth consecutive day after a Syrian shell landed in Altınözü district.. What is that? Fork the article to "Turkey in the Syrian Civil War", develop it out, add some maps, make it a real article. If it can stand on it's own, nom it again. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is notable but isn't really a singular event that stands out, since Turkey has slowly become more involved. It's basically that the Syrian Civil War, for which we have a sticky, is gradually expanding. Sticky should cover that. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 9Edit

[Posted] Drug kingpin killed in MexicoEdit

Article: Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Mexican Navy kills Zetas leader Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is being touted as one of the greatest victories of outgoing President Calderon's war on drugs in Mexico. It's currently the lead story on BBC World (the story's actually about his body being stolen). --Chaser (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

came here to nominatet his. Big part of the Drug War and the highest leader to be killed (arguably). Read a n article about his boyd stolen, but it extensively mentions his death so suport
note to posting adming, the date of the death is 7 OctoberLihaas (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, though perhaps the bigger issue is now the theft of the body. An unusual story highlighting the huge gang wars in Mexico.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Perhaps the biggest blow against organized crime in Mexico since the start of the drug war. ComputerJA (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't appear to be that notable judging from the article and (limited) number of interwikis. We normally only post deaths of heads of state and occasionally other extremely notable people. Mocctur (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't have nommed it if he'd died of cancer. It's the fact that he was assassinated.--Chaser (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is all over the news in a big way. If the world cares at the level of this (as evidenced by the depth and breadth of the coverage) and the article is sufficiently updated, I think this meets the enumerated requirements of ITN in spades. --Jayron32 06:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support, This guy was the head of the most powerful drugs cartel in Mexico. He was killed by Mexican military personnel, this is clearly notable enough for ITN. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but I suggest someone re-read the death and analysis section to check for grammar and crystal balls. --IP98 (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me know when they nail Walter White. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Repost Please There's plenty of room to put this item (or another one, but this seems to be at the top) back up. It is absurd to have three very overwordy Nobel blurbs and no other real news. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize StickyEdit

  • Along the lines of Nobel Prize Winners. With two of the six awards announced and one (soon to be two soon) posted to ITN, and four more prizes to be awarded in the next six days, rather than post six different blurbs, why not use a sticky? We could create an article along the lines of "2012 Nobel prize winners" for the sticky, showing all six winners. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 16:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Meh. We do this once a year, and I'm not all that offended if there's 6 different Nobel blurbs. I nice change of pace. I don't think we need the sticky. --Jayron32 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Also, we need to assure all the appropriate articles are updated before posting. It is not like they won't be but it's not an assurance. (I think I had to step in last year when the Lit prize winner wasn't updated within hours of the announcement). --MASEM (t) 16:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, post them each separately. They're well worth posting separately. We don't exactly have a surfeit of academic stories, and we need the full-length blurb to explain them. Besides, it's for one week a year. Modest Genius talk 17:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Every one of them is highly notable, but ITN could look very weird if all of the award winners are featured on ITN at the same time. However, if they are spread out, it will be OK to post them seperately. This may be one of those wait and see things to see how it looks later on. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 17:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • In the past, only one winner is posted at time - giving roughly each a full 24 hr period. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Are you sure? I recall ITN being full of Nobel Prizes during this week each year. It's only once a year for what are topics that don't usually feature at all, compared to politics or sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
        • No, we generally post them all, e.g. last year had four at one time [49]. I see no particular problem with that. Dragons flight (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Too many awrds to post separately, a lot in the news now, and little point in debating each separately either. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
we dont debate the merits of ITNR, its established. Only the update is debatedLihaas (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose truly prominent and historic awards, each should be given its due attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the past we've put them up separately without much of an issue; I don't think there's a suitable article that could serve as a sticky (the Nobel Prizes generally need more background about what the person has done scientifically, and I don't think a separate article could give enough context to do that). SpencerT♦C 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Post them all. Each one needs links to different topics so there is no easy way to group them, and don't see any real harm with one week in October being dominated by the Nobels each year. Dragons flight (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A sticky eliminates each prize's individuality. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Absurd to list them all one by one, in my view. This is not the Nobel Prize news. A sticky is the answer. Jusdafax 04:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this is what stickies are for. If these are so 'historic' as someone said above, why has no one bothered to sufficiently the Physics/Chem winners? Hot Stop (Edits) 13:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If the sticky doesn't provide adequate explanation of the scientists' work (like the articles currently don't), then that shouldn't go up either. Also, the chem winners haven't even been nominated to ITN/C yet (I'd say that Robert Lefkowitz has a sufficiently long article; Brian Kobilka just needs a little bit more). SpencerT♦C 15:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A sticky is not especially useful for an event that will last roughly one week and produce a low, fixed number of noteworthy updates. It's better to post each prize separately. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Jerry SanduskyEdit

