Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2014

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

Contents

October 31Edit


Ukrainian parliamentary electionEdit

Article: Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Petro Poroshenko Bloc wins a plurality in the Ukrainian parliamentary election.

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Looks like Yatsenyuk's People's Front is winning, but needs some check for updates. The Results section of the article lists preliminary results. --Brandmeistertalk 09:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I changed to blurb to reflect which party (Poroshenko Bloc) won the most seats. The article update (results and infobox) is suffiently complete, other elections go up with the preliminary count rather than after recount. Narayanese (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - very important.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Once results are in. Important given the ongoing crisis. Miyagawa (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Allied Democratic Forces insurgencyEdit

Article: Allied Democratic Forces insurgency (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 100 people are killed by ADF insurgents during the month of October.
Alternative blurb: ​Residents of the town of Beni, Democratic Republic of the Congo, commit an act of cannibalism on a suspected insurgent.
News source(s): http://news.yahoo.com/congo-crowd-kills-man-eats-him-militant-massacres-160235263.html

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Cannibalism and high death toll in DRC. --Catlemur (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Opppose this is more of a long term news and would be better suited in the Ongoing section. But im not sure if it qualifies for that yet either -- Ashish-g55 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suport if we can get a better blurp, like "Congolese insurgent eaten by enraged crowd". μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] SpaceShipTwo crashEdit

Articles: 2014 Virgin Galactic crash (talk, history) and SpaceShipTwo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo crashes in the Mojave Desert during a test flight.
Alternative blurb: ​On dead, one seriously injured when Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo crashes in the Mojave Desert during a test flight.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Jeez... I assume this will be considered very noteworthy since its first crash of its kind plus there are not a whole lot of these flying around. I have not suggested a blurb since the status of pilots is unknown at the moment. Also i am not all that sure on the location except its in California. Update it as more news becomes available. ---- Ashish-g55 19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - significant event in civil space program. Not sure that we need to mention in blurb that one of two pilots confirmed dead. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support asap, what a shame, huge news in space exploration μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A fatality in a spacecraft is always newsworthy. The death should be included in the blurb.    → Michael J    19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with different blurb - definitely needs to be posted but neither of the blurbs is really suitable. The first is too vague and the second reads too much like a headline. Both also imply that SpaceShipTwo was a one-off ("the [...] SpaceShipTwo") when there are actually several planned - indeed it should probably include a link to VSS Enterprise, the article about the specific vehicle which was lost. --W. D. Graham 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support different blurb Providing details, what Wikipedia is good for. Shii (tock) 20:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support This is likely to have some serious ramifications - the crash was reportedly caused by a "serious anomaly". This will probably result in some significant setbacks to the project. Highly newsworthy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    For the record "serious anomaly" is essentially industry jargon for loss of vehicle. --W. D. Graham 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment Not that this shouldn't have be posted, but it should have waited maybe about a few more hours to get the article better filled out, let the details of any survivors, etc. filter in so that the article would have been of better quality when posted, as well as possibly a few more voices in case there were clear objections. Personally, I think the article is not yet quite there, but it makes no sense to pull at the time, just that we need to be a bit more cautious on posting so close to breaking news. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, what is there is all referenced. Raising the article's profile by putting it on the Main Page can only encourage further editing and improvements. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
      • If no additional useful sources appeared in those two extra hours, then likely posting would have been fine otherwise. ("We waited 2 more hrs after an event that is ITNR, that has coverage, and the article's a bit thin but no more sourcing is going to come until they determine what went wrong. We should post now" is a fair argument). We need just a bit more patience ever for obvious ITNR items (with some IAR of course)--MASEM (t) 21:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment a little quick, do we really need to post something like this in less than two hours of discussion? It was a test flight which killed one person. It certainly wasn't anything to do with space exploration, just "space" tourism gone wrong, a capitalist venture designed to make billions of dollars suffers a setback. Hardly on the level of a Space Shuttle disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    To an extent I think it is on the level of a Shuttle disaster - granted this was not a spacegoing flight, but this is essentially the same as if the Space Shuttle Enterprise had crashed during one of the Approach and Landing tests. --W. D. Graham 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, with respect. Space Shuttle disasters kill seven or so astronauts at a time with a combined experience of hundreds of years, billions of dollars of training, and ordinarily in pursuit of global "good" like satellites, ISS etc. This is merely a capitalist venture gone wrong. Tragic, for sure, but certainly nowhere near as significant as the Space Shuttles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted too quickly. I weakly support the inclusion of this at WP:ITN, per the amount of news coverage and it being the first crash of a notable type of aircraft, but the posting was way too fast. Per discussion recently there should not be a hard and fast rule about how long a nomination should be open, but there needs to be time for a reasonable level of discussion. How long "reasonable" is varies on a case-by-case basis, but given that this is essentially just an air crash that killed one person and the fact that very, very few aircrashes nominated here receive unanimous consensus to post (and many receive a consensus against posting) two hours with only 5 comments is not in any way, shape or form reasonable in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - It should be added to ITN. And it was (in my opinion) correctly added so quickly.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30Edit


[Closed] Eric Matthew FreinEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Eric Matthew Frein (talk, history)
Blurb: Eric Matthew Frein, who is suspected of killing a police officer, is caught at an abandoned airport in Pennsylvania.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator's comments: Frein was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted fugitives list (see above source). --Jinkinson talk to me 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would tend to oppose this, I think. I don't think he was a fugitive long enough to be considered a notable one(in terms of ITN). Could be wrong, but.... 23:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Local news. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - would usually oppose these kind of stories but here we have a story that has been reported on all over the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose loner kills cop? Bad enough we posted that guy who converted from Quebec to Islamist. This will have no import except to the relatives 20 years from now, and it meets none of the ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems very sensationalist and very not-ITN to me. Challenger l (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose are we now supposed to post all murder suspects in the US? We'd need a new Wiki for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2014 Burkinabé uprisingEdit

Articles: Blaise Compaoré (talk, history) and 2014 Burkina Faso coup d'état (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Protesters storm the Burkina Faso parliament in opposition to proposed constitutional change to enable Blaise Compaoré (pictured) to stand for another term as president.
Alternative blurb: ​Following violent protests, Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaoré flees to Dakar, Senegal.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29831262

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Quite a significant national and regional story, but today's events seem to take it into the international attention threshold for ITN. Blurb is admittedly a bit wordy. --—WFCFL wishlist 12:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: The army has just dissolved the government too. Perhaps the blurb should be reworked? This is big news from a major West African state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support story. The Independent are reporting "at least three" protesters were shot dead and the parliament set on fire [1]. Could do with a better blurb though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The military has taken over the government in a coup d'état.XavierGreen (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. Neljack (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominated. I'd be wary of throwing terms such a coup around though since it doesn't seem entirely clear cut - a transitional government does not necessarily amount to a coup. I'm aware that reporting of coups is often confused and contradictory but I'm not comfortable calling this just yet. 3142 (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree, especially in light of his statement that he is still in charge subsequent to reports of a coup (and indeed, no use whatsoever of the word "coup" at 2014 Burkinabé uprising. I'd lean towards a conservative approach to how we report this. There is no doubt in my mind that the sheer scale of the protests were significant in isolation. This situation is fast-moving, and if there were a subsequent update due to changing political circumstances I suspect it would have little if any effect on how long this story remains on the template. —WFCFL wishlist 02:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready due to unanimous support and the relevant articles seeming to be in postable condition. —WFCFL wishlist 02:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    @WaitingForConnection: Could you address the orange maintenance tag? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    Nope. I've waivered on this, but the more I read about the story, the more I'm convinced that anything before the 30th belongs in the background section, and therefore that the orange tag is not needed. But I've removed it before, and do not wish to engage in an edit war. —WFCFL wishlist 12:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: You know what... if someone disagrees with this then we can take it from there... —WFCFL wishlist 14:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
[Redacted]
  • What on earth are you on about? This is not a small country (population 17 million), nor is this an election (which was what the Sao Tome and Principe story was) - this is a major story that is unquestionably in the news. I don't have an inkling about what "ITN gift" is meant to mean? Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have recently warned Lihaas after a couple of very questionable posts at ITN. While this (nor the one he posted recently at the World Series nomination) sink to that level, I do wonder whether a topic ban from ITN may not be needed (assuming that these strange or problematic comments are restricted for some reason to ITN). This can't be decided here, but if others feel the same way, perhaps it's time we brought this to WP:AN? Fram (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Its time someone reports Lihaas.--Catlemur (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You've fgot a problem with this too? Who was I attacking? Everyone has there reasons.
And its just a little sports banter from a losing fan (who was on his comp)...relax guys. go out and have some fun ;)
Henceforth, im placing myself on a self-imposed topic ban for ITN. At the most, I hereby swear, that I will only edit (not nomionate) the nomination box if need be.Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lihaas: I think that's a good compromise. Lihaas has a track record of premature nominations and comments which are misunderstood and cause needless side discussion. But on the other hand few editors have a more prolific track record of actually getting stuck in on improving ITN candidates. Despite the fact that if this had been posted at the time of my nomination my update would have been sufficient, the story significantly moved on in 24 hours, and in that context Lihaas unquestionably deserves the credit for doing the lion's share of the work to get this story on the main page. A formal topic ban would have prevented that credit and might have resulted in the article not being sufficiently worked on. —WFCFL wishlist 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

North Lebanon Clashes (2014)Edit

Article: North Lebanon Clashes (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: Lebanese army clashes with Islamist militants in north Lebanon.
News source(s): [CNN] [Reuters] [Daily Star]

Nominator's comments: Heaviest clashes in Lebanon since the Syrian Civil War began. --Catlemur (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - significant clashes.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment either consider "Ongoing" or else this seems to have died down already. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Thomas MeninoEdit

No consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Thomas Menino (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Boston Globe, CNN, Reuters, ABC News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Longest-serving mayor of Boston (20+ years), Former President of the United States Conference of Mayors and former co-chair and co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose Menino is no Ed Koch. Of no interest outside wonks and Boston TV broadcast area. Not even to Howie Carr. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think this has much chance of being posted, but the longest serving and probably most notable mayor of one of thetop populated cities in the world is a fairly big deal.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Doesn't have a whole lot of presence outside of one American city. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I understand why this was nominated (and even considered doing so myself) but I do ultimately agree that he doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria, if one defines the field as US politics. If this was Bostonpedia or even New Englandpedia, yes, he would be a cinch. But it is not. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose Wikipedia is not all about the US.--Catlemur (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Catlemur: The question is whether this meets the RD criteria or not; purely geographical objections are not valid, as stated on this page (Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.) 331dot (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the importance of this event even in a single country (US).--Catlemur (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose once we post a dead mayor, we post all dead mayors. Simply not of sufficient significance for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The only US mayoral position to get widespread attention outside of the country is the Mayor of New York. I make no comment on whether that is fair or unfair, right or wrong, just that it is my experience of the level of coverage. —WFCFL wishlist 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose City mayors would need to be of exceptional importance (Medais' Koch example is a prime example I would accept for RD) to be considered important for RD if the death was otherwise natural. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment In light of the above, feel free to close this, as I was unaware of the criteria surrounding mayors. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though a loss and a considerable one - I don't see how he meets the bar for RD. Challenger l (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Correction I didn't hear it, but apparent;y Howie Carr sang Menino's praises, my apologies. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

October 29Edit


Hungarian Internet Tax ProtestsEdit

Article: Telecommunications in Hungary (talk, history)
Blurb: ​100,000 Hungarians march to protest world's first tax on internet data.
News source(s): Telegraph NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: World's first tax on data transmission, opposed by EU, largest protests in Hungary under current right-wing Fidesz party, Dramatic picture available in Telegraph and NYT articles, Protests are ongoing. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional support The actual tax is old news, I read about at least a week ago on El Reg. However, it is the protest that has been nominated here and 100,000 protesters is notable. I'd like to see better sourcing though - the Telegraph states up to 100,000. If it was actually 80 or 90 thousand it would still be notable enough but if this is an exaggerated figure from the organizers and the police say 10,000 perhaps not. 3142 (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Added NYT, crowd figures are always suspect, but suggest you look at pics, esp. this by Xinhua of bridge over danube fully packed. !0,000 would be an absurd number, it is a crowd 100 deep by 100 wide. Google News gives NPR, NBC, Deutsche Welle, IBT, etc., all giving "some 100,000" figure. μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment target article is very poor indeed. It has an update but as it's supposed to cover the whole of telecoms across a country, it's woeful. Plus bare URLs, bad grammar etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interestin enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Moot? Well, the government has withdrawn the proposed tax yahoo in the face of the protests. I don't know if that makes this more or less notable--a "government withdraws proposed tax in face of protest march" blurb is possible, but it would need work, and it being the second biggest holiday of the year I am unsure how available I'll be. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I find the protest story more relevant now that the gov't has w/drawn the proposal because the protest actually worked! Wouldn't it have been grand if the Occupy Movement in USA had actually achieved its goals?! Rhodesisland (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting enough.-- per BabbaQ Hafspajen (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Badulla landslideEdit

Article: 2014 Badulla landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A landslide in Badulla, Sri Lanka, kills at least 10 people and leaves at least 300 missing.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • A good, deathy headline, but what article are we supposed to be assessing? As of me writing this, it's a redlink. --Jayron32 11:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Assess (1) the newsworthiness of the item (based on the RS provided) (2) the stub article which needs expansion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    At the time I commented, it was a redlink, so had nothing to assess. Now that I do, weak support. Article is currently a bit on the short side; consider my vote dropping the "weak" portion whenever it is expanded to a reasonable level. --Jayron32 01:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    Incorrect, you had (1) to assess, and just a minute to wait before (2) arrived. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    This is Wikipedia, (2) is all that really matters. (1) is mainly for the self-important people who like to act as gatekeepers of culture here at ITN. --Jayron32 02:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that's pure tripe and you know it. We could have a sparkling article about the new mayor of Boston, but is it newsworthy? Nope. Hope that clarifies things for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose even China will have a higher interest in what the Pope has to say than in 10 people dying to a landslide in Sri Lanka. Nergaal (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Seriously? You're dragging your pique about 'Pope repeats existing policy', which you mischaracterised with a bunch of provincial nonsense about the Bible Belt, into the discussion of a natural disaster where people are dead and many more missing? Isn't that a trifle self-centred? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I said that probably even China doesn't care about this. Nergaal (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance to either China or the Pope. I suggest you either expand your comment accordingly or strike it as nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment we're 24 hours on now and there are still around 100 people unaccounted for. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Estimates of missing and presumed dead range from 100 to over 200, so story shouldn't be ignored. Sca (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support on assumption confirmed death toll will be higher and article will have at least three good full paragraphs of prose. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, confirmed death toll is 16 and still 100+ missing, not expected to be found alive. Article also updated, probably okay, if not perfect. C628 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - updated article. Notable event.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support, landslides that have killed far fewer people have been posted in the past. Abductive (reasoning) 17:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 World SeriesEdit

Article: 2014 World Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, the San Francisco Giants defeat the Kansas City Royals to win the World Series.
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.

 61.245.26.8 (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support but let's see if we can get better and quicker updates this time around. Previous postings of the World Series on ITN have been delayed needlessly due to insufficient updates.--WaltCip (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I worked on some of the prose this morning, and will be available up until my bedtime tonight to improve it (as an East Coaster in my 30s, my bedtime is likely to be before the game ends). I think it's in good shape now, and will only need an update for tonight's result. I also suggest mentioning and providing a photo for the World Series MVP, if a photo is available. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Ha. Turns out baseball editors aren't as fast as American football ones. At least both still get to be delayed teehee! –HTD 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now What is the purpose of nominating this now? Notability does not need to be established so it comes down to the quality of the update. It isn't updated. Article is relatively well developed but for the article to be appropriately balanced for posting we need at least a hundred words of prose after the fact - throwing in a new table or a single sentence giving the result isn't going to cut it, since the article would then suffer from undue emphasis of the earlier rounds. 3142 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • How much exactly do you think it needs? I'd say a paragraph or two for Game 7, similar to the other games, which will be written once the game is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I said above "at least a hundred words" which seems clear enough to me. We have had too many instances in the past where events like this get posted with a threadbare update: the article must represent a balanced view of the tournament as a whole which includes a decent level of coverage of the final. 3142 (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Just post it and stop quibbling. It will grow fast enough. Jusdafax 03:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not a news ticker. ITN is on the front page: it must profile quality content, not appeal to sports fans. 3142 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
A reasonably substantial update is in place. Jusdafax 07:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28Edit


Ermenek mine accidentEdit

Article: Ermenek mine accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​18 miners are trapped underground by flooding in a coal mine in Turkey.
News source(s): Reuters

Nominator's comments: Although no one has died yet this was still a significant event, as is apparent from the fact that the president of Turkey decided to supervise rescue operations there. --Jinkinson talk to me 14:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - has recieved continued coverage. Likely many deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I want to support this but its had a couple of days now and still the article is simply too sketchy. I know that may simply be down to the fact no-one knows the real situation with respect to things like the body count, but right now I don't see an article worth highlighting. 3142 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Michael SataEdit

Article: Michael Sata (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Death of incumbent President of Zambia. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Death of a head of state is notable and would meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppot, per 331dot. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. If there was an ITN/R for RD I'd be surprised if the death of an incumbent head of state was not on the list. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for at least RD. A sitting head-of-state death is rare enough that I'd also support a blurb. The article itself is in solid shape, a few very minor tags, and maybe one or two sentences that need a cite, I'd have no problem with the quality of the article on the main page. --Jayron32 11:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Isn't that what we usually do for the death of a sitting head of state? Neljack (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sitting head of state, good coverage, decent enough article quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as a sitting head of state. Connormah (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted although I'm the nominator, it's clear there's a consensus to post, at least, at RD. Blurb discussions can continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't oppose posting a blurb but I personally am not convinced this death was newsworthy enough to do so. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a full blurb, not just an RD listing. A sitting head of state died in office; that's got to account for something.
  • Oppose blurb...but Sitting president but he was 77 and it was known he was ill. Wonder if a rollover function is possible for ITNRD the way pictures have rollover captions--I would support that as a general feature for all RD listings: "Zambian President; Undisclosed Illness" or the like. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You might be able to do that with a tooltip (of the sort used for definitions, etc), I don't know about their accessibility or their ability to be combined with a link though. Alternatively, we could include a small graphic to give that on mouseover (e.g. Michael Sata  ) (if we do this then setting up a template like {{ITNRD|Michael Sata|Zambian President; 29 October; Undisclosed Illness}} would probably be good). There are possibly better ways though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Not being an admin I can't institute this myself. Do we need an RfC, or will someone just add the template? I think the format age|nationality|profession|cause of death would be good, for example, Susan Ross with the rollover "45, American envelope-sealer, poisoning". μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think we need a full-blown RfC but input from more than just the two of us is needed (not least as my template skills are not up to the job). I'll copy this to WT:ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb- He was a sitting head of state and not an insignificant one at that. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Antares/CygnusEdit

Article: Cygnus CRS Orb-3 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Antares rocket explodes during the launch of the unmanned Cygnus CRS-3 spacecraft to the International Space Station
News source(s): CNN BBC

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.

 --W. D. Graham 22:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Major launch failure (all failures are ITN/R anyway) on an already reasonably well-publicised mission to the ISS. --W. D. Graham 22:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. NASA was heavily publicizing this launch as it would be visible to the public in much of the eastern United States.    → Michael J    23:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Addendum. The planned launch was already listed on the Current Events portal under "Science".    → Michael J    23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - These kinds of actions are far from common place, so something like this happening is easily noteworthy. As the nom mentioned, launch failures are listed on WP:ITN/R, and with good reason.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Post immediately this is huge. Brian Everlasting (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be in reasonable shape. The update is not huge, but I think sufficient. I've fixed a couple of bare URLs. There is some use of primary sources, but it looks reasonable. Also some slightly dicey RS, blogs and the like - though I guess that's all that's likely to be out there for a day or so to come. I think it's ready to post all the same. GoldenRing (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready- Kind of sad, but unanimous consensus, updated article, and no orange tags. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Some perspective here:
    • The vessel was unmanned.
    • There was thus no loss of life on board, nor on the ground. No one even seems to have been injured.
    • The spacecraft it was carrying was a routine resupply mission to the ISS

To me it is not at the level of the Challenger or Columbia disasters. And to make up for that, it would have to have been a significant unmanned mission, perhaps a probe on a planetary mission; or the first such launch of that kind/from that site. Yes, it happened just in time for the evening news U.S. Eastern time, and it would have been neat to watch in the sky. But that doesn't establish the kind of importance that would give it this space. A lot of the rest of the world couldn't have seen it, and I'm not sure that they cared so much.