It's clear this won't be posted. Withdrawn and closing. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:56, 10 October 2012 (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: Jerry Sandusky (talk, history) and Penn State child sex abuse scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: Jerry Sandusky, convicted of child molestation, is sentenced to a minimum of thirty years in prison. (Post)
News source(s): [50]

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: Significant child abuse story that has dominated headlines in every major news outlet, resulting in irreversable damage to a notable university in the US. I can't remember if his conviction was posted or not, so I figure this is significant enough to try. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 15:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose an element of this story was published previously, to significant outrage. Rather minor compared to the Melbourne scandal. Just one guy. A bad guy, but just a guy. "Irreversible" is a crystal ball. IP98 (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "Irreversible" is indeed speculation, but it is backed by the fact that a major child abuse scandal doesn't just go away in a few years. They will be dealing with this for a long time. There is a lot more behind the scenes to this than a "bad guy": millions of dollars worth of lawsuits against the university, the firing and eventual death of their head coach of the football program, administrative firings and dismissals, and reputation damage to a university of at least 40,000 students. I have no doubt this will open up a can of the usual country-specific arguments, nor do I see this as a "slam-dunk posting", but I think it's significant enough to at least nominate it. It is on the front page of CNN, BBC, Reuters, and almost every major news outlet. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • But it's just boiler plate coverage. I know this is anecdotal, but aside from some stock footage my local station doesn't care. As a nation wide story, it's all shock value. There is no "national conversation" about college sports, or sexual predators, or even Penn State. In 2 days the TV is going to talk about Joe Biden and Paul Ryan and we'll probably never hear about this again. IP98 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Significant case, but not an outstanding one in the current environment. I don't want to get into an 'other stuff exists' squabble, but the current investigations in the UK into molestation allegations about the late Sir Jimmy Savile are probably a relevant comparison. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The original scandal was posted back on November 10, 2011. Result of Sandusky trial was nominated in June 2012 and rejected. Sentencing hearing is less important than the guilty/not guilty determination (practically everyone knew since June that the 68 year-old Sandusky would receive a virtual life sentence after being found guilty on 45 felony counts of child sex abuse) and should likewise be rejected. --Allen3 talk 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The November posting of Penn State child sex abuse scandal is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sure Britons reading this are going "oh, this seems to fit with the current narrative." Not really for the front page: we've been along this cul-de-sac before so I can't see why we need to revisit again for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 19:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an American who has family that attended the school, and who watched live and cheered when the verdict was read, I have to oppose this as not really encyclopedic, and a good example to Trevj as a nomination even less deserving than his. μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm going to assume good faith, but cheering up one editor by putting down another editor's nomination is uncalled for. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose child sex offender found guilty. Happened to work at a university in the States. Not ITN material. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It was hugely contoversial in the US, though not in the least internationally noeworthy. I would have neutral/weak oppose.Lihaas (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2012 (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.