Yes, these are not commonplace. But as space flights like this become more and more commonplace, so too will the accidents that happen. A single-car motor vehicle accident without fatalities or injuries might have been news in 1902; by 1922 it needed to be a multi-car pileup. So on the scale of spaceflight disasters I do not consider this "huge." I read what ITN/R says; however in this case I respectfully dissent. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

      • This is the most-read article on the BBC news website (in the UK the launch was shortly after 10:20pm), it's the top story for the Straits Times (launch 6:22am Singapore time) for example. This isn't as big as Columbia or Challenger, but very few things that make it to the ITN section are - indeed I'd venture that nothing currently on there is. The article clearly states that "This was the first attempted flight of the Antares 130" so combined with the fact that space rocket launch failures are ITN/R there is no basis for your opposition. If you want to challenge the ITN/R status please use talk page where it can be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
        • We do not base our significance judgements on how many views news about an event gets on other websites that have much more space than we do to carry news items. I would also note that the same article says: "This flight, which would have been its fourth to the International Space Station and the fifth of an Antares launch vehicle ..." which to me proves the point. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not yet I would support this when the article has stabilised. However, at the time I reviewed this article (immediately before I composed this) there were still undos being made on the basis on the basis of factual accuracy. My rule is simple: if it's not true it can't go up. The headline blurb in this can is true but we can hardly start highlighting articles that are still in such a state of flux. We are not a news ticker: ITN is a service to the reader and to highlight quality content. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I think if we held to this principle, nothing would ever get posted at ITN. ITN, by its nature, concerns current events, and so all articles posted are in a state of flux, to some degree. This particular article has nothing 'untrue' in it; it's had one or two things inserted which are almost certainly true but can't be sourced yet, and there seems to be a fairly vigilant group keeping such things out. GoldenRing (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It is significant, there is strong interest in space flight, and the two articles are in reasonable shape. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Looks like a good candidate for an image too, if someone like User:David Levy would be kind enough to help out? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    Done. —David Levy 08:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas WintonEdit

Article: Nicholas Winton (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sir Nicholas Winton (pictured) is awarded the Order of the White Lion by the Czech Republic.
Alternative blurb: ​Sir Nicholas Winton (pictured) receives the Order of the White Lion in the Czech Republic.
News source(s): Telegraph Group, BBC

Article updated

 --Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. We might also mention he's aged 105. The honour was announced on his birthday and he collected the honour in October 2014. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • ALT blurb to reflect the above. Mjroots (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitel for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SUpport per above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can anyone say how often this is awarded? Some "highest honors" are given out frequently, others rarely. I think this one is rare, though I can't tell precisely. Also, our article says that the Order of the White Lion comes in five ranks, but neither source seems to identify which rank was awarded in this case? With ranked awards (like France's Legion of Honour), the specific rank given can greatly affect the novelty and apparent significance even though all of the ranks often get described as the "highest honour". Lastly, I think it is important that any blurb note that the award is related to life saving actions he took during World War II. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll need an update. The article currently only has two sentences on the award. I suppose there's a limit to what can be said, but I'm sure there's more that could be added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

    • I've asked at WP:Czech Republic for assistance with the class of award. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Have expanded the content and created a separate sub-section for the award. Agree that blurb should briefly describe why he was honoured in this way. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support though I think the blurb could be more helpful. Who is he? What did he do? What is the order of the white lion? GoldenRing (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That was deliberate - most people reading that will see the award and at least have an inkling that it's probably quite high up in the scheme of things. As for not knowing who Sir Nicholas Winton is, their curiosity will be aroused, and the link will be clicked. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • A cunning plan, no doubt, but it has resulted in at least one opposing !vote from User:Neljack below. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- This is a good example of an award that is not ITN/R but is still worthy of posting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Highest honour" simply isn't good enough here, it risks becoming another elections thing if we do. We don't post every Victoria or George Cross, nor every Presidential Medal of Freedom or Congressional Gold Medal. Where is the case that this should be featured above all others? MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Nations do not generally give out top-level awards willy-nilly (Old Boys Club awards to Heads of State ignored here), even less so to foreigners. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      It has to be stated that the Order of the White Lion was exclusively for foreigners, with locals now in contention since 1994. –HTD 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There are roughly 200 countries out there. If each gives out its highest honour only once a year that is 200 a year or four a week. That is clearly too much for ITN to accommodate. Why should this one get posted over an above the other 199 that won't? That is something other than a simple mantra that it's the highest honour, which is equally true for all of them. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There are 206 (we think), although they are not all equally generous. But, since you raised this interesting question - what is the "highest honour" in US and how often is it given? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The highest US civilian award is either the Presidential Medal of Freedom (awarded on average to 10 people per year) or the Congressional Gold Medal (awarded on average to 3 people / groups per year). I don't recall any of these being listed on ITN. However, I do believe we have had a few Medal of Honor recipients listed (the highest US military award). Dragons flight (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure that can number be extended to all countries of the world? I'm not saying that any of them should have been listed on ITN. I suspect that, even if they had been, the argument would be to "assess each on their own merits", which is what I believe should be the case here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is receiving scant coverage outside of the U.K. and the Czech Republic. Also sets a bad precedent to list people when they win a national award. It's a little tiring seeing so many awards listed on ITN, when stories like the recent Sinai attacks and coup de tat's in Africa get ignored. --Tocino 09:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is it really being suggested that any recipient of the Order of the White Lion should be on ITN? Presumably this would also apply to the highest honours of other countries, and then we will have far too many such recipients to post. While the actions for which Sir Nicholas received the award were very admirable, I don't see that they provide any basis for treating him any differently to others who receive such high honours - they have presumably also been judged to have rendered outstandingly meritorious services. Neljack (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No. Nice straw man, there. It is not being suggested that any recipient of the Order of the White Lion should be on ITN, it is being suggested that this recipient of the Order of the White Lion should be on ITN. Your concerns are entirely WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CRYSTAL. GoldenRing (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • GoldenRing, considering that the nomination statement simply read "Highest honour issued by the Czech Republic" and did not indicate that there was any reason why Sir Nicholas was a particularly noteworthy recipient, I'd say that would appear to be exactly what was suggested. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It isn't a straw man. It was Monumentally Incompetent who first raised the issue of scalability and s/he explicitly asked "Why should this one get posted over an[d] above the other 199 that won't?" No one has offered any justification for this single one in particular so the question remains unanswered. 3142 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Had he killed 6 children we'd be considering a nom and had he killed 69 children he'd have been posted already. Saving 669 children seem notable enough for me. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be bold and mark this as ready, Arguments against do not seem to override general consensus this is worth posting. Will leave to an admin to make the final decision and decide on whether or not to expand hook. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Unmarked simply because you are the nominator. Posting admins have a duty to evaluate the merits of the arguments raised in any event, tagging does not alter that. 3142 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Taking you at your word, that you unmarked simply because Mjroots is the nominator, I've remarked it as ready. The point of marking as ready is to bring it to the attention of admins to assess the consensus. IMO, opposes of the, "But this opens the floodgates..." variety are irrelevant - each nom should be assessed on its own merits. GoldenRing (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blanket coverage in the UK, and presumably in the Czech Republic, but barely any coverage (save the odd one or two) elsewhere. The award might be the highest in the Czech Republic but the Czechs have repeatedly honoured him for his World War II actions, so this looks like another notch on the stick. Maybe when someone decides to accept one of his annual Noble Peace Prize nominations (by the Czechs, of course) we can post him on ITN.
If this does make it through, can someone mention what class he received? The Order of the White Lion comes in five ranks and usually 1st class honours are reserved for Heads of State. Would be helpful to mention his actions in the blurb as well. Alt blurb: Sir Nicholas Winton (pictured) is awarded the Order of the White Lion for saving 669 children during World War II. Fuebaey (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an honor from one country, we can't possibly post every such award. The unsigned comment above also raises the issue as to whether it really is the highest grade, I looked through several sources now and don't see confirmation of that. 3142 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that posting this means we'd have to post every other honour from every other country? That's not how ITN works. And you're claiming that the award is not the highest that the Czech Republic has to offer? RS sources say that it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is there are hundreds of people every year who receive an equal honour. Why should we highlight this one over and above any other? That has been asked repeatedly and has not been answered.
As for whether is is the highest honour or not, certainly the order is but it comes in several classes. The highest is reserved for heads of state. Winton is head of which state exactly? 3142 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it's a higher grade of the same class. Do these "hundreds of people" get news coverage like Winton has? In fact, I'd like to see a source for these "hundreds of people". Or how about a single example of someone getting the same coverage for receiving a similar honour this year? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The Order of the White Lion is the highest honour given by the Czech Republic but the order itself comes in five ranks, from the lowest 5th class to the highest 1st class. They can't all be the 'same class' as you say. As a parallel, you could say someone received the Order of the British Empire, rather than specifiying whether it is a MBE (lowest) or a KBE (i.e knighthood - second highest). I'm surprised noone has found any information on the rank of his award yet, since it could be useful in clarifying the overall significance of the individual honour. Winston Churchill was also honoured at the same event and even then we know he received the Order of the White Lion, 1st class. [6]
Side note: Angelina Jolie received an honorary damehood (DCMG) for her humanitarian work three weeks ago is an example of a person getting the same (if not more international) coverage for receiving a similar (if not lesser - Order of St Michael and St George is not the highest award in the Commonwealth) honour. Fuebaey (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I said what? The class given to Heads of State is the same class, Class 1, as that given to Sir Nicholas. Are you disputing that? But your post puts this award nicely in perspective - the same class as that given to Sir Winston. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. I'm not sure that Sir Nicholas has quite the same "celebrity cachet" as Angelina?
Hence the side note, it was in response to your question - not that it has any particular bearing on this nomination. Please provide a reputatable news source which states that Winton was awarded a 1st Class honour, if you are going to assert that. Fuebaey (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this an WP:RS? This source says "Zeman said he regrets the highest Czech award has been awarded to the two personalities so belatedly."Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider the first link a reputable news source. It is a personal website focused on honours, with a disclaimer on the contact page [7]. There is a short section on Winton containing a broken link as a reference. The second link is the same one I posted previously in which it states that he received the award. It does not explicitly state what class he received. Your quote above refers to the order, which I don't think anyone here is debating. Fuebaey (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I enquired at the cz.wiki Talk Page for Nicholas Winton. An editor there has very kindly infomed me, that according to this source, it was First Class. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if it's the highest honor in a country, this sort of award is a fairly run of the mill occurrence without any particularly major significance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the reasons for receiving the award are unquestionable, I don't see a compelling reason why we have to pick the highest award of the Czech Republic (non-ITNR). We don't post someone even if he/she posthumously receives the highest award for saving people's lives (or even if the heads of states receive them). Brandmeistertalk 09:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sure, Winton is a great man but this is not ITN worthy.--Catlemur (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Where did I claim this was ITN/R? I didn't. Let's stick to facts please. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I meant In the News.Catlemur (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I think many of the opposes here are missing the point re notability. Yes, many people may be awarded a country's highest honour every year, or even the Czech Republic's highest honour every year, (although personally I never see them in the news). The question we might ask is - how often do we see in the news recognition of a 105 year-old man who bravely saved the lives of hundreds of children over 75 years ago? But, of course there's no place for sentiment at ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support, because after consideration I'm convinced that the risk of this setting a precident is low. The argument that this has not received sufficient international coverage has been disproved, and the (utterly absurd) suggestion that we shouldn't post this because it's not on ITNR should simply be dismissed out of hand. Ny support is "weak" because I have a degree of sympathy for the school of thought that this risks setting a standard, but there are a few reasons why I do not believe that the theoretical risk should prevent this from being posted. Firstly, this has (regrettably but rightly) been a contentious decision: stories should not get an easy pass at ITN and therefore scrutiny is a good thing. How often do we post stories about people over 100 for reasons other than their death? Thirdly, and crucially, it is very rare that a story of this nature gets such international attention from major outlets across the board when the individual and country concerned are comparatively low profile on the international stage. —WFCFL wishlist 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note. I had closed this as not having consensus, but User:Medeis for some unclear reason reopened this, citing the numbers at the time he had set it to "ready", even though these numbers were hardly relevant anymore at the time I closed it (it had received 5 opposes and 1 support after it had been set to "ready", for what it's worth). As someone who had voted "support", Medeis was clearly involved and shouldn't have reopened it. I suggest someone else closes it again and informs Medeis that he doesn't get to override a close in a discussion where he was involved and for rather spurious reasons. Fram (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think your request may be justifed although, as we all know, it's quality of arguments, not counting of "votes", that is used to decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I know, my close was based on consensus, strength of arguments, but the reopening was based on votecount at the time it was indicated as "ready", not at the time I closed it or Medeis reopened it. One should not use simple votecount, and even less the votecount at some time in the past that suits you best of course :-) Fram (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't normally close a nomination where the votes are equal. You'll notice from the edit summary not only did I re-open it, I removed the ready tag. To imply there's something nefarious in that is odd. If we weren't in such a hurry to post when the vote was 7-4, why would we be in such a hurry to close when it's 8-8? μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There are no rules about when we normally close a nomination. When it is 8-8 tied, not directly in the news anymore (I mean not generating headlines any further), and most seems to have been said, then it is only logical to conclude that no consensus to post this will be reached anymore, and keeping it open is futile. As can be seen from the changes to this discussion since, this has indeed been the case. All you did was keep a nomination you supported open for a few more days, generating more comments but not getting us any closer to a consensus to post this. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised if you think that clarifcation of facts, which opposing editors had directly questioned, makes no difference at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Be surprised as much as you like, but it is quite clear that nothing said here since my closure has changed the complete lack of consensus about this item. Fram (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not that surprised, actually. But an interesting point - if an editor opposes soley because a fact is not known, and then evidence is subsequently presented to confirm that fact, is their oppose re-evaluated? Editors are not compelled to come back and modify their reasons, are they? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, human interest story. And about this notion of the votes being equal; ITN is not decided by votes! This is over! Abductive (reasoning) 17:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're saying "human interest stories" don't make the news? It's not over until the nomination is closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The nomination was closed and improperly reopened. And human interest stories do make the news, but not, it seems, ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 17:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not over until the nomination is closed properly. No human interest stories at ITN - that's a new rule, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Its not a rule, its just my observation of the outcomes here. Perhaps I'm wrong; what human interest stories have been posted lately? Abductive (reasoning) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to ask for some precedent as this is the only place I saw this being reported, considering I watch those 24-hour news channels at least once a day. "Nicholas Winton" gets 8,620 results in Google News; LeBron James has 181,000. Then I remember ITN is subjective unless we're talking about dead mayors which should all be posted if one makes it through... –HTD 17:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • .... how long do you watch, 23 hours? Yes, it is subjective. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
      • An hour a day. I was watching when the exploding spaceship was breaking news. If this happened right after the program I was watching aired, and they didn't mention it the next day, was it good enough for ITN? –HTD 17:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
        • You have my sympathy, that's more than I could manage. But why am I not surprised an exploding spaceship gets preferential treatment on a 24 hour news channel? And, of course, it might even happen again. Martinevans123 (talk)
          • What I'm surprised is the BBC ditching this major never-before-seen event for the usual news fodder of exploding spaceships/protests/elections/royal babies/football match. There weren't even any follow-ups to this news.... well, I dunno how could this ever be followed up, something an ITN blurb usually has. –HTD 18:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Bread and circuses.--Catlemur (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Highly interesting and unusual - 105 years is good enough already, saving 669 children during World War II, even better, and receives the Order of the White Lion. Great news. - I want some good news to, not only bad ones. Hafspajen (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that what he did is incredibly significant, but what we are discussing here is whether Winton receiving the Czech award is of top-significance, not his heroic actions.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well it is kinda connected. Liked the Alt blurb: Sir Nicholas Winton (pictured) is awarded the Order of the White Lion for saving 669 children during World War II... He was good enough for 60 minutes, BBC, New York Times An Old Man in Prague - citation New York Times 30 Oct 2140:

    Back in Prague, 75 years on, Winton received the Order of the White Lion, the highest honor of the Czech Republic sic. The Czech Air Force sent a plane. He was serenaded at Prague Castle, in the presence of a handful of his octogenarian “children.” The only problem, he said, was that countries refused to accept unaccompanied children; only England would. One hundred years, he said, is “a heck of a long time.” The things he said were understated. At 105, one does not change one’s manner

    .... well, he should be good enoug for us to. Mighty sympathetic guy. Hafspajen (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh no, don't get me wrong, I totally understand that the two are connected. And I absolutely think the actions for which he was awarded are significant. But as this is about news, what we're talking about is purely if the act of receiving this recognition is significant, separate from the event itself. Just as, if we post about someone winning a pulitzer prize for their novel, it's because the awarding of the prize is newsworthy, not because "Author writes great book" is a newsworthy topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you may be right. And this seems quite at odds with the reason why events such as this are reported by the media sources we cite in support. The rescue of Jewish children in the 1930s won't ever be "a news event" again. But newspapers and television channels use the award as means of celebrating those children, as well as the hero who helped save them. I guess such an idiosyncratic view of what constitutes news must be clearly written down somewhere here? Martinevans123 (talk)

[Closed] Pope accepts evolution and Big BangEdit

No support, the story itself is stale by many decades. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: No article specified
Blurb: Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolutionism are compatible with a divine Creator.
News source(s): Telegraph USA Today The Independent NBC
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I think the Pope admitting evolutionism is going to strike very hard into the mindsets in the Bible Belt. Previously "the Vatican" as an entity admitted something similar, but the Pope saying this is quite more impressive than the whole gay-tolerance debate happening lately there. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. He did not fully accept evolutionism and Big Bang since he still believes that a god affected the two.It sounds like some fringe theorist partially admitted he is wrong (said fringe theorist just holds a position of power). No offense to Christians intended.Catlemur (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we didn't post the damning reality that he accepted a significant portion of his clergy were paedophiles, I'm not sure why we would post something as half-baked as a tacit acceptance that "God" is commensurate with the Big Bang and evolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Bible Belt stereotype is not representative of all Christians. Catholicism has accepted such things for some time. The Vatican has its own observatory. The first article cited here proves that this is nothing new: "As far back as 1950, Pope Pius XII said that there was no intrinsic conflict between Catholic doctrine and the theory of evolution." Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though getting some news coverage, this isn't an earth shattering statement, as pointed out by others above. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing the significance here. Besides, "Big Bang theory and evolutionism are compatible with a divine creator" is rather different to "admitting evolutionism." GoldenRing (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this...even news? I was under the impression that the Vatican already accepted evolution as not incompatable with Catholicism and had for quite some time. - OldManNeptune 03:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I wish people would pay attention. This is nothing new. Catholic doctrine hasn't had a problem with either of these theories. Don't mistake Catholics for rebellious and uncouth Protestants. Your little "Bible Belt" is historically "anti-Papist", and hates Catholics. What a horrid conflation. RGloucester 03:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

250 people killed in YemenEdit

Articles: al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen (talk, history) and 2014 Yemeni protest (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 250 Houthis are killed in three days of clashes with al-Qaeda.
News source(s): Al Jazeera ABC News Press TV The Epoch Times Arab News The National Yemen Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Over 250 people killed in clashes in three days. Andise1 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A significant escalation of the violence. Neljack (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as lacking all objectivity; article has significant tags and serious POV issues. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] John ToryEdit

No consensus to add to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: John Tory (talk, history)
Blurb: John Tory (pictured) is elected as the mayor of Toronto.
Alternative blurb: John Tory (pictured) is elected as the mayor of Toronto.
Nominator's comments: Notable election due to 10 months of coverage and Rob Ford crack scandal. Aerospeed (Talk) 01:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If Rob Ford had stayed in the election, maybe it would merit posting(big maybe), but he had already left the race. Given that, this is essentially a regular local election. We don't post the Mayor of New York, Tokyo, London, etc., all cities larger than Toronto. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. We don't post municipal elections here. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not notable enough.Catlemur (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Per above. This is only widely newsworthy because of how scandal-plagued Rob Ford was/is. -- Shudde talk 07:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 27Edit


Senzo Meyiwa shot deadEdit

Article: Senzo Meyiwa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​South Africa football captain is Senzo Meyiwa is shot dead
News source(s): BBCThe GuardianIrish Independent NBC Sports CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm not certain whether this should be RD or a blurb, but the untimely death of a current international football (soccer) captain seems notable enough to me. --Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support purely on news coverage, which this seems to be getting a lot of. I'm not sure he meets any of the RD criteria(though a captain he doesn't seem to have won many titles or held records) Should be a blurb as the death was unexpected and a story itself. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only knowing what is written in the article, it is not immediately clear that this person was near the top of his field, and indeed it seems that he's only been playing the sport professionally since last year (and rather unremarkably, at that). Compare this nomination with the one three below.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "he's only been playing the sport professionally since last year"? No. He started playing football professionally in 2005 at senior level with his club team, the Orlando Pirates - he started playing at international level last year. There is rather a big difference. BencherliteTalk 11:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Unclear how signfiicant this event is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sadly in this case, I think you need to look at the fact that the article was a six-year old stub with only one minor edit this year before his death to judge whether this meets any ITN criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD not blurb. The current captain of a national team is shot dead. It's making huge worldwide news. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nathan121212: This doesn't qualify for RD unless he meets one of the RD criteria, which is debatable at best. While there is a lot of news coverage(as I state above); I wouldn't call it "huge worldwide news" i.e., top headline story in large print around the world. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD He doesn't meet the level of notability for an RD listing - 162.95... makes the point in a manner that is very difficult to counter even if you wanted to. I'd be less opposed to a blurb listing since the death itself has a certain level of notability but I wouldn't be madly enthusiastic about it either. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both He fails RD and his utterly tragic murder is simply not notable enough - even with the circumstances - to warrant a full blurb.--Somchai Sun (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Tunisian electionEdit

Article: Tunisian parliamentary election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Call for Tunisia, led by Beji Caid el Sebsi, takes the lead in the Tunisian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb: Call of Tunisia wins a plurality in the Tunisian parliamentary election, ahead of Ennahda.
News source(s): Reuters

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

Nominator's comments: The results will likely be announced in the next few hours. The article is crap, but unfortunately I won't be doing much about this because I will be very busy in the coming days. I hope someone gets there soon. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Given that the ruling Islamists have conceded, I think we can say "wins" now. Neljack (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Should be posted now IMO, with preliminary results having been reported. Arguably the first democratic change of government in the Arab world (except for Lebanon?). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Marked as ready; article updated as far as possible. Add alt. blurb; I'd prefer it to mention former governing party Ennahda, to emphasize the imminent change of government. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dilma Rouseff reelected as president of BrazilEdit

Article: 2014 Brazilian general election (talk, history)
Blurb: Dilma Rousseff is re-elected for a second term as President of Brazil.
News source(s): BBC news Al JazeeraThe Guardian
Article needs updating

 --Eduen (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think the article needs some more prose before it's posted. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Brazil is a major world power, and the primary regional power; Rousseff's re-election is thus highly significant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Re-election of a BRIC leader. Second term, but closely fought election. Fuebaey (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since this is ITNR, we only need to judge article quality and if the blurb is OK. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- I think once a reactions section is added this will be ready. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The election article is sparse on prose at the moment. Rousseff's article might be the better one to update, but that needs updating. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Election in Brazil is newsworthy and Dilma Rousseff article in pretty good shape. Brian Everlasting (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This needs to be up before it becomes stale. Pikolas (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not Ready insufficient prose update. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Every major world news service has well reported on this but apparently some users here want some sort of large in depth report in order to just report this news in one sentence. It is very odd. Meanwhile wikipedia news decides to report instead on a result of US baseball, a game of mostly interest of only the US and countries surrounding it and a result which european and south american news services will tend to not report on at all.--Eduen (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Guidelines the guidelines require an update, that doesn't amount to anti-brazilo-marxisto-bigotry. Do the update, the article will be posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Medeis. There's not a lot of prose in the article in total, still less after the fact. ITN/R status is not a bye for our usual update requirements. 3142 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Oscar TaverasEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 08:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Oscar Taveras (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Dominican baseball player Oscar Taveras is killed in a car accident.
News source(s): Huffington Post USA Today

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: One of the top prospects in baseball dies suddenly at age 22 --Teemu08 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - He had a mediocre half-season in MLB. Not remotely significant in his field, and not even the "untimely death" clause would be enough to justify any sort of posting. --Bongwarrior (talk)
  • Oppose. Sudden and tragic yes, but even Hall of Famers aren't shoo-ins for an RD blurb, let alone a prospect. Wizardman 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Only Sudden and tragic death of a consensus top 5 prospect in MLB. Secret account 01:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Even RD listings need to meet the death criteria, and I don't see how this even comes close. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Potentially notable people do not qualify for RD. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "top prospect" is not the same as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." RD is for achievement, not potential. BencherliteTalk 11:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 26Edit


Last coalition combat troops leave AfghanistanEdit

Article: Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The last United States Marines and United Kingdom combat troops in Afghanistan leave the country.
News source(s): NBC

Nergaal (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

More info required, but general support for inclusion this historic event. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Botswana general election, 2014Edit

Article: Botswana general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Botswana Democratic Party maintains its majority in the 2014 Botswana general election.
News source(s): BBC ABC News (US) Al-Jazeera Reuters News24 Le Monde

Article updated

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

 --Nathan121212 (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Not widely reported In the News. ITN/R is a guideline subject to common sense exceptions, potentially frequent ones given the general lack of common sense in the ITN/R criteria. A re-election for the 11th time of the same old government in a country with less population than Connecticut probably doesn't generate a lot of news. If the opposition ever wins, that might be more significant. If you present multiple sources showing significant international coverage of this election, I may change my mind. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This objection must have been overcome by new sources added... The difference between Connecticut and Botswana is that Botswana is a sovereign state. If Connecticut declares independence, that would be a different matter. By the same argument, no story apart from Chinese and Indian government changes should be covered... —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: I think he was just making a point regarding population, not stating that Connecticut elections should be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting more sources; support upon adequate update. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Skimming some of the sources it seems that although they did not win the opposition did make significant gains. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support after updates completed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- This isn't the right election for people to try their "ITN/R elections is way too all-encompassing" argument on. This is actually a reasonably important election for a not so small country. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where is the significant update in prose? Would support if someone writes it. --RJFF (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: updates by User:Number 57 are currently in progress. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support'Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportAli Fazal (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Suggested alt blurb: Ian Khama is re-elected for a second term as President of Botswana.

October 25Edit


RD: Jack BruceEdit

Article: Jack Bruce (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter, BBC, CNN

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Member and founder of a very well-known band Cream. The article has no issues to my account. Bruce is very well known and is clearly RD material. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose on article quality - the last half of the prose part is lacking references and a bit too much proseline. Support RD on principle otherwise. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon quality improvement per Masem; in terms of notability he would seem to meet DC2. Even my local news ran a story about this. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support regarded as one of the best bass players ever born.Catlemur (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, once article gets better inline citations and references, seems to definitely be notable enough. Challenger l (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a pretty obvious one. Bruce was one of the most renowned rock bassists of all time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, he was in Cream, of which I am a fan, but his career after Cream in no way compared to the other members, and seems largely to have consisted of minor works and collaborations and reissue new versions of old hits. The claim he is "very well known" is dubious at best. NO awards, no charting singles outside Cream. does not meet ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd never heard of him, but after a quick read of his Wikipedia article, it sounds like he was a musician in a popular group for about two years and spent the rest of his career as a minor character in the larger field of rock music; hardly top of his field (being considered by many to be the one of the best bass guitar players is a quite limited claim to greatness in the scheme of things). Where are the multiple Grammys and other awards that are the usual markers of the creme de la creme of the recording and music fields (pun intended).86.172.46.89 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, "the scheme of things". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC) sorry, your intended pun is lost on me
  • Oppose clearly notable, and would support, but the article has various paragraphs of unreferenced prose. Needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but... The article would need to be improved first. It isn't particularly well-written, especially the paragraph on his recent album. I think he makes it. Founding member of a highly influential rock band, was with the group for its (albeit very short) entire existence, and was a major contributor to the bands seminal works. Yeah, he fits. But the article needs work. -- Scorpion0422 21:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. Wizardman 02:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Per Challenger. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable, international interest, newsworthy. Jusdafax 09:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: Remove 2014 Hong Kong protestsEdit

Clear consensus to remove. Also clear consensus that it can be added back just as quickly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't have been posted to Ongoing in the first place. Hong Kong is not on top of the headlines anymore. Are the protests really that significant right now? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support removal right now, but with the reservation that it can be added back in due course should events re-ignite. It was clearly easily notable enough for Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support removal as it does seem to have dropped out of the news; it can always be re-added if warranted. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support remove, protests lost momentum.--Catlemur (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There are anti-government protests going on in many places in the world at any given time. Unless the military gets involved or if the protests lead to genuine revolution, they shouldn't be posted. --Tocino 02:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support No major news coverage anymore. We can always add it back should the situation change. WinterWall (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 24Edit


Sinai attacksEdit

Article: October 2014 Sinai attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: Two attacks in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, kill at least 33 security personnel.
Alternative blurb: ​Thirty-three Egyptian security forces are killed in attacks carried out by Islamic militants, as part of the Sinai insurgency.
News source(s): Reuters The Washington Post The Guardian

Nominator's comments: This is one of the deadliest attacks on the Egyptian military in decades and the deadliest in the Sinai insurgency. The article requires some expansion, so any help would be highly appreciated. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The article needs some work, then support. --Tone 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - after additional work on the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Worst attack against the Egyptian army in decades. The blurb should mention the wider Sinai insurgency though. --Tocino 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Worst? can we get a direct quote with specific figures of the last major attack(s) and a reference? "One of the worst in decades" is very vague, and unattributed. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment according to The Guardian, it was "the deadliest attack on the security forces since the army deposed Islamist president Mohamed Morsi last year" so we need a reality check. However, it doesn't detract from the actual impact of the story and the newsworthiness of it, so support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

[Ready] Alan Eustace skydiving world recordsEdit

Article: Alan Eustace (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Google executive Alan Eustace beats Felix Baumgartner's skydiving altitude, speed and duration in freefall world records.
News source(s): BBC NPR NY Times Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Records of 2012 beaten; does this happen every other year? More accurately, these records have been set three times since 1960. That's three times in 54 years, to help with the "math". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. An interesting story for ITN. --Tone 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This has been strangely absent from the mainstream media. Fig (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting story.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something or he did not get the speed record? Nergaal (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Both. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The the article is not updated. It says "peak speeds exceeding 821.45 miles (1,322.00 km) per hour" vs "and fastest speed of free fall at 1,357.64 km/h (843.6 mph)" for B. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
In your own words, if you care enough, you'll do something about it. If don't care enough, I'd suggest you go and work on something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, so looking forward to all those "high-flying Google executive" headlines. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Baumgartner's record was two years ago?! Wow. Seemed like yesterday. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is just a random stat, of interest to some people, maybe, that's broken every other year. All it requires is being a multi-millionaire to afford the attempt. Are we supposed to be a ticker for that? Try DYK. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, the record that Baumgartner broke had stood for more than fifty years. While it is sort of odd that it was broken again so soon, I think it's too early to say that it's now commonplace. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
One gap of two years, after a gap of 50 = "every other year"? I guess "If Eustace had been a Nepalese sherpa no-one would have cared less" (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an incremental bump and as noted this "achievement" is more to do with the depths of one's pockets than any inherent skill. I don't think Baumgartner sets any kind of precedent - he got a lot more popular media coverage than this latest record. That implies to me there isn't the same kind of appetite for information about this copy-cat stunt and ITN is primarily for what our readers are trying to find, not what we consider "notable". Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see anything new or worthy from an educational standpoint to this factoid. TBH this is barely news, never mind ITN for an encyclopedia. --Tóraí (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Though I have to admit it's sort of strange this didn't get even half the coverage Baumgartner did, I think it was just wasn't hyped up nearly as much as Red Bull did but it's still an international story, so it shouldn't be punished for that. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unlike Baumgartner's jump, Eustace's jump didn't receive widespread international fanfare. The scientific value of these jumps are questionable, and they seem more like dare-devilish stunts if anything else. --Tocino 02:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I had assumed there was no "scientific value" in this stunt at all. Is that a new criterion for posting? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not very prominent in the news. Jehochman Talk 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- As a response to the last two oppose !votes, the reason it didn't get as significant coverage as Baumgartner is because they didn't have Red Bull to hype it up like last time. That in no way diminishes the significance of the accomplishment. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While not as hyped up as the Red Bull sponsored event, this is getting coverage and is a notable record; pretty much the next step would be a dive from orbit. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As others have noted, this is a little unusual because it comes so soon after Baumgartner's jump, with relatively little fanfare. But judged on its own merits, I see no reason not to post this. If these jumps truly become a biannual event, then I might feel a little differently. But right now, no problem. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and Needs Attention. Have been on the fence about this one for a while now, but I find myself moved by 331dot and Bongwarrior's comments. Adding a needs attention comment as well because I feel this has the support it needs and is marked as ready so we should get it up. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Marysville Pilchuck High School shootingEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least one student is killed and four others in injured at Marysville Pilchuck High School, Washington, when another student fired upon them before shooting and killing himself.
News source(s): CNN, National Post
Nominator's comments: School shooting by a fellow student is never a good thing. However, I will note that this doesn't yet have major international coverage (BBC has nothing yet), but its still early in the news cycle. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as of now. I'm not yet convinced this sad event rises to the level needed for ITN. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, made national news media. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose another day, another shooting. Doesn't seem to be ITN nor particularly newsworthy given the proliferation of gun crime events in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sad but school shootings in the US are almost ten a penny (we have about 45 articles about US school shootings vs about 15 for the rest of the world), so they need to be extraordinary for some reason to be ITN worthy and I'm just not seeing anything about this incident that rises to that level. The Washington Post article even says "This was the second shooting at a school in the region this year. In June, a gunman opened fire on the campus of Seattle Pacific University, killing one person and injuring three others." [8] Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the above. Tragic, but not uncommon and unlikely to have any lasting impact across the country. Level of media coverage is fairly minimal outside the US (although it is the no. 4 most read story on the BBC right now). --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Rare and tragic event in a pro-gun control state, while the US Murder rate is estimated to be at its lowest level ever mother Jones, Chart these events happen and this has been the top news story all day long, even displacing yesterday's Canadian double shooting. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this event is certainly tragic and sad, I don't find it to be extraordinarily newsworthy. L337p4wn Talk to me! 22:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - All too commonplace, sadly. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all the above opposes. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD:Mbulaeni MulaudziEdit

Article: Mbulaeni Mulaudzi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News24, REUTERS via ABC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: A well known and highly accomplished South African Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games medalist is killed in a car accident. --Nathan121212 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Multiple gold medallist in international competition, and first black South African to be #1 in the world (in most cases being the first of $ethnicity in a country is not really relevant, but South Africa is a special case IMO). My support is weak only because the article is a little light on prose, but what's there seems OK. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. per Thryduulf. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf and Rhodesisland: Thanks to Sillyfolkboy the article had been expanded. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Getting better, but citations are needed lead and several parts of the article's body. Thanks for working on it, but it still has a way to go! Rhodesisland (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it still needs a cite in each of the opening paragraphs, but it's good enough for me. Anyone else have an opinion? @The Rambling Man and Thryduulf: Rhodesisland (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That's in much better shape overall. I haven't looked at it in detail, but nothing stands out so now has my full support. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Chang'e 5-T1Edit

Article: Chang'e 5-T1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China launches Chang'e 5-T1 which will perform a loop behind the Moon and return to Earth.
Alternative blurb: ​China launches an experiment lunar mission, Chang'e 5-T1, which will loop behind the Moon and return to Earth.
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First re-entry from a Lunar trajectory since 1976. Significant achievement for China in its Moon program. --Hektor (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support- In my opinion, the best positive news stories we can post are in the field of space exploration, and this one has a mild political element as well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with user Bzweeb. Definitely for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Bzweeb. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, and having a positive news once in a while is good. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 00:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The mission is going to take eight days. Would it make more sense to post it after it has completed the mission? Because right now the return aspect, which is the major distinction of the mission, hasn't actually happened. C628 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • For new types of rocket we normally post the launch. For space probes we post the launch and when they arrive at their destination. Given the timescale of this one, if it isn't posted today then it may be best to wait until it returns. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll wait for a comment or two more, then ready to post. When mission is accomplished, we can update the blurb, if it is still on ITN then. --Tone 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable topic and well written article. I don't understand why this hasn't been posted already. Brian Everlasting (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but it would be nice to have a more accessible blurb. I've provided an alternative but it is rather long. --Tóraí (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support A landmark in the field, the article is in decent enough shape. Challenger l (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready- Updated article, unanimous consensus. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 06:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Chlorine AttackEdit

Article: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iraqi officials confirm that ISIS militants have targeted Iraqi troops with chemical weapons.
News source(s): [2] [3][4]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First recorded ISIS weapon of mass destruction usage. --Catlemur (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Chlorine is a WMD? Nergaal (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures."--Catlemur (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The use of WMD is notable, and this is in some better sources than the prior nomination below. I wonder if it merits a separate article, though. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose; though I reviewed the sources before posting my above comment, I am persuaded by what Masem says below. Waiting for further sources would help, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I'd have to counter the claim this is an WMD, that first, I don't see any sources specifically calling it that (we should not be making that distinction as OR), and that as per NYT on this subject, they note that there were no deaths here, and in previous uses of homemade chlorine-based bombs, the harm was more likely from shrapnel and the like than from exposure to the gas (the gas does nasty chemical burns and that itself can lead to death but in terms of what one would normally called a "chemical weapon" it is not the same thing as what, say, would be making a huge international incident). Even the BBC writer [9] notes that classifying the chlorine bombs as chemical weapons is a bit of word play (And certainly not WMD). The lack of broad coverage based on other more critical events from the ISIS stuff in the past suggests that this is not really anything surprising (they have claimed that ISIS took over a chemical production plant that made chlorine compounds for pools, and there were plenty of unconfirmed reports in the past of the claimed use of chlorine gas), and that we have the ISIS ongoing, makes me think this is not as significant as it reads, only because it implies a more drastic situation when it really isn't. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I added NYT source.Will try to keep this entry updated as further reports come out.Catlemur (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • QuestionIs this the same story as below? If so, I'll repeat my comment from below. I heard this on the radio news just this afternoon, not sure if it was Fox or NBC, but it was one or the other and I would count either as a RS so I Support.Rhodesisland (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Those are separate attacks, ISIS is just behind both.Catlemur (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

October 23Edit


[Closed] Ebola: Cases pass 10,000 Deaths pass 5,000Edit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
 --ShakyIsles (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Official figures will soon show that cases have topped 10,000 and over 5,000 people have died.I have no idea if this is standard practice (I know it is in ongoing events) but should significant milestones like this be reported separately. ShakyIsles (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as covered by Ongoing.128.214.53.18 (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; arbitrary milestone. Ebola outbreak is already in ongoing. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think arbitrary milestones are a problem as we have no idea where the peak of the outbreak will be. CaptRik (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is easy. ITN's not into records unless it's Messi, or if it involves round numbers unless it's a century in cricket. Well I think "a century" is round... –HTD 12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Don't forget snooker Howard. Tsk tsk. If you're going to be cynical, at least be comprehensive about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Nah, snooker's OK. Compared to American football, tons of Mexicans and Canadians play it (who am I kidding lol). Messi and Ronaldo are closing in on Raul's Champions League goal-scoring record. Now that's an easy-as-ITNR-post-it-God damn it-now support. –HTD 12:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    I would definitely support, that's a pretty big deal. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    Like I said, it's "easy-as-ITNR-post-it-God damn it-now support". It'll be futile to oppose against it. –HTD 17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    You say it as if that's wrong. Do you not agree the Champions League goal-scoring record is clearly worthy of posting? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We ought to figure out what milestones we would report on Ebola. I think we could report whenever a country is declared Ebola-free, and we could report when a vaccine is finally declared effective. I'm not sure body counts are very useful because the number are grossly underestimated. What upsets me is that the news seems to completely forgets the thousands dying in Africa as soon as two or three get sick in the US or Spain. Jehochman Talk 12:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah. I'd like to know what kind of event should happen to merit the return of ebola as a blurb in ITN. These "arbitrary records" ain't it. –HTD 13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the declaration of a nation as ebola-free would be a more noteworthy milestone(depending on who makes it). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah but someone might say "it's no longer news" at that point so I dunno... –HTD 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
          • On the flip side, I would assume that an organization like WHO or CDC would have a point of classification where they would call something an epidemic or pandemic which would be, for us, the point of being ITN. (or hopefully when they declare it eradicated.) --MASEM (t) 15:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
            • They had already classified it as an "epidemic". I don't think it'll reach "pandemic" (common cold?) levels. The thing is if there less and less cases, the people would lose interest and once WHO says the epidemic is done, it's no longer in the news. –HTD 17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This is already on ongoing, so visitors we see it in ITN. Otherwise you could argue the landmark would bring visitors looking for the subject, but in this case they will find it. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, already ongoing, already in 100,000 news sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Never did I ever think I would live to see "in the news" as a reason to oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, believe it or not. An In the news candidate is opposed because it's in the news. I will qualify it by saying that this event is already in the news, and people can link to it from major websites like Google, Yahoo!, etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Suggest Close. already in the ongoing and a seemingly random number assignment; also, I suggest we close it as there is not a single Support comment other than original nomination. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 22Edit


Siege of KobanêEdit

Article: Siege of Kobanê (talk, history)
Blurb: ISIS militants target Kobanê with chemical weapons.
News source(s): [5][6][7][8]

[9][10]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First recorded ISIS weapon of mass destruction usage. Catlemur (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; I haven't seen a RS that has stated they even possess chemical weapons(though I suppose they could have gotten them in Syria). 331dot (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Added Daily Mail and Kurdish Tribune articles on the topic.ISIS captured a lot of chemical warhead shells in Iraq recently, so it might be true.--Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC).
I've never heard of the Kurdish Tribune and the Daily Mail is not exactly known for editorial rigour. If the BBC, AP, AFP, Reuters, CNN, New York Times, etc start covering it, then we can talk. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Added The Guardian article, is this enough?Catlemur (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is ITN ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, you think a single sentence that claims a possibility of chemical weapons usage makes this ITN ready? Can you confirm? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention and Support. I heard this on the radio news just this afternoon, not sure if it was Fox or NBC but it was one or the other. Support as being very notable development in this conflict. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Added another source (Greek website containing Russia Today video and more photos).Catlemur (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Wikipedia MonumentEdit

Did you know... that consensus is against self-promotion on the Main Page? BencherliteTalk 10:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wikipedia Monument (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The world's first monument to Wikipedia is unveiled in Słubice, Poland.
News source(s): Network World, other (Google News)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A world's first, plus some self-promotion on Main Page from time to time won't hurt. — Kpalion(talk) 07:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blackwater Baghdad shootingsEdit

Article: Blackwater Baghdad shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four former Blackwater security guards are found guilty of first-degree murder in the Blackwater Baghdad shootings.
Alternative blurb: ​Four former Blackwater security guards are found guilty of various crimes for their role in the Blackwater Baghdad shootings.
News source(s): Fox News

Nominator's comments: Significant shooting (17 deaths), so the trial should be at least somewhat significant as well, particularly given that we posted Pistorius' trial (which pertained to only one death). --Jinkinson talk to me 17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • To be clear, unless one of these four guards was a notable athlete or celebrity, that comparison is apples and oranges. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
support per nom ';precedenceLihaas (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lihaas: What 'precedence'? We deal with each event on its own merits, and this is very different than the Pistorius case. Might be notable, but still different. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think he meant 'precedent'. GoldenRing (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Support Well covered worldwide, article in decent shape, and the right time to post (at the verdict). --MASEM (t) 19:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - right time to post and the article is ITN ready as in a decent shape.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No-one's going to point out that the article and the source given both say that only one guard was convicted of first-degree murder, not four as the blurb says? Oh well, guess I'll have to point that out, then. BencherliteTalk 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've put in an altblurb which fixes this problem. --Jayron32 01:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty significant. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 10:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's been a long time since the events that sparked this, but it's still significant. Article needs updating, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention and Support. Support per Masem; however it could use a bit more of an update in the lead about these convictions. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Canadian Parliament Hill attackEdit

Article: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Canada's Parliament is put into lockdown as at least one shooter is witnessed firing shots in the area
Alternative blurb: ​Downtown Ottowa is locked down after a soldier is shot dead at the Canadian National War Memorial (pictured) and shots are fired in Parliament.
News source(s): BBC; CBC Globe & Mail