Nobel Prize in PhysicsEdit

Article: Nobel Prize in Physics (talk, history)
Blurb: Serge Haroche and David Wineland win the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in the field of quantum optics (Post)
News source(s): [51]

Both articles need 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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: The articles are in good shape. I think the bold text in the blurb should either be one of the laurates or a link to List of Nobel Prize winners in Physics. Also, the blurb could be made a bit more descriptive - "...for their work on measurement and manipulation of individual quantum systems." SPat talk 15:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Sticky time? There is already a posted blurb about other Nobel prize winners, and four other Nobel prizes are set to be announced in the next few days. Why not combine them all into a sticky, since we'll more than likely post the other four as well. See above nomination about sticky. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 16:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but merge I'd say if we can fit them in the same blurb, we should do that, rather than post a new blurb for every individual Nobel. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The articles of the laureates should be the ones bolded, and both of them need expansion about their work that led to the award. See Shinya_Yamanaka#Professional_career or John_Gurdon#Research for what this looks like. The list of the winners is just a list with a sentence about what they did, and doesn't meet the criteria for updated content. SpencerT♦C 19:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, blurb modified, if no-one else gets to it, I'll try to expand the two target articles tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
If someone knows French, Haroche's article on the French Wikipedia has a good description of his work, if someone wants to add that over. Also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics for expansion help. SpencerT♦C 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Just followed through this suggestion and translated some info from the French Wikipedia. By the way, Support (The other Nobel prizes for this year are already on the main page, as all Nobel prizes should be. This one is getting late...) Ollivier (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - If the other prizes are listed, why would this one not? --Lasunncty (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a question of article readiness rather than notability. LukeSurl t c 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this has been delayed for so long, if we post in the order of announcements it will already be at the bottom of the ITN section. All we need is for one more notable thing to be posted and the Physics prize will be too old to even feature - which is very disappointing. I would have liked to have seen this even slightly fast-tracked since it was clear there would be other Nobel nominations to appear after it, even if the articles weren't entirely ready it won't be up for too long. The other alternative would be to post it above the Peace Prize, if possible.--23230 talk 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have to agree with Martin. This is a story which needs to be posted as soon as possible.

October 8Edit

César E. Chávez National MonumentEdit

Article: César E. Chávez National Monument (talk, history)
Blurb: President Obama establishes César E. Chávez National Monument at the former home of Chávez in Keene, California. (Post)
News source(s): [52] [53] [54]

Nominator's comments: A new national monument designated under the Antiquities Act and the first NPS unit to honor a Latino born later than 1700s. It will be managed collaboratively by the National Park Service and the National Chavez Center after the Chavez family offered to donate properties to the federal government. --Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose I may be missing something but this appears to be an item of domestic significance but without anything particularly noteworthy or interesting from an international perspective --RA (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No significance outside California and college campuses...three decades ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If you mean that Chavez had no impact, I suggest you read his bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think this startlingly honest line from his article, emphasis added, (plus the fact that his union movement dwindled from 50,000 to 15,000 in well under a decade) sums it all up: "After his death he became a major historical icon for the Latino community, and for liberals generally, symbolizing support for workers and for Hispanic power based on grass roots organizing". μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose An interesting story, and a long overdue recognition for a very important historical figure, but doing some searches I'm not finding this as an "above the fold" level story. There some nice articles to update some content with, and if we weren't getting other good stories here, I'd be a weak support, but I don't think this is getting the prominent coverage that I'd normal expect of an ITN item. --Jayron32 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A great man and an honor of this kind is warranted, but it's not really newsworthy enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a new article, so it's potentially eligible for DYK if it's expanded sufficiently enough. SpencerT♦C 05:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 30th new national monument since 2000: happens every few months. Status upgrade for a tourist attraction, no import. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting. Insignificant.doktorb wordsdeeds 06:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doktorbuk. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting the POV making this leader seem more benevolent than he is.--WaltCip (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above.--Egeymi (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A relatively common occurrence (at least 1-2 per year), suitable for DYK. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] libya PM dismissalEdit

Withdrawn by nom. per first commentLihaas (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Mustafa A.G. Abushagur (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister of Libya Mustafa A.G. Abushagur fails a vote of no confidence after his cabinet is rejected twice by the General National Congress. (Post)

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is significant for multiple reasons. 1. more instability in post-war libya, 2. recently in the news and the PM was supposedly a friend of the us..3. we usually (not always) post falls of govt/new govts --Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not quite the usual story of the fall of a government. The story is in fact that there never was a government to fall. Abushagur was elected prime minister given 25 days to form a government. He failed to do so in the time given and was removed from office. The difficult task of forming a Lybian government continues. We should post when one gets formed. --RA (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another small blip along a very long story. Not important enough to warrant front page prominence.doktorb wordsdeeds 06:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, RA is right, we coud post th emore important formation of thelibyan government (like Lebanon and Iraq)Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Mary JoyEdit

Withdrawn by nom. per newbieness
The following discussion has been closed by Trevj. Please do not modify it.
Article: Mary Joy (talk, history)
Blurb: Strathclyde Police has warned against use of the legal intoxicant Annihilation (or Mary Joy), which has previously been noted in the Shetland Isles, Lancashire and Tyneside. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Use of the legal intoxicant Annihilation (or Mary Joy) can result in hallucinations and hospitalisation.
News source(s):

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Parents/teachers will likely be looking for information about this. It turns out that issues were reported in the Shetland Isles earlier this summer. The article lists a range of user effects reported in reliable sources, over and above the police warning. ---- Trevj (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, Regional news (UK-wise) that's unlikely to have any meaningful long-lasting impacting on the laws surrounding drugs. Highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact in the UK as a whole. Effects a very small group of people. "Parents/teachers will likely be looking for information about this." - I'm sorry but we're not a drug advisory board. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as per Τασουλα. LukeSurl t c 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - We're not a PSA.--WaltCip (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment (nominator) Fair enough, although I note that WP:ITN#Criteria states Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion.
This subject doesn't count as merely regional news IMHO, with it being discussed on this morning's Today. I acknowledge that the subject is of small significance in terms of world news, but please note that this is my first time at ITN. Regarding the comment Highly unlikely to have any meaningful impact in the UK as a whole, I'm not suggesting that we're able to predict the future, but did you note when reviewing the article (at Mary Joy#Reception) that a couple of notable people have been pressing for legislative changes? In my haste, maybe I've missed some newcomers' guidance somewhere. Otherwise perhaps it'd be helpful to add some emphasis at WP:ITN#Criteria to avoid further nominations in this vein. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Welcome Please don't take the strong oppose votes as anything personal. The basic problem is that this is seen as local news without a huge constituency. Plenty of items which are huge stories in the US, for example, are shot down as too local. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      Thank you Much appreciated. -- Trevj (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't happen any-more to UK articles than it does to US articles. I'm British. So yeah, it's all cool --Τασουλα (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Medeis on that point as well. With apologies to Tip O'Neill, all news is local. The standard should be on the prominence of the news story, not on how "local" it is. That being said, this seems like routine reporting of the kind found in newspapers all the time. There are drug "epidemics" (really more likely "news epidemics" where similar stories get overemphasized in the news media for whatever reason) that are regular parts of all news papers. One can probably pick up any news media and find reports of the "latest craze", this doesn't strike me as a particularly prominent story above the standard news fare. Last years "moral panic du jour" was Bath salts (drug), and it flares up every few months with a new drug that makes the rounds. On the grounds that this doesn't rise above the sort of banal reporting that every newspaper does every day, I'm going to oppose this. But not because of the "local" reason. That's completely spurious. Still, this isn't an ITN level event. --Jayron32 18:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll second both those points. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have some sympathy with this nomination. But it is very regional story which will struggle to get support. It is an important event here, though, but one which might not it in the ITN. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd say, forget the whole "it's regional" thing and look at the very element of this story, and that is - Drugs, legal highs, social issues ect ect. Rating it on this scale, it's not really ITN-Worthy I feel. Certainly not a worthless nomination, but I think no nom is ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply Thanks for all the useful comments, everyone. I'll try to bear such things in mind in future. -- Trevj (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Apologies if I came across as blunt and too formal in my oppose, by the way - I just use that attitude on ITN/C sometimes due to past trouble I've been in here, mainly due to me becoming overly-passionate. Haha. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
      Understood. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Hey, Trevj, don't sweat the small stuff. Remember, this isn't personal. It's better to throw it all against the wall to see what sticks. Keep looking for good stories, and keep working on adding content to Wikipedia articles with it. We all find news stories we see as interesting, we then update a Wikipedia article with the info, and see if others find it as newsworthy as we did. Sometimes people agree, sometimes they don't. It ain't no thing but a chicken wing, as they say. --Jayron32 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Physiology or MedicineEdit