Nominator's comments: Even if there are no casualties beyond the shooter(s), this is a significant event that is affecting the Canadian gov't. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This could be notable, but it might need to shake out a little first, let the "breaking news" aspect die down a tad. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd want to make sure its posted with proper details, but I think regardless of outcome it is ITN. Eg: how many shooters, is this related to the ISIL threat that Canada had recieved, etc. Things are still happening as best I can tell. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Further justification: This is a domestic terror attack against military personnel, and threatened federal government politicians.
--Natural RX 16:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Big terrorist attack, regardless of the justification. It's an attack on the parliament building in the capital of a major country in the world. I believe this is unprecedented in Canada. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where has this been phrased as a "terrorist attack"? 331dot (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • While no one has yet 100% affirmed this as a terrorist act, it comes exactly one day after two Canadian soldiers were run over by a car driven by ISIL agents, and subsequently caused Canada to raise its terrorist threat level due to other credible threats. Needless to say, this nearness of events is not going unnoticed by the press even if it is speculation for now. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ahh, sorry Masem, but you are inadvertently pushing FUD here. The terror level was actually raised last week, before either incident, and the guy in Quebec wasn't an "ISIL agent" - officials have said only that he was "self-radicalized". Though you are right that the timing of the two incidents is causing media to speculate links. Resolute 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, this is the sort of thing that would be more par for the course south of the border, so it's got the "man bites dog" thing going on. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless more develops, lone armed man killed needs more meat to make a platter. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • In context that is an appallingly insensitive verbal image. Please think these things through before you type. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • At the time I wrote that comment the only news was that the soldier's shooter was dead, and that they weren't sure if their might be other shooters. Are you suggesting that I was insensitive to the shooter, or advocating cannibalism? I don't expect you to know it, so I will refrain from telling you to stick your in your, but my boyfriend was shot to death in a car jacking, and I won't even describe what I went through as a NY'er on 9/11, so please keep your concern for my "if it bleeds it leads" comment to yourself. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I am terribly sorry about the loss of your boyfriend. I too was in New York on September 11. My comment does not have to be personalized. I simply, and I hope uncontroversially, ask that we not use the word "meat" in reference to a human body. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
          • A private note at my talkpage would have gotten my attention, and almost certainly convinced me, since the point was inessential, and I was literally thinking of a plate when I made it. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support An attack on Parliament should have more than enough "meat" for any reasonable person. Resolute 18:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is not normal for Canada. Regardless of number of deaths its clearly a directed attack at military personnel and the Canadian parliament. Prime Minister Harper was awfully close by when this happened as well. This will be significant news around the world -- Ashish-g55 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - terrorist attack. should be posted soon,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@BabbaQ: Where has this been characterized as a "terrorist attack"? 331dot (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A major terrorist incident that is getting international coverage. In the UK this was the main news story on tonight's news. This is Paul (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait we still don't have a clear picture of what is going on here and there's no point in rushing something to the main page until we do. I agree, it's not "normal" for Canada, I agree, it's shocking and headline news, but the news outlets seem nearly as clueless as we do. We can post it when we have a better idea of the bigger picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hatted extraordinarily disruptive !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
STRONG OPPOSE on mere speculation. 0-1 deaths vs. much more in ME or Africa that don't get posted. like trying to say 6 million dead white people are more "never again" then the virtual extermination of an [red] peoples!Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with this event, especially the talk about people being exterminated. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
He's playing the race card for hyperbolic effect. It tells me a great deal about Lihaas - none of it good - and only confirms that he can be safely ignored. Resolute 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I have posted a comment on his userpage about this, just so the community is aware. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that Lihaas' strong oppose vote is quite valid, regardless our opinion of the off-topicality of the comment that followed it. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support: A Canadian soldier on guard duty has been killed, and the shooting has already had a ripple effect with increased security in other national capitals.    → Michael J    19:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. per above. Major attack with coverage all around the world. I was surprised to see it in Lat. Am. media so early in the day. ComputerJA () 19:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait Per The Rambling Man, insufficient detail to make a useful blurb beyond stating the very most obvious (that a shooting occurred). I don't imagine we'll have to wait too long. Once information is more available, I would likely support regardless of motive, since it carries implications of an attack on a government due to location. - OldManNeptune 19:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this might be a case where the article could be posted on the assumption it will be updated, per the ITN page. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I partially agree, but waiting for a few more details will not be harmful either. At this point, the best we could say in an ITN blurb would be that a soldier is dead and that an attacker traded gunfire inside Parliament - which may be worthy of posting now, but an hour or two might yield more concrete information. Resolute 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would agree on waiting just a bit. Make sure the situation has settled to a degree so that we can get accurate "basics" right. (Example, there was a third location listed before but that's been proven a misstatement by the police). Probably a few hrs will be good. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait It's still unclear what happened. If this was just a random lunatic shooting one person, that's very different from an organized terrorist attack. We need to wait for the basic facts to become known. Jehochman Talk 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Should be ready soon The situation has not changed for a few hours now, the article has been extensively edited and sourced. While there is some disagreement on the talk page about the article's title, there is a 'Reactions' section being populated, and the structure is otherwise quite good for a young article. --Natural RX 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Since the title won't be included in the hook, how desperate is it that we wait? The name seems to be generally stable. Most either support the current name, or suggest that a final name can't be decided until a few days from now, once the media comes to an agreement. May we post? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Continue Waiting This appears to be a shooting by a lone nutjob. Also, the current blurb isn't suitable. Did we post the loon who jumped the White House fence? Do we post every time a loon shoots one or two people? Jehochman Talk 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until confirmed as an act by an organized group. If it was a lone wolf attack, then don't post. Abductive (reasoning) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I dont understand rationale behind waiting if its single gunman. Large portion of city has been in lockdown and its been covered all day worldwide, literally. The article looks good as well. It actually is starting to look odd not seeing it on ITN by now. -- Ashish-g55 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I also do not understand waiting. In the U.S., all of the news channels have been reporting on it nonstop for hours. It's not only the biggest news story they are covering, it's the only story.    → Michael J    23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Slow news day... Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am curious whether we even had a nomination for last year's shooting by police of a the woman who drove into a barrier at the White House [10] or the knife-wielding man who just made it over the fence into family's quarters, or the rifleman who shot a bullet into the quarters 11 Nov 2011?[11]. Beyond the moral preening at this point we seem to have one islamist convert who has assassinated a soldier. This is not Canada versus the US. It's an ideology of murder versus London, Madrid, New York, Ottawa.... μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • The likely reason this story is HUGE (compared to those other two , which had wide national coverage but not wide international) is that with Canada announcing their support of strikes against ISIL and the events of yesterday, the press are widely speculating possible connections to Canada's actions and these "responses" (if they are that). But as others have said, in those event, the sole of the White House was effected; here, the core of the entire Canadian Parliment was shut down as well as around 10,000s of citizens living/working in that part of download Ottawa. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I was on the fence at first, but three things swayed me: 1) Part of this took place in one of the Parliament buildings. How often does this kind of thing happen in a major legislative building in a national capital? 2) This is getting massive media attention all over the world and has been commented on by major world leaders. and 3) A big part of downtown Ottawa was put on lockdown for a long time. So you have a large city (and national capital) where an important part of the city was shut down, and in some cases it's still ongoing. It just slips through, but I think it passes. People have been comparing it to the White House invasion. I'd compare it more to the Boston Marathon bombing, and I think that was in ITN. -- Scorpion0422 00:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An attack like this on a parliament building is quite extraordinary, and will likely be remembered in Canada for many years to come. I'll confess, I happened to catch it on ABC News (which the BC News Channel broadcasts to fill space at stupid o'clock in the morning) and my first thought was "oh, another shooting spree in America", but when I realised it was Canada, where this sort of thing is about as common as rocking horse droppings, and the parliament building, I was genuinely shocked. This would be extraordinary in Westminster (not least because we don't allow any loony to walk into a supermarket and walk out with a firearm in the UK) and even on Capitol Hill, but it is all the more so in Ottawa. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Comment I have provided an alt blurb that describes the events as completed. The only thing that remains an issue is if this was a ISIL-related incident but that's not something that should block the blurb posting (eg we can change that later if it does turn out to be true). --MASEM (t) 00:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as wording the blurb goes, the Canadian PM is on recording calling this a "terrorist attack": [12] [13] [14]. --Jayron32 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Politicians aren't police investigators. Abductive (reasoning) 06:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • For short term posting, leaving out the terrorist attack part might be best until it's well established. I know the shooter has very questionable ties, but that doesn't mean it was directly such an attack. If while this is posted and its confirmed it was one, we can change the blurb. --MASEM (t) 04:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — I'm Canadian, and this is a massive news story up here. Canada is a very powerful country within the international community, and a relatively peaceful nation. An attack on the Parliament in Ottawa is significant, even if it was just a lone gunman acting on his own agenda. Kurtis (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support Hugely important and confusion over events of shooting seem to have died down. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Updating my opinion to support, the blurb says what is known and while I might have hoped we'd see even more information than what we have now, the lockdown of Parliament is a significant event. - OldManNeptune 05:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Attack on a parliament is surely notable...but Lihaas votecomment is true many a times.....ƬheStrikeΣagle 06:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: PM Stephen Harper has called it a "terrorist attack". Check the article itself for details. In general, the event is notable because it was a direct shooting and attempt to attack members of Parliament, not because of the amount of casualties. This is unusual for Western nations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's unusual for a shooting to happen at a national parliament, but otherwise there is really nothing unique about this event. Lone acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim fundamentalists are sadly common in this day and age. Unless those acts of violence lead to catastrophic consequences (i.e. the September 11 attacks, Beslan, Mumbai, the In Amenas hostage crisis, etc.) they aren't notable or unique enough to be posted on ITN. -- Tocino 07:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You mean "aside from the one thing that makes it extraordinary, it's not extraordinary at all"? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Aside from two extraordinary things actually. The other was not mentioned -- which is that this happened in Canada. I don't think some people really have a concept of how rare such shootings are in Canada. There was a similar ITN discussion about three federal police officers being killed in Canada earlier -- dismissed as ITN-worthy in about five lines because apparently this kind of thing is not uncommon in some other parts of the world. (On average, Canada has 2-3 police killed in the line of duty in any given year across the entire country (StatsCan). Between 1961 and 2004, 120 police officers have been killed in the line of duty, but those numbers are heavily skewed toward the FLQ years and drop to zero or 1 most years in the 1980s and 1990s. Since 2005, there have been at least 20 police officers shot (or deliberately hit by cars), a good third of them federal police.) - Tenebris 09:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait The conspiracy theories are yet uninvented. (joke, it seems ready to post) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 08:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, post it already. Despite the low casualty count, this kind of an attack is quite unusual for Canada, and it is already clear that it will have significant political implications there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting now. I doubt that any additional information will become available until after several weeks of investigation, so it's rather pointless (and frankly disrespectful) to continue delaying posting this on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted by User:Zanimum The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've updated the blurb to better reflect the importance of the event. My blurb is now listed as the altblurb here. Please feel free to improve. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ben BradleeEdit

Article: Benjamin C. Bradlee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times ABC News Time USA Today Washington Post

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: He was a notable editor of a major newspaper. Andise1 (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Would seem to meet DC2 and the latter part of DC1(had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region) given his publishing of the Pentagon Papers. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak Support. While a player in the events of Watergate, he is not Woodward or Bernstein, the ones that broke it. And while an editor of a major paper, I would not really call that the top of the field considering journalism. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Read his obits. His career wasn't just Watergate. That was the culmination of seven years of work as executive editor building the Post into the closest rival The New York Times has in American newspaper journalism. He persuaded Donald Graham to buy Newsweek, an investment that revitalized that publication and paid off for the Post Company for years. He was, really, the last of a type—the big-city newspaper editor as primal force. We will not see his like again, ever. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Changing to a weak support. Still not fully convinces of his importance once you subtract the Watergate scandal relevance, but also can't deny he is unimportant at all outside of that. Also not looking at a full RD list so no reason not to support something on the edge. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on significance, oppose on quality: First of all: Holy shit, he wasn't dead yet? Second of all: a major historical figure, as a newspaperman, perhaps the best known of his time (the answer and American would give to "Name any Newspaper Editor" if the answer is not a blank stare, the person would answer "Ben Bradlee"). His specific involvement in most of the major Washington DC era journalism of the 1960s and 1970s, as a key historical figure in those news stories, also places him as a highly recognizable name, and therefor worth an RD link for that reason. However, the article has major sourcing problems. The sections "World War II", "Government Work" and "The Washington Post" are entirely unreferenced. For that reason Oppose on quality only. If anyone fixes those referencing problems, consider this vote a full-fledged support without me having to change it. --Jayron32 01:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • J. Johan Jameson? :) --MASEM (t) 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One of 4 people to know the identity of Deep Throat --Johnsemlak (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a minor talking head admired by some with a certain POV, but not an innovator in his field, just a witness on the sidelines of events he did not in any way influence. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
See my remarks above. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a very notable editor, without him, probably no publication documenting the Watergate scandal. --Bruzaholm (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A major figure at one of the world's most influential newspapers. --GroveGuy (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Although he was well-known among U.S. journalists of era, the events (that inspired the film) that made Bradlee famous to the American public have receded into history and legend. I'm not convinced he's of sufficient current fame for ITN. (Anyway, most readers will think of Jason Robards.) Sca (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Current fame is not one of the RD criteria. One doesn't have to be currently famous to be very important to their field, or to have had a significant impact on the nation/region. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, strike current fame from my comment and make it standing.
Keep in mind, we're talking about Bradlee — not Nixon, Woodstein or Watergate per se. Sca (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Watergate "has receded into history and legend"? How many other scandals brought down a President? Why are we still suffixing just about every scandal we can with "-gate"? Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Re legend, see this, FYI. Sca (talk)
That might be very useful for something in List of common misconceptions, but has no bearing on whether we run his death. Your language seemed to suggest that no one cares any more; I'd say the existence of those myths and the need to debunk them demonstrates the exact opposite. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, Daniel. Watergate was a watershed event. (No pun intended.) I remember it very well. You missed my point entirely — it's Bradlee whose stature was at issue (and I've modified my view on that). Further, your tone seems unduly abrasive. How about assuming good faith, and showing some tolerance for the views of others — even those with whom you disagree? Sca (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, for all my reasons stated in replies to oppose votes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Probably one of the bigger players in the field he worked in, as well as a key player in one of the most significant events in recent American history.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- per this piece in the Guardian, arguing that even more important that his part he played in Watergate were his actions in respect of the Pentagon Papers, publishing the documents in the Washington Post even after the New York Times had been hit with an injunction. The effect was transformative both for his newspaper and for American journalism. Jheald (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I can see I'm in the minority, which in this instance makes me feel guilty. So I changed my oppose to a comment.
At the time of Watergate, I was a huge fan of Woodstein (and later, of All the President's Men). It was Woodstein doing the reporting — but perhaps I missed the significance of Bradlee's role. Sca (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Daniel Case. Article has been updated and gaps filled. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment would post this but there are a few citation needed tags, and the Washington Post section (which, after all, is the key thing) is virtually unreferenced. Others may disagree, but I ain't posting this crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Bradlee is a very noted editor. Because of him, the American people know about Watergate. RIP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • References added. I've removed the tags and added several references. The article's not perfect but I believe it's ready but I welcome other editors to have a look.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted there are some parts that really need referencing but it's reasonable enough and with significant consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

October 21Edit


[Posted] Denis Mukwege wins Sakharov PrizeEdit

Articles: Denis Mukwege (talk, history) and Sakharov Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege wins the Sakharov Prize for helping victims of gang rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Alternative blurb: ​Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege awarded the Sakharov Prize for helping victims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): BBC NYT ITAR TASS

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Suport pending update. Nergaal (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Please update the article. This can't be posted until that's done. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I see its been update, so now I will post. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 20Edit


RD: Christophe de MargerieEdit

Article: Christophe de Margerie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Total's CEO died in rather unusual circumstances; could go full blurb. Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you post the information necessary for the nomination? 331dot (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Was gonna nom it but hes not top of his field nevermind the reactionsLihaas (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


[15] is a source, but I'm not sure about this. Private jet and so causalities limited to a handful (I can't find a full #), and while Total is "big", they aren't "big big" nor is de Margerie a well-known name. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reopened: closing this after 20 minutes with as one of the reasons with no support is a bit strange, one would think that some time would be needed to show that there is no support. Further, the claim that Tital isn't "big big" seems to be misguided: they are the 11th largest company worldwide (by revenue, according to Wikipedia). They are 11th in the Fortune Global 500[16], and 25th in the Forbes 2000[17]. Basically, they are very big big, as one of the top 25 companies of the world by most economic rankings.

Now, I agree that this nomination is badly formatted, and perhaps no blurb or RD is warranted, but it shouldn't be closed based on "no support" in twenty minute or based on somewhat misguided statements. Note that this is clearly major news worldwide[18]. It's the kind of death where you get (in e.g. the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal) multiple articles, one about the crash and a separate about reactions or as a full length obituary (e.g. [19]) or to discuss his successor[20]. He really was at the top of his field, and his death came unexpected of course. Fram (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to provide a proper nomination. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am seeing a lot of news coverage of this (even in my local news) but I'm not clear on which RD criteria he meets. Does he meet DC2? If so, why exactly? 331dot (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That's my concern. It is not that Total isn't big, but his influence on the company? He's only been the CEO since ~2007, which isn't much time realistically to establish his presence as a positive influence, and just looking around, I'm not seeing anything that necessarily he was a good or bad CEO, just that he was CEO. The company is successful because of policies in place before his tenure at CEO. Hence the failure of being a leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • He got the "Petroleum Executive of the Year Award" for 2009, for what it's worth[21]. And the 2010 "Pilier d'Or" of the French Institute Alliance Française[22]. Fram (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The former is a very common "self-congratulating" type of award I see commonly in the engineering/industrial sector. Not that it doesn't have meaning but it is not like a broad industry or business award. The other appears to be due to his efforts to support the arts in France. Neither which I would say elevates him to leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As of October 24, there are over 2,560 news articles about Mr. Margerie listed on Google News, proving that he was a leader in his field (business). His WP article has been greatly improved in recent days, as well. --Tocino 07:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention and Oppose. This needs attention before it's fallen off the page. However I oppose the nomination as lacking in top-level notability of the deceased. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Oscar PistoriusEdit

OK, it's not going to happen. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Oscar Pistorius (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Athlete Oscar Pistorius (pictured) is sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the culpable homicide of Reeva Steenkamp.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
 --Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we already posted the conviction weeks ago. We always post just one story for criminal offences, unles the verdict is overturned (which was not the case here). --Tone 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I checked Talk:Oscar Pistorius before nominating and there's no sign that it was already on ITN. Apart from which, is there a rule saying an article cannot appear more that once? Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tone - even though someone didn't update the talk page with the ITN template, the conviction was posted at ITN on September 12 (see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2014 September 13 for example) and one ITN posting for what is essentially the same story is enough. There may not be an express rule to that effect but that's the general practice. BencherliteTalk 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In general we only post the conviction of someone, and I see no reason to do differently here. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — If I never hear of this case again, it will be too soon. Sca (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Oscar de la RentaEdit

Article: Oscar de la Renta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News, Variety CNN

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Big name fashion designer, so top of that field. RD due to old age, otherwise. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Would support this on significance, clearly a world-class member of his profession. Oppose on non-existent prose updated. Near as I can tell, as of my writing this, the article's update consists solely of adding a death date. Some prose needs to be added somewhere to the text of the article. We probably don't need a "death" section (I usually don't like those that much) but some prose, a sentence or two, describing his death and any major events or illnesses leading to it, would be expected. Once that is done, consider this a support without my needing make any further comment. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
BBC notes he was diagnosed with cancer in 2006. Let me add that. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat me to it; there's a small section death with sourcing. Could be cleaned up but not an issue for ITN. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as updated sufficiently. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. Seems to meet DC2 given his work and news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support DC2 – Muboshgu (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. Notable internationally as one of the foremost fashion designers of our time. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD or for a blurb. He had incomparable talent. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Gough WhitlamEdit

Article: Gough Whitlam (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Former PM of Australia. Clearly RD material, but death by old age otherwise, and not blurb worthy. --MASEM (t) 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Former head of government would seem to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Australian PM speaks for itself. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose He hasn't been PM for forty years and his profile has been very low for the past decade. Just a long-ago short-time leader of a mid-ranking country. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the fact that he was an MP of an English speaking former colony of Britain ranks him a little higher than some failed-state dictator of 40 years ago, given this is en.wikipedia μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
(to Pete)He was still a PM. If being PM doesn't make one the top of their field, what does? 331dot (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD He was Prime Minister and has been considered a hero in Australia. Either way he was a former head of state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Head of government, not state. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD article in excellent condition (FFA re-promoted in 2010 and kept up to standard by Wehwalt and others since then) and a leading Australian politician. Not many former heads of government live to the age of 98, of course, so he can perhaps be forgiven for his "very low" profile in recent years. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets all reasonable criteria. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 00:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As a note of process, there's talk at TFA about reposting this article as TFA on one of two upcoming relevant dates (the memorial service or an anniversary, both in early November). This should have dropped off RD by then, but just in case, should that TFA suggestion go through, we should remove this before that TFA date. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Why? Where is that ruling defined? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I would figure that with other areas of generally only allowing an article to be featured once, or in DYK once, that we should not duplicate articles in different sections of the front page. And in this case, the TFA date will be so far out that the RD part will be a stale story for ITN. If this was happening today (a day after this was posted) I'd likely keep both. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe this is where the supposed "exceptions" are used...??? –HTD 12:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 19Edit


[Closed] Origins of sexEdit

Consensus says no. BencherliteTalk 15:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Penetrative sex (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists at Flinders University discover the origins of sex.
News source(s): Nature Sydney Morning Herald Al Jazeera ABC Health Canal

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Not sure how notable this is but I decided to nominate it to see. Andise1 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, that's what I meant. I was having difficulty deciding on what article should be linked, but that is what I intended to link to. I changed the target article. Andise1 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, target article isn't good enough quality and doesn't seem to explain the news at all. Jehochman Talk 11:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not the origin of sexual intercourse, insects and molluscs have penises, and look at how barnacles do it. It's just the earliest evidence for it in a certain type of extinct fish. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • If I've understood the reports correctly, this is the earliest evidence of penetrative sex in any sort of fish but your general point stands. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point. I don't follow sports and I do love biology, but I think Peyton outranks the placoderm here. This is a question of convergent evolution, and penes are quite common among animals of all types. Do not look up bedbug sex! μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose When stripped of a clickbait-ish blurb like "scientists discover origin of sex" and given one that accurately states what was apparently learned, this is interesting but not front page science. I also highly question the choice of Penetrative sex as the linked article rather than Fertilization. - OldManNeptune 19:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Feels more like an April Fool's blurb, clickbait-ish as OMN described. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Peyton Manning touchdown recordEdit

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

Nominator's comments: We do post sporting records from time to time, and this is a significant one. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support one of the most significant records in the sport Secret account 02:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
An impressive record to be sure, and I am a HUGE NFL fan. But I oppose posting this record at this time. Posting records should be reserved for the sort of "unbreakable" records that happen once in a generation (I.E. Miggy Cabrera's Triple Crown a few years back, or someone breaking Ripken's consecutive games streak, or Dimaggio's hitting streak). The Passing TD record falls about every decade years or so, and it doesn't have the iconic sort of status as other records. Indeed, if we posted every record of this stature we'd post probably one per season. It's awesome, and I'm happy for Manning, but I don't see this as ITN worthy, given the other sports stories we usually post. --Jayron32 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Torn on this. Jayron has the right point, but it does seem, looking at the current full roster of NFL players, this record is definitely not going to be further broken this season (beyond him adding more TDs to it), and won't be broken for a few more seasons at least from what I can tell. Even if it is surpassed in a decade, in the sense of ITN, that's long enough to make this a unique enough event here for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 02:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify: It isn't that the Passing TD record gets broken every season. It's that some equivalent career record (passing yards, rushing TD, rushing yards, rushing TDs, return yards, return TDs, receiving yards, etc. etc. you get the idea) gets broken about once every season. Again, it's a great accomplishment, but outside of NFL fans, it isn't the sort of once-in-a-lifetime record that gets much note except for a day or two. Manning will be remembered in general for his stellar play, but this singular record will not be something he's forever known for, like some of the iconic "never gonna be broken" records that ARE out there. --Jayron32 11:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but when it comes to NFL this is the most prestigious one, me thinks. Nergaal (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major record in a major sport. Record likely won't be broken for many years (see this if you really feel like extrapolating the numbers [23]). -- Calidum 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I am unconvinced by User:Jayron32's argument that posting one such thing per season per sport is bad. I say it's good for ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I am of the opinion that records should only be posted for global sports like football and athletics, unless it is clearly the premier record in the sport. An example would be the home run record in baseball, which has far more prestige than this record. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Arguably due to the number of different positions, what would be the premiere record for American football is not clear, but that said, clearly touchdowns completed as a metric of QB performance is pretty much the top record - if we were talking, say, a running back, yards run would be that one. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You support my point- there is no obvious prestigious American football record. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What a "prestigious record" is is a matter of opinion. Football having varied positions should not disqualify it from having a notable record posted. What matters for ITN is the news coverage this is getting, which is significant and not limited to the US. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose more of a factoid, e.g. ideal for DYK as opposed to In The News. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Unlike Neil Robertson becoming the first snooker player to score 100 century breaks in a single season, thereby setting a new record for the 39th time that season -- the fourth consecutive season in which the record was broken? As far as I can tell, the significance was that "100" is a round number, which seems firmly in "factoid" territory. "509" doesn't have the same ring to it, but someone else actually reached 508 (the previous record) before his retirement. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please elaborate. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
American football is too American for the tastes of some. Resolute 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure whose comment is addressed at whom here. In any case, the idea of cherry-picking a particular factoid from American football in an attempt to make it "newsworthy" is not my idea of something that would equate to Nobel prizes or similar. I imagine that there exists a "number of rushing yards" record holder and a "number of receiving yards" record holder and a number of "first downs in a season" record holder and a "number of field goals" record holder and a "number of interceptions" record holder and a "number of fumbles" record holder and a "number of other jargon" record holder? An attempt to compare it to a sport where scoring a century guarantees a win and scoring points is the only parameter is a little pathetic. But hey, this is American Wikipedia so no surprise. I guess we'll post this every time he breaks the NFL record, and set the precedent for all the other "prestigious" records in NFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm American, but I don't follow this sport (or most sports). I certainly don't consider this the "American Wikipedia" or believe that American topics deserve special treatment. As for "something that would equate to Nobel prizes or similar," I drew no such comparison. And the comparison that I made didn't equate the records themselves. My point was that you supported an item that had nothing whatsoever to do with any record changing hands. Neil Robertson became the record holder when he scored 62 century breaks in a season. Despite the fact that it was the fourth consecutive season in which the record was broken, maybe that achievement warranted a posting. But that isn't what it was about. It was about Robertson beating his own record for the 38th time. If we take your sarcastic "I guess we'll post this every time he breaks the NFL record" remark and constrain it to numbers that emotionally seem extra-special in a decimal numeral system, that's essentially what occurred in the earlier case. But I'm not even criticizing that decision. Maybe the number "100" had special cultural significance among snooker enthusiasts as an anticipated milestone. I'm in no position to assume otherwise. But that seems like a textbook example of "a factoid" (or "random stats fun for fans," as Fgf10 put it). So I find it rather odd that you now oppose the Manning item for that reason. You refer to "cherry-picking" the info "in an attempt to make it newsworthy," but I only know about it because it's been in the news. And others are saying that it's even being widely reported in other countries. This tells me that it's considered a noteworthy achievement in the context of its sport (and for the same reason, I assume that the "century of centuries" was as well). How can any of us gauge the cultural significance of something from someone else's culture? Certainly not through our own lenses. 24.0.222.22 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the essay! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Not "in the news" in the UK, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC) unless you count the "SPORT: AMERICAN FOOTBALL" page as "the news"?
The BBC might disagree. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with the essay above and my oppose? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"... I only know about it because it's been in the news." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC) or not.
  • Oppose Randoms stats fun for fans, but not news. As the above said, perfect for DYK, not ITN Fgf10 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I see that you supported the Neil Robertson item too. How is Peyton Manning's achievement a "random stat," while a sportsman hitting an arbitrary round number by extending his own record for the 38th time (after others broke the record during the three previous seasons) isn't? 24.0.222.22 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support it seems to me that this is the second person to hold the record since 1999. I would strongly suggest to change the blurb to something less factoid-like along the lines In American football, quarterback Peyton Manning becomes the passing touchdown leader. Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Please link to three or four of the best news sources. To qualify, you need to show that this event has been reported in major media outlets in multiple countries. Jehochman Talk 12:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case, there is such coverage, but there is no policy which states coverage in several countries is required. It certainly helps, but is not required. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given coverage in other countries, which might lead people to want to learn about Manning and/or the record. Record is one of the most notable in football. Also see my comment above. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support based on international reporting of an American sport. This is an indication of importance. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Although I would love to have this stat posted, we did not post Lionel Messi's world record for most goals in a calendar year. Therefore, per precedence, this cannot be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Not posting a certain story doesn't itself mean this one shouldn't be posted. Each story should be judged on its own merits, as consensus can change. Precedence only really comes into play for ITNR stories(and even then they aren't always posted, typically due to quality) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia operates on consensus, not precedent, you are trying to compare a single-season record to an all-time record. Your argument would have been stronger if we were discussing a single-season touchdown record. Resolute 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Calidum. A major record in a major sport unlikely to be broken any time soon. Opposes based on "only NFL fans" directly contradict the rule against opposes on regionality. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle a major career record, not a season's record; one of the leading nine sports stories on my (UK-based) BBC news mobile app this morning. A few "citation needed" tags but nothing that can't be fixed by someone with the relevant interests. BencherliteTalk 18:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too sports statish. Are supposed to re-post again in a week when he gets another? And again the week after that? That's one of the problems with essentially arbitrary records such as this - the other would be that they are fundamentally difficult to compare without reference to the length of career, position played, number of injuries, effectiveness of the rest of the team (and how much they favour a player) and 101 other reasons over and above the skill of the individual with the record. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That's honestly one of the dumbest arguments I've seen. If you don't like football, just say it. But please don't post such a BS argument. -- Calidum 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"Lame" without any reasoning carries zero weight around here. "BS", again lacking any justification or evidence similarly has no clout. Claiming to know what I think is laughable when I can disprove you with two words - "You're wrong". So precisely where are the lame, bullshit arguments coming from here? Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should be sparing in posting these sort of records. I find Jayron32's point about the frequency of this record being broken convincing. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Peyton's touchdown record is probably the most prestigious individual statistics record in the sport, and I say that as a Pats fan. The record won't be broken for a very long time. --Tocino 13:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready I am no fan of Manning or any team he's played for, and I usually oppose most sports noms. But there is good consensus to post this, the record number of touchdowns is objective and as clear as runs in Baseball, the article has been updated by 1,600 bytes, and all citation needed tags have been addressed. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Fgf10. A noteworthy record I imagine, if you follow this sport, but not generally newsworthy, certainly not globally. So "Good consensus" ignores all the opposes? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"Certainly not globally (newsworthy)" ... the links posted in the submission that are from Ireland, Great Britain, and Australia would suggest otherwise. Here's a few more global links, including Japan: [24], Germany: [25] Austria: [26] Italy: [27] The Netherlands: [28] New Zealand: [29], Taiwan: [30] --Tocino 07:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"If you follow this sport" and "globally" are explicitly forbidden as reasons to oppose a nomination. Per NFL: Today, the NFL has the highest average attendance (67,591) of any professional sports league in the world[5] and is the most popular sports league in the United States. So yes, this is quite ready, technically and per consensus. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see the "good consensus" that you do. Did you miss my reason to oppose? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) "Record likely won't be broken for many years" - is that really a valid reason to post? ever?
  • Comment despite two attempts from those supporting this blurb, I've removed the "ready" (or similar alternative) tag applied. There is by no means a consensus to post this. Please leave it to someone independent of this to assess and explain why they do (or do not) see a consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Close - Story is now effectively stale.--WaltCip (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Beatification of Pope Paul VIEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified

Beatification of popes is rather rare. Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Support but needs a bit of cleanup on the article. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not offended by this, but think we should wait for actual full sainthood unless something more unusual happen*s. As for soldiers getting medals, let's wait for the top medal for the top soldier. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this in the news at all? 331dot (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment suggest User:Nergaal starts making nominations correctly. This is without blurb, target article, reference, significance etc. So natural strong oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose what? Me nominating it? If other people really care about the news then somebody will put the energy into doing all the work. What is the point of putting energy into something that has a chance of snowballing one way or the other? Nergaal (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No, oppose this proposal in its current form. And please try to make nominations correctly in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose due the lack of evidence this is in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment This is certainly in the news, e.g. the following: [31] [32] Jinkinson talk to me 23:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I might support if this were a canonisation, but not for a beatification. Neljack (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence this is in the news. Not working on the nomination is one thing, but all nominations should have some basic information(news sources, a blurb, target article, etc.). 331dot (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack - if/when Paul VI becomes a saint, yes, but not for the intermediate stages. BencherliteTalk 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on multiple grounds, stated as per TRM, Thryuulf, etc. Challenger l (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Comet C/2013 A1 passes MarsEdit

Article: C/2013 A1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​TBD

Nominator's comments: This is a rare celestial event - a comet will pass very closely to Mars and will be monitored by the probes there. Regretfully, this will apparently not be possible to see from Earth without a decent telescope. --Tone 14:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Is this the first known comet observation that will primarily be done by human equipment located on a different body? (Eg have any previous Mars missions included the observation of a comet's passing?) That might make this blurb worthy. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support - notable for inlcusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very rare occurrence that will be of interest to many people. Ariel. (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A rare event which will be followed by the probes of different space agencies, making this relevant to many people. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would somebody brave please write a hook? Jehochman Talk 20:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - I've given it my best effort but please feel free to edit the hook or suggest a better one. The article is in great shape. Jehochman Talk 20:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Comet_IRAS–Araki–Alcock's lead is a very good introduction to comet closeness. One too tiny to get an article despite being the recordholder for Earth is number one. This is 13 times closer. #2 was in 1770. #3 was in 1366. #4 was in 837 AD). I can't find if this is the closest non-gas planet flyby, but given those numbers it probably is. Otherwise "C/2013 A1 gets closer to Mars than any other comet approach known, thirteen times closer than the Earth record" seems better than the current blurb. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I was following a source that said "very close". We know one comet hit Jupiter. Also I think it is important to say that we have 2 rovers and five satellite probes observing. Jehochman Talk 11:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You have a point too. How about Space probes and rovers on Mars observe a comet fly by 13 times closer than the Earth record.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Nasa's posted some images they'v captured on the flyby [33] - I'd be happy to get these uploaded if this might be a better ITN picture for the moment. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak, moot and rather pointless oppose But how is this really special? It's kind of like the discovery of the ozone hole, made the first year they looked at ozone over the SP with a satellite. It's anticlimactic. But I do like science, so this as as meh as you can get for a post posting oppose. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 18Edit


RD: Efua DorkenooEdit

Article: Efua Dorkenoo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian Ghana Web The Independent Washington Post The New Yorker Reuters

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: She died on the 18th but this seems to be hitting the news in the last few days(my local paper ran the Washington Post story). Longshot given the current state of the article and not being recent, but I still felt this deserved a nomination as she seems notable in her field(fighting female genital mutilation). Got an OBE for her work. --331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose - I'm a bit concerned at the lack of depth of coverage in these obit articles as well as our article; her cause is certainly nothing to ignore, but I think the focus on the cause (which is going to continue on without her) over herself indicates she did not have as much significance for being a leader in the field. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Last northern white rhinoceros maleEdit

Article: northern white rhinoceros (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A male of critically endangered northern white rhinoceros died in reservation Ol Pejeta in Kenya. It was probably the last male of the northern subspecies of white rhinoceros capable of natural mating.
Alternative blurb: ​A last male of northern white rhinoceros capable of natural mating died in reservation Ol Pejeta in Kenya. There are now just six northern white rhinos left in the world.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The word probably is included because there are some uncleanness if this specie is really extinct in the Wild.

  • Support - an probably extinct species.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and rather disgusting if true. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose This doesn't seem to change their classification of endangered-ness. Yes, the last male known, but that's in a controlled area, and this also doesn't negate what science can do. (Irregardless of this, the blurb really needs work - far too long) --MASEM (t) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Guardian, Haaretz, Sydney Morning Herald and PBS all state that it was one of two male breeding rhinos - so it's not exactly the last one. Fuebaey (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose while tragic, there seems plenty of evidence to support the fact that there is still one male left. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is also lot of sperm in the fridge, but the point is last male is to old for mating. So natural mating of these rhinoceros is now impossible.--Jenda H. (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Curiously, that article says he is one of three males left alive, and that it is simply "suspected" that he is too old for mating. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sad news but we should probably only post such stories when a species is officially declared extinct, and the report is widely circulated in the news. Extinctions happen frequently, but most are unknown or pass without notice. Jehochman Talk 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Nepal trekking disasterEdit

Article: 2014 Mount Dhaulagiri avalanche (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 39 people die and nearly 400 are rescued from the Himalayas following Nepal's worst trekking disaster.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No time to create or find an article at this point, sorry. But can't believe this hasn't been nominated in some form. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support when article created. All I've managed to do so far is this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There is 2014 Mount Dhaulagiri avalanche--Jenda H. (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
That article seems to conflate two or more events - at Dhaulagiri and at Annapurna. If it is to provide the basis of a new article, it needs to be renamed as well as expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Article now at 2014 Nepal snowstorm disaster. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, didn't this happen several days ago? Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, this is the fourth day of the search for survivors/bodies. But it's the top news story on the BBC News homepage right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It is an outgoing event rescue operation has happen today. --Jenda H. (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Information regarding this disaster was difficult to come by in the first ~2 days. Rescuers and survivors were not able to relay their accounts until now...and that, is part of the tragedy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Jenda H. (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Large number of fatalities, top news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose this is a voluntary mass suicide assuming it's true. Compare this to the Rhino's who've been killed involuntarily, as opposed to these rich people with nothing more constructive to do than eff about on mountain edges. The extinction of the Rhino is forever. The death of a bunch of westerners is of no importance whatsoever. μηδείς (talk) 7:45 pm, 18 October 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
    • You're claiming that all of the victims wanted to commit suicide? Even if that were true, it would still be quite notable. And that includes all the local guides who were killed or injured? And how come you can make a comment dated "2 days ago"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Medeis did indeed make this comment 2 days ago but an IP removed it, presumably in an attempt to raise the quality of discussion. BencherliteTalk 18:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah right. So a success there, and a failure, combined. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
          • The subject was moot but the IP sockpuppet (you know, the good kind of sockpuppet) effectively made Masem's comment below incomprehensible with his vandalism. In response to Masem, sorry to say it, but if 20 Yak Herders were killed in a storm we'd never have heard of it. That and eurocentrism are why I opposed. I don't see that focusing on an item where otherwise unnotable Westerners die doing things that can kill you meets the, will they still be talking about this 100 years from now criterion. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support posting but the article really needs to be more than a few sentences. Disagree with Medeis' assessment as the casualties also appear to be yak herders - aka people that made their life there. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the scale of the disaster. Neljack (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when article created. Definitive death toll and victim names still to emerge, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The article needs expansion, then I believe we have a consensus to post. --Tone 13:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Posting now. Good work with the expansion. --Tone 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ben DunkEdit

Opps!! @Masem: the record he broke was only the highest Australian domestic List A score not overall. Still, being third is no mean feat and if anyone feels like reopening this feel free NickGibson3900 Talk 04:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ben Dunk (talk, history)
Blurb: Tasmanian cricketer Ben Dunk scores the highest ever Australian one-day cricket score with an innings of 229 not out against Queensland in the 2014–15 Matador BBQs One-Day Cup.

Article needs updating
 NickGibson3900 Talk 02:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question List of List A cricket records is not clear what's happening here (I'm nowhere near an expert on cricket) - why is Dunk's record, claimed to be highest here, 3rd there ? What is special about List A cricket to make that special? To put the question in a way I would read it, this would be like saying the record for a baseball playing having the most Runs Batted In in a single game, but qualifying it as in regular season play compared to championship play. If the situation is close to the latter, this seems to be a very trivial designation to not meet ITN. (Also, we need a source). --MASEM (t) 04:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

LoL World ChampionshipEdit

 Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would kinda prefer having a separate article for this year's event, rather than having an article about the general championship tournament itself. SpencerT♦C 07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Ideally sure, but I don't think that is a necessity. Nergaal (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No it is not. LoL producers specifically didn't take part there as to not diminish the prestige of this LoL WC. Plus the prize is up to $25k only. Nergaal (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, prestigious! Yeah it is because of its large prize fund, just give gamers a $1m paycheck and this earns the title of being is a prestigious event, more than the IOC will ever pay out to its athletes right? Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Those events are not held on a stadium. If higher crowds is not a measure of prestige, then what is? Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the problem with eSports is that like boybands, tournaments are fickle, even boybands pack up stadiums and does that make them greater than others? Those that is listed in ITN are usually long established events and is this? Donnie Park (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is neither unusual nor important nor listed on ITN/R. This week there will be numerous other events more notable, bigger money, more coverage that we won't list. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Such as? Nergaal (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Championship does not have its own article. There are either very few or no sporting events we post that don't have their own articles. Also, if ITN does choose to take a brave leap into e-sports, the E-Sports World Championship would be a more appropriate event than this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note here are some quotes from Forbes: "compete for the honor of being the best team of the most popular game of the world", "Worlds was a spectacle unlike anything eSports has seen before", "player count [...] would still be miles ahead of the next closest game". Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Forbes is not a great source. They are really lax about letting anybody publish anything on their website. Jehochman Talk 21:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am reconsidering because I saw this in the news. Can you show that this has been reported on in multiple countries? I see US sources, and presumably it's all over the news in Korea. Has it been in the news in any other countries? Secondly, do we report the result rather than the start of the games? When will we know who won? Jehochman Talk 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added some other links. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support my altblurb. You may still want to answer my questions because this could help convince others. Jehochman Talk 12:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, There are plenty of world championship events out there who will never see ITN (some because they get rejected) so why should this? I don't see the prestige of this event but then neither was I a LoL fan as I've never heard of it, plus the size of prize fund nor the amount of gamers out there shouldn't be used as an excuse to measure its prestige. If we were to allow this, are we going to give an ITN to the Call of Duty World Championship as thats one of the few games I seem to be aware of. As for eSport events, I only know of MLG, thats all. Donnie Park (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Donnie Park: If 1/5 of the entire population of the US, or the entire UK were to be playing CoD, then the CoD WC would indeed be worth posting on ITN. Also, LoL is one of the games featured at MLG events, and among those it has the largest user base by far. Also, in case you didn't check the article, the final was held on a stadium with some 60k spectators, a crowd much higher than those any event outside of soccer and NFL. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal:"crowd much higher than those any event outside of soccer and NFL" - you're having a Lot of Laugh right? Implying that the figure is higher than every of those games let alone those including the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champion's League and Superbowl, am I right to assume you're having a laugh with that fact? So because it attracts large crowds it make it prestigious right? Also have I seen anybody calling a 3 year young event prestigious? Also where did you get the 67m gamers from? You mean 67m people playing video games including smartphones because I don't think that necessarily mean 67m people are playing LoL because until this nomination now, I've never heard of that game ever and have no intention to. As with ITN because you assume because of its prize purse, we to give ITN for that reason, also answer this; have we given an ITN to the Dubai World Cup, famous for its high prize money despite its young history? Also, are we going to give ITN to London, Paris or New York Fashion Week because like you imply, events that attract large crowds are ITN worthy, on the news all the time (unlike this LoL event) and is more prestigious to this Mickey Mouse event even though I have no interest in fashion? Donnie Park (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Donnie Park: From NY Times. BBC quotes: "On the industry reckoning, about 27 million people play it every day. At peaks, there may be more than seven million gamers playing it at the same time." "At the previous final a year ago, 32 million people watched around the world, online, or in cinemas." "This time, gamers all over the world crowded to cinemas at odd times of the day depending on the time zone." You cannot play the game on a smartphone or on a console, so unlike CoD or other US-popular games, that figure includes only PCs (and some laptops). If any of the fashion weeks would attract anywhere near 32 million people to watch it, or if they would get traditional sponsors like Coke, I would totally support them being featured on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Still, the viewing figures is only a claim by the developer. Next argument, "If any of the fashion weeks would attract anywhere near 32 million people to watch it, or if they would get traditional sponsors like..." - c'mon, do I need to argue that those I listed are the biggest fashion week in the world without doubt and I don't need anything to prove it and like said, I couldn't remotely give a damn about fashion, I mentioned it because these come on the news all the time. - you're here to look for ways to support your argument in regards to your favorite game when you have lost because everybody opposed your nomination and what next, are we going to argue your LoL WC vs F1 World Championship. My argument for oppose just like every other eSport events will always be that the industry is notorious for being fickle, I mean like the games in these tournaments with its developer, publisher and even staffs and industry people comes and goes, even the eGamers careers are short, look at Fatal1ty, his career faded when the new generation of FPS games came along that required a different way of playing. Going back to your eSport vs. fashion week argument, please let me know if these eSport you are arguing have got prestigious sponsors like Mercedes Benz and this horde including Canon, Amex and Swatch, and as I now answered your question, are you going to nominate the NY and the London Fashion Week for ITN yourself? Just knock it off and get over the fact your nomination have been rejected. Donnie Park (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Donnie Park: All your points about being fickle are wrong IMHO. Hypothetically, if a billion people would end up watching an event, be it new, old, or weird, it would get posted regardless. Take Moto GP: when people cared for the likes of Rossi and other charismatic riders, the MotoGP winner was posted - but now, because fewer people follow it, this ITNR item wasn't even nominated. If an event has followers, it gets posted regardless of how ridiculous is. And FYI, I did not compare this to F1. I did day that there are several actual sports with much larger fanbase, however, considering how completely neglected this topic has been by ITN, I expected some degree of leniency from voters. Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 17Edit


Nigeria/Boko Haram ceasefireEdit

Articles: Boko Haram (talk, history) and Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Nigerian military announce a ceasefire agreement with Boko Haram, including the released of the 200 kidnapped schoolgirls.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Hopefully a peaceful end to a long-standing civil conflict; the safety of the kidnapped schoolgirls will likely be lauded given the social media push that had. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait — If the girls are released, or there is unequivocal evidence that they will be, definitely blurbable. Sca (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sca. And good God, what a relief! Here's hoping that both parties can follow through on the ceasefire agreement. I can scarcely imagine the ordeal that those young girls went through. Kurtis (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait taqiyya. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • [34] It looks like they expect to have the schoolgirls released by Tuesday. Agree with the above on the wait to affirm that. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You'll have my full support if this is confirmed, ping me, User:Masem, if it happens and I don't respond. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Any flups on this yet? μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No, at least with the release. There's some of the Nigeria military officials that are worried that the Boko Haram group may be stalling on time. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest Close - While it is said the deal is still on, word yesterday came of even more abductions [35]. If it is the case the 200 schoolgirls get released as part of the ceasefire, or a rather more significant event happens, we can renominate since there seems agreement that the release should be ITN. But that's likely not going to happen in the next 24 hrs. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's not be hasty. Reuters quotes No. 2 official in Chadian Foreign Ministry as saying deal still on. Sca (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware they say the deal is still on, but this was supposed to happen Tuesday, obviously it hasn't. I'm just looking at this entry slipping off ITN in the next archive cycle, and its probably going to be better to redo the ITNC if the release happens (since it is clear there's ITN worthiness there, just need to it happen). --MASEM (t) 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

October 16Edit


UNSC electionEdit

Article: United Nations Security Council election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain and Venezuela are elected as non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
News source(s): UN

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Article looks good, although UNSC doesn't look effective in recent conflicts. --Brandmeistertalk 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support The article looks all right. Neljack (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Guarded Support New article is nicely developed, my only caveat would be that the objections to Venezuela probably don't justify a level 1 heading, and doing that is probably undue emphasis. However, that's a minor issue I'm not going to oppose over. 3142 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now (Support for January) Per ITN/R: "In previous years, the item has been added to ITN when the new members take their seats (1 January) rather than when the results were announced (during October). This is because the elections are not usually heavily competitive, and 1 January is in the middle of a very slow news period every year." Last year there was at least a little controversy, when Saudi Arabia declined its seat. This year, there doesn't seem to have been anything noteworthy about the elections themselves. Smurrayinchester 11:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wait. As noted on WP:ITNR itself, we post this item on 1 January when the winners take their seats. This is an exception to the usual rule of posting when the results are known, partly because the elections are hardly ever competitive - this year only Spain/Turkey was even remotely close. Modest Genius talk 11:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

EFDD collapsesEdit

Article: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (talk, history)
Blurb: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy, the main grouping of Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, collapses.
Alternative blurb: Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy, the group of populist Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament, collapses.
News source(s): BBC

 Smurrayinchester 13:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Neutral I am not sure how much this really matters even within the EU parliament, since for other than the phony Farage, nobody really heard of it. Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The page concerning this group doesn't even seem to include a clear idea of the goal or views of this group, just a timeline. I had to Wiki-walk to actually figure it out. Challenger l (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
oppose there will just be another coalition that will still not govern. and the next UK election page says theyre in a debate (big step up) with rising poplularity and a MP. this means bugger all...probs a reaction to their cockiness with all the votes
Still if peeps think Sao Tome is nothing then tinpot Podunk latvia changes nothingLihaas (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is another exaggerated blurb: it isn't some big falling out, it is simply that the grouping has sunk below the threshold for official recognition and funding. It isn't as if the grouping itself no longer exists. 3142 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- More of a "media hot topic related news" than truly important news, this will have little effect on the European Parliament. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note According to the BBC this morning, the collapse is off. GoldenRing (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 15Edit