Articles: John Gurdon (talk, history) and Shinya Yamanaka (talk, history)
Blurb: John Gurdon and Shinya Yamanaka win 2012 Nobel Prize in Medicine for finding a method to convert mature cells into stem cells (Post)

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

 --Allen3 talk 10:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • This is on ITNR, and I've changed the template accordingly. The articles just need proper updates - at present they have one unreferenced sentence each. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to do it myself. Modest Genius talk 11:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update The Nobel Prize is a BFD – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be better if the blurb included links to their discoveries (cloning and induced pluripotent stem cell). Narayanese (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nobel prizes are notable and this topic is covered in the vast majority of news sources. --Droodkin (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in spite of the short updates. This is a newsworthy event (as documented by the sources) and I'm not sure what else could be said except "On XXXX date they were awarded the Nobel Prize". It would be nice if the update also included a substantial explanation of the work they are cited for in winning the Nobel Prize, but for me posting this on the main page doesn't hinge on that. This is significant enough that I'm willing to waive the usual update standards. --Jayron32 18:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Every serious newspaper has a piece on this, most containing some reaction or quotes from others in the field, politicians, or the researchers themselves. Add two or three sentences on this, done. Modest Genius talk 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, ITN/R and we always post Nobel prize's. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Considering that Nobel updates are often tricky, both articles have basic info about the discoveries and have been updated with the prize award. I'm calling that "ready". Formerip (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am going to mark this as ready. I think all nobel prizes from here on in should have similar updates and the content of their work for which they got nobel prizes should be judged. Putting random quotes just to fulfil ITN update criteria would be counter productive IMO. Those might be OK for news sites but i dont think they are encyclopedic unless exceptional. If anyone has objections we can obviously discuss further. -- Ashish-g55 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I'll join the bandwagon per the other supports. Interesting story. Jusdafax 02:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The updates about the award in each article are sufficient, but I'd really like to see more about Yamanaka's research and what he did. John_Gurdon#Research provides an example of this, albeit a tad short but minimally sufficient. SpencerT♦C 05:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • A added some to Yamanaka's research section. Narayanese (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments after postingEdit
  • Thanks to all above for your work. Also, could we have a link to the method, such as "...for finding a method to [[induced pluripotent stem cell|convert mature cells into stem cells]]"? Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point. Updated. Thue (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Great   Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Not great, incorrect! While Yamanakas work is indeed about iPS, Gurdons work is on somitic nuclear transfer, a completely different and unrelated technique (though with similar uses, hence the shared prize) Fgf10 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Still, I don't see how that makes my proposed linking any less incorrect than the text already present in the hook. If we want to correct it in this regards, the hook should rather read, for example "...for finding a method to [[induced pluripotent stem cell|convert mature cells into stem cells]] and perform [[somatic-cell nuclear transfer]]". Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Well, it's incorrect since it lumps together both winners work under iPS, which Gurdons work simply isn't. While your latest suggestion is entirely correct, it's probably too long, the current blurb work just fine, I think. The individual winners articles clearly state the techniques in the leads anyway. Fgf10 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] First commercial launch for ISSEdit

Article: SpaceX CRS-1 (talk, history)
Blurb: SpaceX successfully launches first commercially contracted re-supply mission to the International Space Station (<