Sao Tome electionEdit

Article: São Tomé and Príncipe legislative election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The opposition Independent Democratic Action win a majority in the Sao Tome and Principe parliamentary election.
News source(s): [36]

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

 Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Question Are there any news sources covering this? You've been reminded several times that they are a mandatory part of a nomination, so I'm surprised at their omission from this one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Election yes - but aside from a blurb on the UK's Daily Mail, this doesn't seem to be covered anywhere. Challenger l (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed- this might be ITNR but it needs news sources, as well as a quality update. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I've added a source to the nomination. Neljack (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the mere fact this is on ITNR should disqualify it.
But
Any two counties in NJ will have a greater population than this batguano taxhaven. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
ITNR means ionly the article shape can prevent it. If you want to question it on ITNR then discuss it on the talk page (and its been tried and consensus was against changing)Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Items on ITNR aren't supposed to be there unless there actually was some lopsided vote at one point that put them there, not because a single editor took it upon himself to add the item. Unless you can show that there actually was ever such consensus, the statement is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; ITNR states the elections of "all states on the List of sovereign states" are ITNR, and this state is on that list; until that is changed(which has been tried and failed before) this should be posted(assuming quality is OK). 331dot (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Being on ITNR means that the basics shouldn't have to be discussed, but there are instances and edge cases that might not necessary ITN items - not invaliding the whole of ITNR, but just that specific instance of it. (This is beyond the article quality issue). The ITNC should be focused not on the ITNR as a whole (That's a talk page if one is against that) but just that instance maybe not being an ITN this time around. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Support. National legislative elections are (rightly imho) on ITN/R and the article quality is good. It would be better if there was more news coverage of this, but there is a little out there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the ITNR criteria is illogical. We have a page called "In the news". We should not list items that are not actually "In the news". As such, minor countries, minor sports championships and minor anything else not receiving significant news coverage should be excluded. We should fix the ITNR criteria, but until that's done, we can ignore the broken criteria and do what is sensible. A good rule of thumb might be that the event should be covered by at least two (or three) news sources outside the country where the event occurred. If somebody shows me that this election meets that critiria, I would switch my vote. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not a Super Bowl or GAA ITNR nomination. That means anyone can't oppose a blurb on importance (you could do so if the update is crappy). You can't disown the rules if you disagree to them. –HTD 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Ignore all rules exists for a reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I always love it when people cite that rule at the time most convenient for them... –HTD 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, isn't that the point? When following the rules becomes "inconvenient" or otherwise nonsensical, this is how we address it. "Use your common sense over anything else". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
          • ITNR is structured to be immune from IAR. If people keep on invoking IAR on ITNR, we might as well mark that page as historical. –HTD 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Not really, one could use a series of opposes to an ITN/R as an initiation of its removal from ITNR. So we could keep it as it is now but add "excluding São Tomé and Príncipe". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
              • This is theoretically possible, but I haven't seen an "exception to the rule" other than complete removal from the list... –HTD 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Then abolish ITNR period or seek change per discussion there not ITNC...and SEE THE PROPOSAL FOR THIS CHANGE AT ITNR WHICH WAS REJECTED'''Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
                • Well as long as this is Wikipedia, any proposal can be considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm joining in with Jehochman and Challenger 1. It's silly to post this. This isn't "in the news", so why should it be In The News? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I suppose I could also oppose it on quality issues, since it's a stub with less than 1500 characters of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, and as "adequately" demonstrated recently, posting an ITN/R, regardless of update quality, is not the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear god here comes jehochman yet again imposing his unilateral view. if you have a problem with ITNR discuss it there. try and get consensus to change against posting what you deem inappropriate. weve tried before you came along and MUCKED ABOUT AND consensus is against your unilateral view. ITNC is not the place discuss consensus changes that did NOT approve of said change.Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas. CALM. DOWN. Bolding and italicizing your points is not making them any easier or indeed more pleasant to struggle through. And please work on proofreading your posts; they are bordering on illegibility.--WaltCip (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No rule can account for all situations, so there are always common sense exceptions when intelligence is used to say, "Applying this rule now would be stupid, so we don't do it." Consensus can change and often does. Just because there was a discussion long ago and somebody imperfectly recorded the results on ITN/R does not mean we are bound to follow it forever. We can have a discussion right here, right now, and decide to make an exception. If this is not posted, then somebody can go to ITN/R and update it to reflect the reality that items though otherwise qualifying won't be posted if they aren't actually "In the news". Jehochman Talk 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me try to provide a better explanation because there have been objections to my opinion. The page WP:ITN/R is a guideline, not a policy. As such, it is generally followed but there are occasionally going to be common sense exceptions. It says as much right at the top of the page. When an item is on ITN/R, there is a presumption that the item will be listed once there's an update and once the article quality meets standards. However, editors may still make a case to reject the item if there is a cognizable reason for an exception, such as lack of significant news coverage. If you look below you'll see that I quickly posted the ITN/R item about the election of Evo Morales. Bolivia isn't a very large or significant country, but the item had appeared in many international news sources, as evidenced by the links, so up it goes without controversy. In contrast, this item about São Tomé and Príncipe has one minor source listed. It is valid to reject the item based on that distinction. I hope this explanation helps everybody to get behind a consensus. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that an item should not be posted if it is not in the news and does not get a quality update. That isn't a radical idea, it is what is supposed to happen. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose please show me a big-news site which covers this story. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Opposition to this falls into two categories: (1) It isn't in the news, and (2) It isn't in the bit of the news that I read. (1) is patently false; the article itself is sourced to several reputable news outlets that are generally accepted as WP:RS. As for (2), well, WP:BIAS, anyone? Where's User:HiLo48 when you need him around? We're going to consign this perfectly good nomination to the dustbin simply because it's about a small, non-English-speaking country and so doesn't get major international news coverage. And one of the purposes of ITN is supposed to be, To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. Big fail on that point, then. GoldenRing (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RD: David GreenglassEdit

Article: David Greenglass (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

 Count Iblis (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Can you tell us what RD criteria you think he meets? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose An interesting figure in a historical account, but that's it, from my read. Nowhere top of a field. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose His involvement with the Manhattan Project is interesting - but I'm not seeing how he meets the criteria at all. Challenger l (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Key figure in a major historical event, the Rosenberg trial. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, known for one event, barely deserves an article let alone featuring on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppose suggest we drop the subjective, "were her 1960's torch songs notable enough" criterion and simply post these minor banana republic dictators whenever we've the space, so long as were not bumping real people. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I suggest that you stop trying to make up your own rules on every single nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 06:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I also recommend you (Medeis) stop with the offensive characterisation of other countries and nationalities - it's making you look rather racist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm fairly certain I'd've called the guy something else if I were being racist. In any case, he's just the spy who turned informant so his sister Ethel would fry in his place in the biggest US trial of the Cold War. I am not opposed if we have the space μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive, this is mildly interesting, nothing more. Not seeing how the subject meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 14Edit


[Pulled] 2014 Man Booker PrizeEdit

Article: 2014 Man Booker Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Australian author Richard Flanagan wins the Man Booker Prize for his novel The Narrow Road to the Deep North.
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.

 --JuneGloom Talk 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose ITNR has been defeated so many times it's a joke even to mention it. Let's hear the individual merits of the book. The MERITS of the BOOK. Not that Booker is itnr. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning of this oppose. Is this not an event which is prominent in the news, in a field (novel writing) which is not much represented otherwise? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
At least this isn't Lady Gaga's coffee table book, though looks like it may win the Booker soon. Brandmeistertalk 22:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this oppose either; the award is clearly notable and in the news. The merits of the book getting the award are immaterial; if the book didn't deserve the award, that criticism should be addressed to the givers of the award. If for some reason this award is not notable and should not be ITNR, or should have different criteria for such, the ITNR talk page is thataway...... 331dot (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - ITNR, and clearly in the news. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -ITNR, should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A highly prestigious prize - there's a reason it is ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A no-brainer. Also, why do they announce this so soon after the Nobels? Is it awards season? Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The prize is on ITN/R currently (go to the talk page if you want to change that for the future) and there have been no objections to the article quality so there is consensus to post. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    PS: Please can someone check I've got the description, etc right on the image page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull- Article has not been updated yet. The only reason I didn't oppose on those grounds was because I assume everyone realized that, but apparently not. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull or change the bold article. The article is dreadful. There's almost zero prose in the bolded article. The article on the book is not much better, it's a stub. The author's article is at least marginally better, but not really something we should be proud to put on the main page. The primary purpose of ITN is to highlight quality Wikipedia articles about topics of a timely nature; we don't just post things in the news MERELY because they are in the news, they also need good articles we can recommend people to read. We don't have a single quality article about this topic at all, I am NOT comfortable directing readers to any of these three articles. Definitely not the one on the prize or the book. --Jayron32 02:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull Articles are in terrible shape for posting. Ideally the book should be the target but we'll likely have been chance getting the author to snuff before that. --MASEM (t) 02:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Because there is an article for this year's prize specifically, that's the most obvious choice for article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fair, though comparing the 2014 booker article to the 2013 and earlier ones, that still needs work. Additionally, the blurb should be clear that the prize is for the 2014 prize (even if it is implicit by ITN). --MASEM (t) 03:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. Have you ever seen a blurb like "The Seattle Seahawks win the 2014 Super Bowl"? That's just weird. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, you're an admin. Can't you pull the blurb? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
When I wrote this, there was only two pulls (not necessarily enough) but I had an opinion so I made it. As such, involved and should not take that action (unless we're talking something seriously bad. This is bad, but not that far bad.) --MASEM (t) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull This is a joke. While to an extent I think the concept of instituting a minimum waiting period for posting ITN articles is a bit far-fetched, an hour from nomination-to-post is way too fast from a quality control perspective, as the above !votes indicate.--WaltCip (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks like 4 hr here, but same point - goes back to my point a month back that ITN/Cs should at least have a 12 hr period to give a fair chance for both sides of globe to input. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and pulled it, even though I voted above. Per WP:BURO and WP:IAR and really common sense, there's nothing to be gained by waiting any longer. --Jayron32 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The process here worked. This item was nominated per ITNR. It got support and as the posting admin pointed out, no criticism of the quality and was thus posted. Later, such criticism started appearing and the item was then removed for further work. That's what's supposed to happen instead of an arbitrary clock. If the feeling was that the posting admin acted improperly in deciding to post(which is certainly possible here), that is a different issue which should be discussed with the admin. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • comment from posting admin. If this had not been ITN/R I would not have posted it, but my understanding is that the only reasons not to post an ITN/R item are if (a) there is opposition on the grounds that this edition of the event hasn't received news coverage or (b) there is opposition on the grounds of article quality/updatedness. When I posted it there was no opposition on either ground, and explicit support for posting. My experience here is that comments on poor article quality/lack of update are normally presented very quickly after a nomination. I would probably have pulled it myself after seeing a few calls for it on valid grounds, but I've been away from Wikipedia today and didn't see them until now. If you want it to be the job of the administrator who decides whether a nomination has consensus to post to also be responsible for ensuring the article has a sufficient update and no quality issues, then get consensus for that to be in the instructions, but it is not currently part of the process. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:ITN states "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.", so it is already written down. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The job of the admin though isn't to evaluate the candidate, it's to evaluate the consensus about the candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, so here's a big
 
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
for not allowing time for consensus to develop. GoldenRing (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, ITN/R items don't need time for a consensus to develop - they get posted unless there is opposition on news coverage or article quality grounds. There was no such opposition when I posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you review the page yourself before posting? The opposes which came later(which is fine, that's what is supposed to happen) claim the article was not updated and in poor shape. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, which is it? Are you supposed to review the article to check it's in shape? Or are you just supposed to evaluate the consensus - in this case consensus on the article quality? If the former, you failed, badly. If the latter, you should have waited longer to allow time for consensus to develop. GoldenRing (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The job of the admin though isn't to evaluate the candidate... That's entirely untrue; an admin needs to check the article. What if there were massive changes deleting the article update after consensus was established (because it was a copyvio, for example)? It takes less than 20 seconds to give the article a quick lookover before posting. SpencerT♦C 06:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 13Edit


[Posted] Evo MoralesEdit

Article: Evo Morales (talk, history)
Blurb: Evo Morales is re-elected for a third term as President of Bolivia.
Alternative blurb: Evo Morales of the Movement for Socialism is re-elected for a third term as President of Bolivia.
News source(s): BBC News The Guardian Financial Times Al Jazeera Washington Post CNN Global News Buenos Aires Herald Deccan Chronicle Ghana Broadcasting Corporation The Nigeria Guardian InSerbia News Deutsche Welle

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: This is a significant (albeit expected) development for Latin American politics, in particular for the continued survival of the pink tide. Morales is one of the most prominent socialist politicians in the world at the moment, and thus his re-election has a number of global repercussions too; certainly, it has received global media coverage. --Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Altblurb we are not the place to champion political causes, we don't identify other presidents (as opposed to parliaments) by their party. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I have removed the "of Movement for Socialism" wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and as noted, we don't do propaganda. Keep to the facts. The article is in very good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why naming the political party to which a president belongs is propaganda, but I fully appreciate that it is not the norm to state the party name in the "In the News" section here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Well there's no reason not to include his political party in the blurb, in fact that would be quite informative and useful. My apologies for suggesting otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • No worries! We now have two suggestions; one stating his political party, the other not. I'm more than happy to discuss the appropriateness of each. By no means am I trying to push a pro-Morales or anti-Morales propagandist approach; I just think that – love him or loath him – his re-election is significant! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Good on ya TRM (praise from me ;))...ill take a page outta your book. Anyhoom, We do mention parties in election posts but more so in parliametarny systems.Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Some update in the election article is still needed, for example in "The currently expected date for the election is October 12, 2014", etc. Brandmeistertalk 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I have now dealt with this particular issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good article. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportEduen (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Evo Morales, president of Bolivia is re-elected for a third 5 year term. (The Guardian)Support. Somehow less important news from the anglo and european world get coverage here but something like this from South America does not.--Eduen (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Which blurb? I would be happy to post this now, but there isn't an obvious consensus for which blurb should be used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Alt-blurb - based upon the last 2 election results I think we posted ([37] and [38]) where we included the party. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted first blurb. Short is sweet. Jehochman Talk 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Memorial Prize in EconomicsEdit

Article: Jean Tirole (talk, history)
Blurb: Jean Tirole is awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of market power and regulation.
News source(s): Nobelprize.org

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

Nominator's comments: The article requires improvement before posting. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on article improvements - If one takes out the para that starts "He has given several prestigious invited lectures...", and then hit up a bit of wordsmithing to prose-ify the resume-ish section better, that would be the fastest route to getting the article in decent shape. However, some update on why his work was given the Nobel should also be added. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
stop wasing time and bold the other article then (econ one). If need be we can change the bold (or both?) when updatedLihaas (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the article and am posting it. People should spend more time fixing things and less time arguing about them. If you see something wrong, fix it. Jehochman Talk 01:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Damn, whats going on here? im stating to agree with lots of people? ;)Lihaas (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

October 12Edit


[Posted] Cyclone HudhudEdit

Article: Cyclone Hudhud (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Hudhud strikes the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Odisha, killing at least 24 people.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Hudhud kills at least 84 people in India and Nepal and causes damage worth more than $9.67 billion.
News source(s): The Times of India

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is something we would usually post, and it would be ever-so-nice to break up the cluster of Nobel Prizes. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support It should be on ITN, given that it ahs been classified as Very Severe. I do believe the death till may have gone up by now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Considering the deaths are significant and damages in excess of 1 billion(upper estimates put it at 11 billion) ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated Please feel free to fix the alt blurb...article is pretty updated..... ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    Definitely close to going up, but I see that, at least, the Nepalese deaths are only "related" to the cyclone. We have three different death tolls right now, the blurb, the alt blurb and the article. If someone could actually align them and make sure they are definitive and as a direct result of the cyclone, I'll happily look to posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    Alrighty then. Come on then @Strike Eagle:, let's get to work! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've made some changes to the lead and updated the hook. It seems that the Nepal avalanche was a direct effect of the cyclone....thanks @TRM for looking into it... Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I've done minor copyediting. Hope it's alright. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely ready for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted with a mildly tighter blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cave paintings in Asia found to predate those in EuropeEdit

Article: Cave painting (talk, history)
Blurb: Cave paintings on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi are dated to be at least 39,900 years old, predating those found in the European Chauvet Cave.
Alternative blurb: Cave paintings on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi are dated to be at least 39,900 years old, making it the earliest known examples of human art.
News source(s): Nature[failed verification], BBC[failed verification]}

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Vast different in location and timing is putting some interesting questions on the development of human intelligence/art as known at the time --MASEM (t) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Blurb given sea-level changes since 40kya, what cave art does still exist and is accessible is a crapshoot by locality. There's no meaningful competition, and these hand signatures are certainly not unique, while the known big game paintings (which happen to be occidental) show much more skill and informative value. Let's have a more neutral, "oldest yet found identified in sulawesi" type blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • While it is a hand outline that is ~40k, there is also "a pig that has a minimum age of 35,400 years old", which would outdate the big game ones in Europe too. And yes, while a crapshot, it's not so much who had the oldest but the fact that we've got two very different geological regions with paintings in (human terms at the time) roughly near the same time frame, give or take a few thousand years, which is interesting from a human intelligence development standpoint. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Predate, not outdate, unless pigs are out of fashion? :) My gerenal point is not one of Gallic pride, but let's image in we get ground sloths or Megalania prisca? Would the date or location matter so much as the discovery? Comparing this to Europe disparages but Europe and the find, as if it were a soccer competition. Implicit in my iVote is a support, I just figured the nominator could off an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I've provided an alt blurb to take out the comparison, however, I still feel that noting this wasn't the European caves is what is more interesting about the discovery, not so much the age beyond being "about" the same time. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Important scientific and historical news. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Didn't we have "earliest abstract art" quite recently? I think the geographical separation which makes this story fascinating. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support missed seeing them by a few years, bugger it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the alternative blurb is better I think. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest closing: I have one simple request: show me a source that makes these claims. Without that this simply can't go up. The sources given do not make the claims given here: the BBC state this is among the earliest art found. The Nature abstract states this finding is the earliest dated hand stencil - that's a very specific category and not synonymous with "art", before we even consider the distinction between "dated" (claimed by the sources) and "known" (claimed by the blurb). I suggest closing this discussion now since it's always difficult to unravel editor's intent when a blurb gets carried away with hyperbole like this. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • What else is a hand stencil if not art? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Sudoku? But seriously, if the phrasing of the blurb is a problem, suggest a new blurb MI. Otherwise, we're suggesting that we run a story that reports what Nature and the BBC are reporting. Is there a real issue here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It's a particular art method - one of countless. The fact that it is the earliest dated artwork to use that method does not make it the earliest artwork. Where is the source for the headline claim made in this proposal, i.e. not that it is the first hand stencil but the first artwork of any form? And no, TRM, this is not modified blurb time at least without a lot more discussion, since correcting this makes for a fundamentally different story with a different level of notability: "first artwork" is an altogether more important story than "first hand stencil". I suspect you would have to explain to the average person what is meant by the second term. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • So, when do you think "art" began exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • And I guess you're suggesting (claiming) that Nature and the BBC have got it all wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What I think is an irrelevance: instead I look to the experts and published sources and see what they say. Yes, I am paying attention to what those sources claim. Here I see that they say it is of a broadly comparable period to the previous earliest dated artworks and is the earliest example of a particular method being used. I do not then go on to embroider, adding on details that those experts do not claim to be the case in order to falsely bolster its supposed notability. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Still intrigued to see your answer to my (very simple) question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've given you my answer, now answer mine, if you don't want to do that then follow the project's norms which amount to the same thing. This discussion is predicated on claims scientists have said something. I asked right in my opening sentence where they had said that. If you answer that this objection falls away naturally. If you are unable then this has to be assumed not to be true. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, where was your answer? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I refuse to play games with you: I assume you have a reasonable level of English comprehension. Where is your source? MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Just tell us when do you think "art" began? Not a game, a question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not claim special expertise, so I beleive the experts - if they say around 40,000 years ago I believe them. I do not start arguing with them and I certainly do not start claiming they have said things they have not. Once again, where's the source? This should have been supplied at the time of nomination. One sentence will keep me happy so where is it? Or do you in fact not have one? MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with the reasoning MI is presenting, but feel it only applies to the ALTblurb. The source does not state that this is the earliest art found (given there are musical instruments found from that period, I'm certain that there is far earlier visual art forms discovered already). Support blurb and oppose alt blurb. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb but oppose alt blurb. This is ITN-worthy news, but we need to reflect what the sources say with some care. They describe the works as "at least compatible in age with the oldest European art"; as "the oldest known hand stencil"; as "among the earliest dated figurative depictions"; as "some of the earliest cave paintings produced by humans"; as "transform[ing] ideas about how humans first developed the ability to produce art". The sources do not say they are "the earliest known examples of human art", and nor should we. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed, so a decent blurb is required, not an "oppose and suggest closing" then. As I noted, let's work on a blurb that matches the reality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, this hit the news a few days ago, so if posted it should be in the Oct 9th position. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as the blurb goes, it seems clear that the discovery is not the oldest. What it means is that all cave art must stem from an even earlier culture and time, probably in East/South Africa and probably dating to the advent of anatomically modern humans about 100 kya. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, so that's what "it means". Any source for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure that its clear that there could logically be older cave paintings in the world, either yet to be discovered or lost to us due to geologic factors, but that of those found and dated, this is the oldest set. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
      • That's what the scientists mean when they say the discovery "pushes back the date" for cave art. They don't mean the particular Indonesian example is the oldest, what they mean is cave art arose with the common ancestor of the people in Europe and Indonesia. Put another way, do you think it is plausible that people in Sulawesi invented cave art and then walked the idea all the way back to Europe? No, it stretches credulity. Check this NYT article which gives my 100 kya date; In African Cave, Signs of an Ancient Paint Factory. Abductive (reasoning) 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Chronologically, art in general is almost certainly older than the oldest examples we happen to have found. It doesn't necessarily follow though that a particular type of artistic expression, such as cave art, must have a single cultural origin. It is entirely plausible that two widely separated groups of humans independently invented the concept of drawing on cave walls. The Nature paper explicitly says that we don't know if cave art has some older single origin (perhaps in Africa) or if the practice was independently adopted at multiple locations. Dragons flight (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
          • You should look at the photos in the sources given above. Abductive (reasoning) 22:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Because of course my interpretation of the photos will be better than what the Nature paper explicitly says? Dragons flight (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Nowhere does it say, "cave art developed in Asia". It says, "Among the implications, it can now be demonstrated that humans were producing rock art by ~40 kyr ago at opposite ends of the Pleistocene Eurasian world." I interpret this use of the word "world" to mean, "unified culture". We known that the whole of Eurasia, from Ireland to to India to Korea, had dolmen (albeit at a much later date). Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
                • I never said cave art developed in Asia. I said we don't know if the practice of painting on cave walls arose independently in two different populations or if it the practice was carried to both locations by an ancestral population of cave painters. The Nature article explicitly mentions both scenarios: "It is possible that rock art emerged independently at around the same time and at roughly both ends of the spatial distribution of early modern humans. An alternative scenario, however, is that cave painting was widely practised by the first H. sapiens to leave Africa tens of thousands of years earlier...". We don't know, and frankly, I don't see how it is particularly relevant to this ITN discussion either way, except that we need to avoid constructing a blurb that assumes one or the other scenario is correct. Dragons flight (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
                  • As far as I am concerned, they do know that it all starts in Africa. One has to learn to parse scientist-speak, which is all CYA. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • At least the way I read the BBC article, the discovery of the works in Asia means this alters the theory of art evolution as commonly accepted, in that it could be either "two different cultures developed independently" or "point to a older, common source". Which one it is, it doesn't matter too much to ITN here, only that this is considered a significant, verified find. If we have to adjust the blurb to reflect this better, that's fine. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
          • That's why the blurb should just say, "pushing back the date". Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Why not just Cave paintings on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi are dated to be at least 39,900 years old, removing the contentious points? If someone wants to know details of why it's significant, they can go to the article - that's one of the purposes of ITN, after all. GoldenRing (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Without any context of the importance of this, this is just "look, more cave paintings" when presented on the front page. We should try to provide enough context to make sure why something is ITN is clear. I'm all for the least contentious aspect to set context, of course, but to post without any isn't helpful. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good catch there by MonumentallyIncompetent -the sources do not support the claims made and since no alternative has been offered we have to conclude that the claims are not true - if anyone wants to dispute that the burden of proof is with them to come up with a source asserting the claims made. So what we are left with essentially has two strands - the first is that these painting are roughly the same age (but not older) as other paintings already found. I don't see that warrants a post - it would be akin to some athlete almost breaking a world record. The second is the earliest known hand stencil and put simply I see that as too esoteric for an ITN listing - just how many users are going to be frantically looking around for additional material regarding that? 3142 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated. The reporting from the scientific publications is much more reserved than what's in the blurbs right now. Nature's commentary says that these painting are 2000 years older than the minimum age of their oldest counterparts elsewhere, which practically means that uncertainties in the dating method rule out a definitive answer as to which is older. I'm all for posting this, and I would support the suggestion by GoldenRing above, but I can't support any of the blurbs as they are now.128.214.53.18 (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
comment there was one found in mcedonia (north Greece) that could be combined with this. What with all the controversy b/w the 2 it can be more pertinent.Lihaas (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

October 11Edit


[Closed] Remove Hong Kong protests from ongoingEdit

Clearly no consensus for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coverage has dropped significantly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Not a statement about coverage, but the article is continuing to be updated to reflect new events (for example, 2014_Hong_Kong_protests#10-11_October). SpencerT♦C 20:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - simply because the protests are still ongoing.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. I'm still seeing this in the news, even if not a top story, and the article is still getting updates as Spencer points out. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per BabbaQ. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Q:Is it still ongoing? A: Yes. -- KTC (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

October 10Edit


[Posted] Nobel Peace PrizeEdit

Articles: Malala Yousafzai (talk, history) and Kailash Satyarthi (talk, history)
Blurb: Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi are awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for their struggle against the suppression of children.
News source(s): NBC News

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

Nominator's comments: Just announced; need an article on the Prize itself. --331dot (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment seems like this has already been posted, with the Satyarthi article in a terrible state... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to you removing it on those grounds. Not sure who posted it(I don't think it was when I wrote this, but not sure). 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It was User:Legoktm who appears unaware of the normal process of ITN. Perhaps he can remove it while improvements are made to the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question, not an ITN regular. Is the quality of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize article, started by User:Rsrikanth05 and expended by us both, sufficient for ITN or would you expect something more, better, different (and if so, what?). It will be expanded of course, but just wondering whether it is acceptable as it stands (no opinion on the other two articles, one at a time!). Fram (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe the article on Satyarthi needs massive Copyediting ASAP. Malala article seems in decent shape with the article I created a while ago shaping up nicely. I'll do my best to straighten out both articles. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: why has this been posted without any note here or addressing the concerns raised above? Modest Genius talk 11:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What are you referring to? My message? I posted it before I went to write an exam, hence haven't done anything in the last two hours. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries, it's not about your message, it's about the fact that someone posted this entry to the main page without waiting for the consensus here (which was not dependent on the notability of the event, which is clear, but on the quality of the articles, which is or was insufficient for Satyarthi. You did nothing wrong. Fram (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm referring to whoever put it on the front page without following proper procedure. They still haven't updated this nomination. Modest Genius talk 16:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pending one fix in Satyarthi's article (one CN tag, about his claims supported by others, should seem an easy fix), for at least posting to ITN. Expansion of Satyarthi's article to be covered will come in time but the state it is in, ignoring that CN tag, is good for ITN alongside Yousafzai's which is in great shape. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Both articles are fine, the blurb too. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • They are now, but Satyarthi's wasn't anywhere near suitable when it was posted. Modest Genius talk 16:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I suggest you take up the issue with the admin User:Legoktm who decided to post this before any discussion had taken place. Of course, if you deem his/her actions to be inappropriate, you could request someone (Arbcom?) to de-sysop him/her. Thankfully, between the out-of-process post and now, we have a couple of half-decent articles. You could continue to complain about it, but there's nothing much to be achieved now, other than educating Legotkm in the ways of ITN. Good luck with that! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Pinging @Legoktm: in the hope that they take a look at this discussion and understand the problem. However, I won't do anything further as it's a waste of time and hardly the most important issue around here. Modest Genius talk 20:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Well I tried that six days ago and nothing came of it. The danger of an admin who doesn't know or follow process... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 9Edit


[Closed] RD: Jan HooksEdit

Consensus against posting. BencherliteTalk 16:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jan Hooks (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Daily News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose not a notable award winning actress--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RIP but not ITN material unless there was some very odd newsworthy circumstance--so far the cause of death is withheld. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose. Per Johnsemlak. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no indication that this individual meets the criteria for RD I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose When I saw she died, I knew someone would nominate her here. Castmember of SNL and a few roles are not "top of the field" material. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Nobel Prize in LiteratureEdit

Article: Nobel Prize in Literature (talk, history)
Blurb: Patrick Modiano is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature "for the art of memory with which he has evoked the most ungraspable human destinies and uncovered the life-world of the occupation."
Alternative blurb: ​French historical author and novelist Patrick Modiano is awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: About 6 hours to go for the announcement, perhaps we can post it soon after instead of dilly-dallying. Nobel season is almost over...excluding the rubbish "award" tomorrow. Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. No need to dither since we already know that this will inevitably be posted. Gamaliel (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment we need to ensure the quality of the update is sufficient. This isn't dithering or dilly-dallying, it's maintaining the quality standards of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Jehochman divorced those standard belo. yet dint hear a word about his uniulateral standard changes..Lihaas (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps you haven't viewed that discussion since I responded. —David Levy 14:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Starting to sound like a broken record Lihaas. A very broken record. Please focus on the articles, not the individuals. Your downward spiral is .... concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, according to this, Modiano is being searched for and the Swedish Academy is attempting to contact him... Brandmeistertalk 13:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Obviously. Puzzling that Modiano remains largely unknown in English. Guess I'll have to read La Place de l'étoile in German. (BTW, Modiano's already on German Wiki's version of ITN.) Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Per all other Nobel ITNC's this week, the target article should be the writer. That article needs a bit of referencing help. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as quality shows, does not meet significance of other recent news, ITNR presumption notwithstanding. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the two above comments. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm unclear here, the quality of the article and the significance/notability of the award should not be conflated. The award is ITNR so that's a given, unless there's a serious argument against it, in which case WP:ITN/R is your destination. If the quality of the update is insufficient, then please just say that rather than obfuscate any position you may hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - "for the art of memory with which he has evoked the most ungraspable human destinies and uncovered the life-world of the occupation." Is that really the exact words of the Swedish Academy? If we're going to include this rather exuberant statement in the blurb, is it worth showing who the statement is attributed to?--WaltCip (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, those are really the exact words: [39]. —Wasell(T) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — just post it. it is the Noble prize. Highly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Sca (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That the prize is notable does not mean the winner is. For example, Obama was voted his "peace prize" after less than a month in office. See above: "Modiano remains largely unknown in English". Sometimes being listed in de.itn is enough. It's rather racist of us to presume this is the real wikipedia, because we don't speak a foreign language here. 05:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the altblurb. No need to include the flowery language, but only once the article is up to snuff. Rhodesisland (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the altblurb. Highly notable. —Wasell(T) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb. The importance of the Nobel Prize overrides any other matter, and as for the other prizes, the motivation (or a motivation) should be given. If the question is article quality, then the Nobel Prize implies that this should be improved.130.238.58.29 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb. But I agreee that the target article should be the writer. Skull33 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. We have four of the five Nobel prizes of the week but not that one. Hektor (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It is indeed ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous indeed. Sca (talk)
  • Support Article in much better shape than from my comment yesterday. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted for those finding it "ridiculous", WP:RFA is that way. You could always do something about it yourselves. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • comment ITN doesnt always get things as fast as CNN or twitter. im not familiar with the article's history but it should be no surprise that an article about an author with a limited publication history in English may have needed work to be ready. It took us one day. 'Ridiculous ' sounds unwarranted . --Johnsemlak (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 8Edit


Belgian governmentEdit

Article: Belgian_federal_election,_2014#Government_formation (talk, history)
Blurb: Charles Michel (pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Belgium following negotiations.
News source(s): DW

Nominator's comments: As peeps know, its no mean feat to form a government in Belgium. Additionally for the first time in 26 years the socialists are not in government (and we posted a subnational election that democratically kicked out communists from government as notable enough for ITN) and it is also a Flemish-led government with a Waloon PM. Hes also the youngest PM [40] possibly in Europe.
Michel Government is also a work in progress \Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Wouldn't it be better if the main article linked directly to 2014 Belgian government formation? Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 21:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the length of the formation process. I agree that linking to the government formation article is a good idea. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support weren't the Belgians without a federal government for a large part of this century? Am not sure how classical liberal they are, but the fact that it's not a leftist government is also of interest, although not in itself importnat. Suggest a blurb something like, after X,XXX days without a government, Michel is named PM. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it's important to note, per at least one preceding comment, that the length of this impasse warrants noting. The article, however is terrible and needs serious work before it can be placed onto the main page. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: clearly significant given Belgium's somewhat prominent position in Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and Needs attention. Is this one ready to go? Rhodesisland (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in ChemistryEdit

Article: Nobel Prize in Chemistry (talk, history)
Blurb: Eric Betzig, Stefan Hell (pictured) and William E. Moerner are awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry "for the development of super-resolved fluorescence microscopy"
Alternative blurb: ​The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Stefan Hell, Eric Betzig and William Moerner for their work on stimulated emission depletion microscopy and photoactivated localization microscopy
News source(s): http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2014/press.pdf

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.

 Shudde talk 10:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) I was in the middle of nominating it myself! I've added an alternative blurb which goes to more specific articles which seem more accessible to me. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that Betzig's article isn't good enough to post as a bold link, so needs some further work or de-bolding. Modest Genius talk 10:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • It has now been substantially expanded. Modest Genius talk 12:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. All looks fine. --Tone 11:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm fairly new to the ITN process, but how can you post something when no one expressed an opinion about the article's quality? With all due respect. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 21:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There are some stories that are ITNR, meaning that there is a pre-existing consensus to post them. When the articles are updated (which is decided by an admin), they can get posted straight forward. --Tone 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that user is asking if the quality of the article was sufficiently judged, not the merits of posting this item. Did you judge the quality to be adequate? (which is OK if you did, just wondering) 331dot (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think the article is OK, I am only surprised that it could be posted with no user input about the quality of the article or no discussion about the blurb. No biggie, though.   Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 13:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Please can the blurb be switched? Plenty of experts in chemistry would consider the blurb "dense". An admin should switch the last part to .. for their work on super-resolution microscopy. Nergaal (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    It appears that you are a lone voice in an audience of millions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 7Edit


[Closed] RD: William ShijaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: William Shija (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CPA and Daily News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: As per Wikipedia:In_the_news#Deaths: he was in a high-ranking office of power (Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. --Ali Fazal (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose neither a head of state nor sitting at time of death, nothing remarkable mentioned in article, which is stub-quality. μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; typically "high ranking office of power" means high government officials(heads of state and possibly government), not the leaders of organizations. Not seeing how the named organization (and by extension its leader) is "powerful". 331dot (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is way too short, the guy is not really notable. RIP nonetheless. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced of his importance from his bio, nor the importance of his office from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. being the "Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association", nor a being a member of parliament makes you qualify for RD. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
siupport per nomLihaas (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose dreadful articles, no sign that this is "in the news", certainly notability insufficient for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh ITN's lord and master and dictartor extraordinare, their is plenty of stuff that is in the news and not that you deem appropriate and goes on or stays out. cherry pick the argument doesn't work no more (one can hope anyways)Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so thanks for responding in such childlike terms to my oppose and none of the other opposers. You've really hit rock bottom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty needless and overly harsh response Lihaas. TRM is only reiterating/consolidating points made above in oppose. Pedro :  Chat  15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, please stop behaving in such a childish manner.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose May be "high-ranking" but not in the way I would interpret the RD guideline. Even giving some leeway to that, I'm not seeing a career in that role that makes him outstanding. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Nobel Prize in PhysicsEdit

Descending into the usual pointy nonsense, this has been posted, if it's in error, you know where to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Nobel Prize in Physics (talk, history)
Blurb: Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura (pictured) are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics "for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources."

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.
 --\Lihaas (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Support. The Nobel Prize in Physics has been ITN material for many years. How about: "Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura (pictured) win the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing blue light emitting diodes."..? -- Bruzaholm (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On ITNR so there's no need to support. We should really find a way of working in a link to Light-emitting_diode#Ultraviolet_and_blue_LEDs, which is excellent and has already been updated. Modest Genius talk 12:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • ITNR still requires the article(s) to be updated and of sufficient quality, and thus can be opposed based on that. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I said 'no need to support', not 'there's not possible reason to oppose'. Even in that situation, it's really a 'wait for better update' rather than opposing. Modest Genius talk 10:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Akasaki and Amano's articles need some work before posting. Alternatively, we can bold the LED link. --Tone 12:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Makes sense, also as the discovery of the LED light seems more interesting than the prize recipients. --Bruzaholm (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Target article in good shape. It's not because something is on ITNR that it automatically makes the cut, or so I understand.   Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously because 2014's recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine are already listed and the article is in good-enough shape. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @331dot: I know it's ITNR. I said "the article is in good-enough shape.", so I wasn't just talking about the notability of the event. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - Since we are going to be doing these daily, let's be consistent: not use quotes, not bold the Nobel prize link, and bold the winners or the topic, whichever is more appropriate or in better condition. Jehochman Talk 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, if the article is not goo dneough we don't bold it. You cannot arbitrarily cherry pick what suits.Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no consensus that the winners' articles are in suitable shape for bold links. Due to quality concerns, everyone expressing an opinion on the matter (including the one editor who initially suggested such a format) agreed that a different article should be bold-linked instead.
    Also note that the Isamu Akasaki article has contained an orange-level tag since 2007 (expanded to include a second issue this month), which usually is considered an automatic disqualifier.
    Per the above discussion, I've shifted the bold link to Light-emitting diode#Ultraviolet and blue LEDs. —David Levy 04:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Lesotho political crisis resolutionEdit

Article: 2014 Lesotho political crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a failed coup, the governing coalition factions in Lesotho agree to call an early election.
News source(s): [41]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Akin to South Sudan this is similar (albeit not as violent) and another result of mediation by regional (smaller) organisations, this time the SADC. --Lihaas (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support An important agreement resolving a significant political crisis. I amended the blurb to indicate that the government has also agreed to this deal and have fixed a wikilink in it. Neljack (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This should be under 3 October, according to the BBC article. But otherwise, a good ITN story. --Tone 13:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Tone, lets do that and [post so we can get some days in before nobels take over.Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
One more support and I am posting. I'd like to see some more feedback. --Tone 09:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You me and and Nelkack?Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Very good article, it would need a picture or two to be more pleasing to the eye. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs work. For instance, I spotted an obvious typo in the second sentence of the lead text, as well as an unattributed statement in the "Background" section. Tighten it up and I'd support posting this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
User:WaltCip wheres the typo? Also which part is unattributed? Thought I was thorough with the sourcing.Lihaas (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Lesotho might be a small country, but coup attempts are noteworthy. The article is well-sourced and well-written. --Tocino 12:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it's half-decent, but it would be helpful if those updating articles could correctly add references rather than bare URLs. Tagged as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 6Edit


[Ready] Hewlett-Packard splitEdit

Article: Hewlett-Packard (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American information technology company Hewlett-Packard announces it intends to split into two public companies.
News source(s): Reuters

Nominator's comments: Important news for an important company (300,000 employees as compared to 108,800 for Dell, for example). --Jinkinson talk to me 12:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

oppose considered nominating but theres nothing recently landmark about it. Splitting off to make it competitively viable has recently been tried (ebay) and wqas planned before whatsherhame Came to HPLihaas (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It was cancelled and then restarted again by Whitman, not continued from her predecessor. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I can make a case for this. First, business news is a topic rarely posted on ITN. Personally I think that this is because we set fairly unrealistic restrictions on what news is posted in the business sector. Although we have rejected stories for mergers before due to limited size and scope, we have never posted news about a large business splitting, which given the past few years of economic downturn is a rare occurrence. Hewlett-Packard also has sizable market penetration, being the top PC manufacturer in the world and a significant distributor of business solutions. This news is even getting front-page coverage on several major news sites.--WaltCip (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until the action actually happens - that's been the method of dealing with business deals in the past is posting at the point of actual happening and not on the announcement. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not certain if I support this or not, but I haven't really understood that. Typically it is the announcement that gets more news coverage than the actual occurrence of the business related event- which can then be rejected on the basis of not getting enough coverage. Seems circular to me (can't post until it happens, but it gets no/little coverage when it happens) but I guess this isn't really the place to debate it. :) 331dot (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with 331dot; the procedural acquisition or splitting of a company after the announcement is always a news side-story, which results in a vicious cycle of the item never being posted on ITN due to perceived lack of notability, even though the announcement clearly is garnering heavy coverage (and for example, we have a precedence of posting election results prior to inaugurations). I think we need some more clarification on what can be posted for business stories, just so that we can be realistic.--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason to wait is because the actual event (split, merger, buyout, whatever) may not happen due to a number of possible issues, whether shareholder votes, gov't intervention, or the like. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's crystal ball-ing. No one knows what will happen in the future with any event(a PM/Presidential winner could die before taking office(we post election results without waiting for the government to take office), a sports team or individual athlete could have its title stripped, etc.). As I said, that is circular reasoning resulting in few if any business stories posted. There seems to be little doubt that this event will occur- I also don't think there are any antitrust regulatory issues here which might prevent it from happening. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, on the ITNR list we specifically state that we do not post inaugurations. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Except for, inexplicably, the inauguration of Barack Obama.--WaltCip (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@WaltCip: I should clarify that it says we generally don't; there was a unique historic element to Obama's inauguration. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Obama's was the first pumpkinification of a communist foreign national as US president, somewhat unique but it should no be considered as a precedent here. 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance your personal political views have to this(if that's even what your statement is), but I was merely stating a fact. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd've oppposed the overlisting of his underaccomplishments even had be been a Bush, or a Nazi. I was agreeing with WaltCip. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me add that I've tried to add "announcements" of business changes (plans to acquire, etc.) in the past, but the argument has always been "wait for the event", so I've stuck to that, but I would be willing to work towards consensus that such announcements, if they are significant in the business world, should be the point they should be announced at ITN, even if that means later we have to announce the cancellation of that event. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, is your oppose only based on precedent, and you otherwise feel this could be posted? Just wondering. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes: if we didn't have that, the HP split is significant business news. --MASEM (t) 18:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable idea to post a follow-up story if a proposed merger/split is denied due to antitrust regulations or other commensurate factors. To some degree, the denial of the business transaction can be just as notable as the business transaction itself. We're not meant to be soothsayers or speculators; we should just report what's in the news (within reason).--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless spun-off companies will be named DataWretch and Kelp. Otherwise, wait, per above. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm persuaded by 331dot's arguments above that this is the right time to post this - mainly because now is when it is In The News. GoldenRing (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support given the extensive coverage and the splitting of a notable company. As I stated above, it is circular reasoning to wait until this actually occurs before posting, and I have not read that there are any antitrust issues here to prevent this split. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable. Will my PC split in two? Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It won't if you have an ASUS. Those em-effers weigh 15lbs a piece. When my dad throws his HP with Windows 8 out the window (any day now) I will get back to you. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm waiting anxiously and keeping a safe distance from my machine. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd consider this ready to post except that the article still has a section with a {{unreferenced section}} template. GoldenRing (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed this by rewriting the (very short) unsourced section w/a source. Jinkinson talk to me 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The story is in the news now. -- Calidum 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mitch Romny announces in 2011 that he plans to assume the presidency of the Confederated States of America in 2013. Do we have a promise that if it actually happens we won't post it a second time? μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If we post it now and it's nominated again later, you're very welcome to oppose it then on the grounds we've already posted it, and I think we'd be convinced by that oppose. Otherwise, what's your point? GoldenRing (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I would not support posting this again if it occurs, as it likely won't be as much in the news as this announcement is. I also invite you to contribute to this more general discussion about this sort of thing. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Andrea de CesarisEdit

Consensus is clearly that this doesn't reach the significance threshold for posting. Modest Genius talk 10:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Andrea de Cesaris (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC Sport

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Unexpected death of veteran F1 driver at a relatively young age. --Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I know little of F1 racing, but is he 'very important' to it (the seemingly relevant RD criteria) because he never won a race? Reading the article that seems to be what is notable about him. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not see him as particularly notable in his field - in fact holding the record for number of Grand Prix starts without a victory seems extremely dubious. The article itself isn't in very good shape, either. Challenger l (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1 pole position and 0 wins. Not within the scope of RD. BencherliteTalk 13:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Challenger l - not top of his field. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because when I try to draw a similarity with another sport, I can't see us posting that either. Doesn't seem notable. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course ADC was at the top of his field. Formula 1 is the very pinnacle of motorsport. A driver with a long career in at the top of his sport can be said to be "successful". Mjroots (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • By that argument, every footballer with a long career at international level, even if he's nothing special, would be eligible for RD. Not so. BencherliteTalk 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Bencherlite's comment above which was my thought as well (though I bet my thoughts were of a different kind of football!) Rhodesisland (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] The Nobel Prize in Physiology or MedicineEdit

Article: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (talk, history)
Blurb: John O'Keefe, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard Moser are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain".
Alternative blurb: John O'Keefe, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard Moser are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain".
News source(s): Nobel

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

Nominator's comments: The articles need some more updates, of course. --Tone 09:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment -- Why not update them and check for typos in the blurb before the nom then? Why the rush to get in first? -- Shudde talk 10:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we have an article on those "cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain"? I think it should be linked in the blurb. Brandmeistertalk 10:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Grid cell or Boundary cell should do it.Legaleagle86 (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The Nobel Prize has been ITN material for many years. Bruzaholm (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Timely and important. I would link "cells" to grid cell. Girona7 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Jehochman Talk 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon PhanfoneEdit

Article: Typhoon Phanfone (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​2000 people are forced to evacuate as Typhoon Phanfone hits Japan. The typhoon has caused 600 planes to be cancelled and has killed seven people.
News source(s): Australia, United States, United Kingdom

Article needs updating

Oppose– Run-of-the-mill typhoon for Japan in all honesty. There's nothing that makes this stand out from any other storm that has hit Japan this year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, unless there ends up being a highly significant amount of damage and/or casualties. 2000 evacuees is a relatively small number. Flight cancellations due to weather are not unusual enough. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per 331dot. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Nicely written article, well referenced. I just don't know if it is notable enough as of yet. Let's wait and see I guess. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it appears a trifling typhoon in the big scheme of things. Nothing updated since the GP on Sunday. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If anything major happens with the new typhoon, Vongfong, we might want to combine these two typhoons but only if something more happens with Vongfong. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 5Edit


RD: Yuri LyubimovEdit

Article: Yuri Lyubimov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guaridian

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

Nominator's comments: He was one of the leading names in the Russian theatre world. He founded the internationally renowned Taganka Theatre in Moscow. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Reading the article, he seems to be very important to Russian theater. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly a very important figure in Russian Theatre who gained awards from several other countries as well. Clearly RD material. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Article could use a tiny bit of TLC (as to format it closer to other entertains, separating personal life with theater work), but is referenced fine otherwise, so RD is good. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support only because of his June 2011 retirement and the circumstance precipitating it and his actions. Also, being associated with a world-renowned theater does not in itself make one world renowned. And sentences like: Lyubimov's performances - including the well-known Antiworlds, Pugachev, Listen!, and Comrade, believe, as well as newer Before and After, Oberiuty, and Honey — are fed and filled with poetic energy need to be addressed--this is either a copyright vio or pure essafication in need of a cite. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs improvement, references are needed for about half the biography, many of the awards are unreferenced, including those with Wikipedia articles (Lyubimov is not mentioned in some of those target articles). Notable enough for RD, but unsatisfactory quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Rugby ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2014 Rugby Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Despite ending their 22-match unbeaten steak after losing to South Africa, New Zealand win the 2014 Rugby Championship
Alternative blurb: ​The 2014 Rugby Championship concludes with New Zealand winning the championship
News source(s): BBC, ESPN

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.

 --Shudde talk 10:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support lol, there is no "tri-nations" zing to the new name. Nergaal (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • On ITNR, so no need to support. But the blurb is awkwardly phrased and we should avoid discussion of the winning streak. I've added an alternative blurb which follows our standard WP:ENGVAR-neutral phrasing. Article looks good to go so I'm marking this [Ready]. Modest Genius talk 12:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Can we avoid "Championship... championship", please? BencherliteTalk 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought about that, but the only alternatives I could think of were 'winning the competition' or 'being crowned champions' which both sound rather informal. Anyone got any better ideas? Modest Genius talk 14:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
New Zealand wins the 2014 Rugby Championship. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The trouble is that if we do that then WP:ERRORS will light up with complaints that it should be "New Zealand win", not "New Zealand wins" (it's a long-standing ENGVAR issue which is why ITN traditionally uses the cumbersome "In (x sport), the (name of competition) concludes with (winning team) winning / as champions / victorious, happy and glorious / (etc)". So unfortunately, Nergaal, your straightforward idea is just too good... But "as the champions" will probably do, so I'm posting. Tweak away as desired. BencherliteTalk 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
What about The 2014 Rugby Championship concludes with New Zealand winning the contest. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd have suggested "winning the tournament", but it appears that their victory was determined long before its conclusion (so any such construct could be considered misleading).
I've replaced "as the champions" (which has the problem noted above) with "as the winning team". —David Levy 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Jules BianchiEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Jules Bianchi (talk, history)
Blurb: Formula One driver Jules Bianchi is seriously injured in a crash at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix in Suzuka
Nominator's comments: Widespread coverage not only on the F1 website [11] but also other in newspaper websites around the world. [12]

Aerospeed (Talk) 19:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose sadly this kind of thing happens in sport, and as yet we have no real idea how Bianchi is. Double-sadly is that he'd almost certainly guarantee a position at RD should he die, but his serious injuries are not really blurb-worthy I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)@Aerospeed: Welcome; could you post some news sources which might indicate this event's newsworthiness(I've put the full template for you or anyone to), and explain why this merits posting to the main page per the criteria? We don't typically have this type of story(a single injury). 331dot (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify further, I'm in agreement with TRM's comment above, absent other information about how this is significant, or evidence this is getting top level news coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
To be fair to the nominator, this is pretty high profile news, but a little like the Schumacher story, unless we have something definitive to go by, this isn't really "news", it's just "speculation". If Bianchi survives, god willing, then it's not really an ITN story. If he doesn't make it, then it'll definitely make RD and be a debate over a blurb, since an F1 death during a race is rare these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being partly in line with the others. Other factors I'd consider is that for all the attention this has received there are really very few details that have been released - it's almost a media blackout. That makes forming a satisfactory update worth highlighting and full of actual facts as opposed to speculation and recrimination difficult. My final point would be to consider the Schumacher ski accident story - admittedly the context was a little different but we didn't run that despite the fact there were far more details available and it was one the sport's biggest star for the last twenty years. 3142 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - would support if this was an actual death (obviously, I'm not wishing for this), or if it was a case of one of the top 3-5 drivers in the sport (eg akin to Michael Jordan's importance at the height of his NBA career) that this ended his career completely. The former might happen (again, I'm hoping not) but I don't see the second for this. --MASEM (t) 01:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At the moment this story is simply 'sportsman suffers serious injury'. Whilst that is obviously tragic for the person and their associates, it doesn't reach the significance level required for ITN. Large numbers of sportsmen (and women) suffer serious life- or career-threatening injuries every year. The fact that a large television audience was watching this one doesn't change the fundamental event. Modest Genius talk 12:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per the ever modest Genius. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2014 NRL Grand FinalEdit

Article: 2014 NRL Grand Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The South Sydney Rabbitohs defeat the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs to win their first Australian rugby league premiership in 43 years.
Alternative blurb: ​The South Sydney Rabbitohs win Australia's National Rugby League championship.

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.

 --Mkativerata (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • This article is ITN/R and updated and ready to go. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A good update, though I suppose some more references might be desirable. Neljack (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Widespread coverage throughout the rugby league-playing world — NickGibson3900 Talk 08:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Although would be good to have an expansion of the match report section which is pretty sparce (but does look adequately referenced). -- Shudde talk 10:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment -- is there a reason we are saying "Australian rugby league" rather than "National Rugby League" in the blurb? -- Shudde talk 10:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it has only been the 'National Rugby League' since 1998. Before that it had a variety of different names. 'Australian rugby league premiership' seemed the best way around the problem of referring to a 43-year period. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ITN generally doesn't post scores, winning times, winning streaks etc, so this ought to be simply as per the alt blurb above. Arguments might be made for and against including the word "Australian" in there - thought? BencherliteTalk 19:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
    • 'Australia's National Rugby League premiership' might be a little better. Also, you could drop the 'In rugby leauge' intro as it would be duplicative and unwieldy with National Rugby League spelt out. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Bulgaria electionEdit

Article: Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: GERB wins a plurality in the Bulgarian election.

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

 --Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support when updated. I think the abbreviation in the blurb should be spelled out though, and make mention of who the Prime Minister will be if determined. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
GERB is their official name, there is no spelled-out version. It is one of these pseudo-acronyms or "orphan initialisms", like BP, AT&T, KFC... --RJFF (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs to be updated, then support. --Tone 09:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 4Edit


2014 Asian GamesEdit

Article: 2014 Asian Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 Asian Games concludes in Incheon, South Korea with China gaining the most medals
News source(s): The Express Tribune, Gulf News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the largest multi-sport events in Asia. --Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 16:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless a certified and significant world record was set, in which case that should be the focus, not the conclusion of the games themselves. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support AFAIK, there is not really an equivalent sports tournament in any other region in the world, so for people living outside of the region, it would be easy to ignore this story. But the Asian Games are taken very seriously in many of the participant countries, especially in Northeast Asia. --Tocino, 08:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Latvia electionEdit

Article: Latvian parliamentary election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Harmony Centre wins a plurality in the Latvian election.

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

 --Lihaas (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once updated. And to all those who are or will be upset over the nomination of a non-updated article, hopefully this nomination will catch the notice of someone who is willing to write a results section for the article. If no one does it before this becomes stale, I will try. Also, the blurb should mention who will or has become or remain Prime Minister. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs to be updated, then support. --Tone 09:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's itn/r so all talk about support when updated is a waste of time. Article is an out of date stub. Until this is fixed, it cannot even be considered. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jean-Claude DuvalierEdit

Article: Jean-Claude Duvalier (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former President of Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier "Baby Doc" dies.
News source(s): BBC News, ABC News,

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Notorious former Haitian Dictator who was outed in the 1986 coup. --Miyagawa (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD as nom. Miyagawa (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: an important guy and the article is in reasonable form. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is OK. I've added his demise to the intro. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 17:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support article is okay too. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, good article. Let's post. Jusdafax 20:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Would it be acceptable to include his nickname Baby Doc? It was so ubiquitous when he was ruling; I recall hearing it on the Nightly News and reading it in the major newspapers. Rhodesisland (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 21:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed with this posting. So Baby Doc's dead, eh? He was a notable figure in contemporary Haitian history and fully warrants a mention on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
support full blurb He was more than a national or regional leader as is globally notorious. Like the Hitler of Haiti and wed surely post that.Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb perfect candidate for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose full blurb. For a former head of state to get a full blurb if they die in non-notable circumstances my personal standard is that they need to have had at least the same level of significance as Margaret Thatcher did and at least a similar amount of international news coverage of their death. He comes close but doesn't quite make it, his passing wasn't big news in the UK and his term of office was largely a continuation of his father's. Absolutely appropriate for RD though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb- Not just an entertainer but a man who reached the most important position possible in a given country, and he who was one of the most famous heads of state in the world during his rule. Anyone who is worthy of that italicized statement deserves a full blurb for his death. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    Not true, you've perfectly described the role of RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RD is for precisely what you describe; A full blurb for a death is for deaths where the death is a major news story itself, usually due to being unexpected(such as Robin Williams) or due to being someone who was essentially #1 in importance in their field (such as Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher). Neither is the case here. He was "very important" to his field (the second RD criteria) but not #1, nor was his death a story itself. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. Duvalier is the perfect candidate for RD; while notable in his field, he did not have the importance of Thatcher or Mandela. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep RD, oppose full blurb This is what RD is for. GoldenRing (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb, support RD. This is exactly what RD is for: a person who was significant in their field, but whose death does not have major ramifications in current affairs. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb, keep RD There's no reason to give this a full blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb, keep RD not of sufficient stature to warrant a full blurb, nor has his death itself become a major news story. BencherliteTalk 20:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] First baby born from transplanted uterusEdit

Article: Uterus transplantation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Swedish woman gives birth having been the recipient of a donated uterus.
Alternative blurb: ​The first baby ever born to a recipient of a donated uterus, is born to a 36 year-old Swedish mother.
News source(s): BBC News, Journal Star, The Daily Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A world first. A large addition has been made to the article (but by an anon ip editor). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support — If it's a medical first, it seems significant. Sca (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A world first is always newsworthy, especially involving human birth thinks I. It needs more references in the "First human born following an uterus transplant" sub-section though, as there is only one currently. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Have added the other two listed here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (although I am afraid that I do believe the hype....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that the birth occurred in late September and is just being announced now. Exact date is unclear, so while I'd probably support this, not sure if it's too stale. (Could be reworded?) IRW0 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think we can generally accept that the announcement is the news, not the event itself in these circumstances. Of course I may be wrong and the community may turn on me lark a snarling dog, but hey. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think you mean "lark a snarleen dawg". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support assuming it's accurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment @Martinevans123:, I would consider this to be "postable" but there's a "cleanup" tag which appears to have been there for some years which we should resolve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Have done all I can. If you think it's enough, then please remove the template. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC) .;. do we wait until the boy's first birthday?
      • Comment @Martinevans123: can you propose a suitably formatted blurb (per the standard stuff) and I'll post. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Is it not missing the major point, the "first time" aspect? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitelt for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready consensus and meets all criteria, best to post ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted.David Levy 17:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Post posting note: too bad she had to battle it out with all these Nobel Prize winners. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

October 3Edit


2014 Patna stampedeEdit

Article: 2014 Patna stampede (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 33 people are killed as a result of a stampede that occurred at a Dussehra festival in India.
News source(s): Zee News

 --Jinkinson talk to me 16:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Important news, but needs expansion. Was it an elephant stampede?!? Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is too poor. Event is mildly significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Sweden recognizes PalestineEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: International recognition of the State of Palestine (talk, history) and Stefan Lofven (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Swedish prime minister Stefan Lofven announces that his government will recognise the state of Palestine.
News source(s): Time Magazine
Nominator's comments: This makes Sweden the first major European country to recognize Palestine, as well as "the first country to recognise Palestine while being a member of the European Union". [42] --Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment what is a "major European country"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oppose okay, since there's no explanation, and since this is far from important or globally significant, no-brainer oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    The source [43] linked by Jinkinson claims "the first major European country", but they don't explain "major" and it seems meaningless when more than a dozen European countries including Russia, Poland, Ukraine and Romania have already done it. Does the Guardian think Europe ends at the old Iron Curtain? International recognition of the State of Palestine says: "As of 27 September 2013, 134 (69.4%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations have recognised the State of Palestine." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If it were the EU as a whole, perhaps. The recognizition factor here is important, but like with things like gay marriage, a country by country ticker for ITN is likely not workable. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Palestine is recognized by about 80 countries according to International recognition of the State of Palestine. As for "major European"; Russia, Ukraine and Poland (among others) already recognize them. As Masem said, if the entire EU did, or the United States did, that would be another matter. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe we psoted Iceland which set the European/western precedence. Unless one to claim argument. Nevertheless I oppose it bper precednceLihaas (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Seems politically significant to me — in the context of ongoing troubles in Islamic lands. Sca (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per 331dot. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Peaceful nation takes an important stand. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Didn't we go through something like this just a year or so ago? One nation officially recognized another (was it Palestine then too?) and as I recall the consensus was not to post. Anyone remember that? Rhodesisland (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot and Masem. SpencerT♦C 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A single country recognizing a single other country does not seem significant. As stated, if it was the entire EU or some similarly large coalition of nations, that would be something. Challenger l (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "the first country to recognise Palestine while being a member of the European Union" is weird qualifier considering how many recognized Palestine after its initial declaration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Sweden PMEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Stefan Löfven (talk, history)
Blurb: Stefan Löfven becomes prime minister of Sweden following an election.
News source(s): [44]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: We posted aus/uk/usa/canada (?) more than once, here is a fractious electoral result with a big change in PM (right to left-winged). Seems both notable and in the intereet of non-English speaking bias. --Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already posted the election itself(including this man's name as the leader of his party, who is almost always the PM). It doesn't seem like there was any doubt he was going to be the PM, which I think is the reason other nations were posted(please link to instances where the results of an election were posted multiple times). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we posted that his party won the election already; it may be news if there was some major party shake-up after the election, and someone else became prime minister. Confirming the result of something we already announced would happen seems like a waste of ITN space. --Jayron32 12:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we've posted any other nation's inauguration. Certainly not either of Obama's. The election is notable, the swearing in is procedural formality. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We did in Aus/UK. It was controversial as he has a razon thin approval and still needs to form a govt.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The ITNR page also states "coronations/inaugurations are generally not posted". 331dot (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Dint claim its ITNRLihaas (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that you did.(though the election was) Nevertheless, what I said is true. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no story in the news, beyond business as usual following the results of the election. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the election results were posted. Akin to a 'swearing in' ceremony. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Origin of AIDSEdit

Article: History of HIV/AIDS (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Researchers trace the origin of the AIDS virus to the Congo city of Kinshasa in the 1920s.
Alternative blurb: ​Researchers trace the origin of the AIDS pandemic to the Congo city of Kinshasa in 1920.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Riddle of a major medical issue of the 20th Century is solved (in as much as we can do with modern techniques). --MASEM (t) 00:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's not the origin of HIV, it's the origin of the epidemic of HIV-1 group M. Not that doesn't make this finding any less interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 02:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb, feel free to modify HIV to HIV-1 group M. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support nice article, brings evolutionary biology, phylogeny and forensic pathology to ITN. HIV-1/M is the dominant virus responsible for the pandemic, so the altblurb is fine.128.214.53.18 (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Source is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/56.abstract?sid=19cd8942-7909-48b0-bc2b-9521f1eb2830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.53.18 (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the story, and like above, I think we should be absolutely clear in the blurb exactly what we're talking about, so we should put HIV-1 group M. CaptRik (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is the update enough? It seems to me that only a sentence or two has been added to the main article. Just wondering if anyone else would like to see a bit more added. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
oppose THE NOM has said that this is a mere postulation. That is not affirmation. Further, this is not widely in the news.Lihaas (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that. Before this paper, it was postulated that aids came from that city but not confirmed; this paper (thanks IP @ .18 for the link) is confirming this postulate was true. Also ITN does not require wide coverage. --MASEM (t) 09:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
So, looks like "14% of Americans" might be wrong after all, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"The Lord works in mysterious ways." But personally I think we all know that the CIA travelled back in time to place it there, right after placing Obama's birth announcement in that Honolulu newspaper. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The birth announcement has to be placed after the virus is deployed, for the timeline to work. IRW0 (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - scientific news of this kind is uncommon and notable enough. Article is in excellent shape. Challenger l (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Update? there is not a real update in the linked article. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not completely new that HIV-1 and HIV-2 originate from that geographical region, so identifying the exact place and the exact year does not seem notable at all. Significant scientific discovery would have been had this helped in its prevention or treatment. For now, this has the potential of becoming a stepping point for further research, but we haven't witnessed any results yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a clearly notable discovery which will draw significant interest. Chillum 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is an interesting scientific discovery. Support per Challenger 1 and others. IRW0 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty interesting, the article is good. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 15:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support widely in the news and very much an interesting story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: the adjective is "CONGOLESE"! —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready update is minimal, but article is in good shape, minor unreferenced subsections have been hidden or moved. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Target article is not bolded in the present blurb at the main page. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 13:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
    Also, the blurb should also say 1920s and not 1920, like the first blurb does...both the article and ref use 1920s. IRW0 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2Edit


[Posted] Majorana fermion confirmedEdit

Article: Majorana fermion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists confirm the existence of the previously hypothesized Majorana fermion.
Alternative blurb: ​Physicists report the discovery of a new quasiparticle, the Majorana fermion, which is its own antiparticle.
News source(s): Phys.org

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The results were published in Science on 2 October, according to Phys.org. --Brandmeistertalk 09:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

support if this has been conclusively affirmed in a peer-reviewed jouirnal itsm ore impotan than the above.Lihaas (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Direct Science link. Brandmeistertalk 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, always nice to feature good science stories. Perhaps a better wording: Scientists from the Princeton University announce the observation of the previously hypothesized Majorana fermion. --Tone 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting scientific discovery. Suggest blurb: "Scientists confirm the existence of the previously hypothesized Majorana fermion, which simultaneously behaves as both matter and antimatter." (I found that part the most interesting myself, not being well versed in particle physics, so it may be a good hook to get readers.) Scientific American: [45] IRW0 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I had discovered that way before ahem. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 15:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- but can we add something to the blurb to make its relevance a bit more obvious? (Without clicking through I thought initially this was a postulated specifies of flora by the name though now I see what it means). Perhaps "Scientists confirm the existence of the previously hypothesized Majorana fermion in the theory of the operation of superconductors"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talkcontribs) --15:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Hah, I also thought it was some sort of flora for a moment. :) We definitely need a blurb with more context, whichever one we use. IRW0 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but there's a major caveat: this is a Majorana fermion quasiparticle, not a free fermion. The blurb and article need to make it clear that this is a quasiparticle, not a particle. Modest Genius talk 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    As a note on the blurb issue, I would be fine with language like "Scientists confirm the existence of the previously hypothesized Majorana fermion quasiparticle." which establishes that this is subatomic theories (to the causal reader) and thus sets enough context for ITN. It wouldn't hurt to explain the importance but if terseness is golden, there you go. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (after 3 ECs): I've also added an altblurb that addresses some of the context issues. --Jayron32 16:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There's no such thing as an 'elementary quasiparticle'. I've tweaked the alt blurb further, including the fact that it is its own antiparticle. Modest Genius talk 16:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Discovering a Majorana fermion in free space would be an enormous find worthy of a Nobel prize. Proving that electron hole quasiparticles at material interfaces in some superconducting environments act like Majorana fermions is much more "meh". Sure it is good science, and will allow us to directly study the properties of an object that behaves like a Majorana fermion, but the implications for the rest of physics and our understanding of the universe are quite limited. I don't think this rises to the level of a story suitable for ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel it's debatable whether or not this story deserves to be in the front page. Certainly Yazdani et al.'s work contributes to the body of evidence supporting the existence of Majorana Bound States in solid state systems, but I'm not convinced it constitutes a "discovery" at this point. Compare, for example, with the Higgs discovery which had far more confidence associated with it. Incidentally, were the transport measurements by the Delft group in 2012 also reported in the front page news? If not, I feel this latest work shouldn't be either. Of course, I don't claim that Yazdani and colleagues didn't observe an MBS, just that a single paper from a single group is perhaps not quite good enough to be described as a "discovery". Please see also my comments in the Majorana Fermion article. If the consensus is that this story should be featured then fine, it is, as Tone said nice to feature good science stories. However, I particularly oppose the use of the word "discovery". My suggestion would be "Physicists report the possible observation of a new quasiparticle, the Majorana bound state, which is its own antiparticle". Of course, this wording may well leave a layperson wondering why the story is news-worthy. Naturally, I welcome others input on this matter.95.145.178.230 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Turkey about to operate in Iraq, SyriaEdit

No consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nom. Immensely important news. --bender235 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose as of now. This is just an authorization to attack; troops/aircraft are not yet underway. The UK Parliament also recently authorized action(which we didn't post). I think that if Turkish ground forces enter Syria that might warrant a posting; but not simply joining the aircraft attacks currently underway(or allowing the use of bases). I'm not convinced it would, anyway. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait along the lines of 331dot. My understanding is that the UK hasn't even acted yet. We don't want to be posting entities jus because they express support. Major bombing runs of the oil fields they are getting most of their cash from might be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as covered by Ongoing. Every minor twist and turn in this story gets breathlessly nominated.128.214.53.18 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no more notable really than the Arab nations getting involved. For information, UK forces have be