Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2015

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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

Contents

October 31Edit


[Posted] 2015 Breeders' CupEdit

Article: 2015 Breeders' Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2015 Breeders' Cup championships featured the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing with the win of American Pharoah in the Breeders' Cup Classic.
Alternative blurb: American Pharoah's victory at the 2015 Breeders' Cup championships marked the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing.
Alternative blurb II: American Pharoah's victory at the 2015 Breeders' Cup championships in the Breeders' Cup Classic marked the first-ever "grand slam" in American horse racing.
Alternative blurb III: Triple Crown-winner American Pharoah retires after winning the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first Thoroughbred in history to win a calendar year "Grand Slam"
News source(s): ESPN, The New York Times, Associated Press

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First time in history for a racehorse to win this set of four races (Triple Crown + Classic) Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Sorry, failing to see the significance. American Pharoah has not just been on ITN - it has been here three times in the past six months. While the Triple Crown was indeed a feat, I'm not getting the same sense here - either from the news sources or the article. Even if there were consensus to post, the article fails to provide an adequate update via a main race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
To put this in perspective, he broke the Keeneland track record today by more than five seconds. The Breeders' Cup is run against older horses. The "Grand Slam" is legacy-defining, an achievement without precedent. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An extremely exceptional horse and first-time achievement. Story should not be penalized from ITN just because it isn't about a train wreck, a plane crash or someone blowing little old ladies up in a market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.21.139 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • DYK material – "firsts" are seldom considered for ITN in regards to sports and are better suited at DYK. The event itself is not included on WP:ITN/R#Horse racing but I will submit I know next to nothing about horse racing. If notability of the event itself is established, I may have a better idea how to vote. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Cyclonebiskit, we had a long discussion about adding the Breeders' Cup Classic to ITN/R and the complaint was that it would make too many American horse races, and some people argued that there were too many horse races listed in general. Just FYI on that. Montanabw(talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Breeders' Cup Classic is the largest purse in US Thoroughbred racing and the fourth largest purse in the world. As American Pharoah was set to be retired to stud at the end of 2015, this was the only chance to test him against an older, more experienced field. And he trounced them. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Weak support given above explanation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support: Seems significant. Would like to see more of an update regarding true significance, though, as I'm not an expert on horse racing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. No doubt American Pharoah is going to be one of those once in a lifetime prodigies remembered for decades after, like Secretariat or Sea Biscuit. That means they might appear several times. I would think the Breeders' Cup winner should be ITN/R if it isn't already. Winning this horse race makes the article front page worthy all by itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Article is not ready - There's no prose about the results of the races, outside the mention of the grand slam aspect. This is far from sufficient for an update. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • There are 13 races, and we already have separate articles on all of them, the Breeders' Cup Classic article has all years... glad to work on whatever you need, if you could clarify. Montanabw(talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I just found out before your comment. I'm unmarking it right now. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 05:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you talking about American Pharoah? The lede to this Featured Article is updated, and there's a new "Grand Slam" section covering today's Breeders' Cup victory. The other three Triple Crown races are recounted in detail. What more does it need? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(No, @Vesuvius Dogg: I think they mean 2015 Breeders' Cup, that's the boldfaced article... we had Pharoah as ITN when he won the triple crown. )
If we are going with the Breeder's Cup as the target article (and even if not and we're going with Am.Pharaoh), there's very little actual update in prose. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Masem:, we are going with 2015 Breeders' Cup, which was only created a week ago. Per my comment above (13 races, each with separate articles) can you clarify what you need? I just added quite a bit more prose, is it better now? Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. As a note, we're not looking for super quality in ITN articles, but just that the update is there, and since the race was completed, something more than a result table is needed and the few para of prose you added is exactly sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I'm not clear on how significant this is, because I don't know much about horse racing. However, what I've read suggests that it is significant and possibly ITN material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This win puts American Pharoah on a very short list of the greatest horses ever. This columnist [1] for example, following Saturday's victory, calls him 'immortal' and a 'Mount Rushmore' horse. --SubSeven (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted with a simple blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • WTF is ""grand slam" in American horse racing"? Nergaal (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this just a term pretty much invented in 2015? Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Interesting question. To my knowledge the term was first propagated on June 7, 2015, one day after Pharoah won the Triple Crown, by Bob Ehalt on his influential ESPN racing blog. In retrospect, one might argue that "Grand Slam" was an invention of the Breeders' Cup/Keeneland promotional team. As it was by no means certain at that point that Pharoah would continue to race the full season, as a rhetorical enticement for him to delay retirement, it worked. By the time Pharaoh raced in the Haskell a couple months later (August 2), it was being used casually by NBC television commentators, the promise of great things yet to come. Maybe "Grand Slam" deserves its own cynical article, but I am not cynical enough, one day after seeing him triumph so handily and shattering the Keeneland course record, to undertake that yet myself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Regardless wether this item should be on ITN, a grand slam is a jargon which NEEDS explaining (i.e. wikilinking of some sorts). Nergaal (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to the idea of creating Grand slam (horse racing) (as there exists one already for National Hunt Racing in the UK) but not sure we really have more than a definition. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 01:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
If we could somehow confirm Ehalt's first usage—how would we go about that?—we'd have the germ of fhe article. We can certainly credit him for having used it as early as June 7. His was the first usage I could find when I was Googling in early August. We do have the term defined two different ways (for colts and fillies) in the "Equestrian Sports" section of Grand Slam. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I support this being posted but I think the blurb should be a brief explanation of what was done. I might suggest "Triple Crown winner American Pharoah wins the Breeders' Cup Classic, becoming the first horse to win all four races" or something along those lines. Besides avoiding debatable terminology, it removes ambiguity by specifying "four and only four" races won. - OldManNeptune 05:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Rugby World Cup FinalEdit

Articles: 2015 Rugby World Cup Final (talk, history) and 2015 Rugby World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2015 Rugby World Cup ends with New Zealand beating Australia 34–17 in the final, the highest-scoring in World Cup history.
Alternative blurb: ​The 2015 Rugby World Cup ends with New Zealand beating Australia 34–17 in the final. New Zealand becomes the most successful team in the Rugby World Cup with three wins.
Alternative blurb II: ​In rugby union, the 2015 Rugby World Cup ends with New Zealand defeating Australia in the final.
News source(s): The Guardian - live thread, BBC Sport, The Telegraph (more sources to be added)

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.

 SounderBruce 17:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless and until a reasonable-length prose match synopsis is written. The very second that is completed, consider this a full support. --Jayron32 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to mention that it was the highest-scoring final. Neljack (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support despite disappointing outcome. Perhaps should mention that the All Blacks are now the most successful team in the history of the World Cup. (see alternative blurb). Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added altblurb. It's on ITN/R, so all it needs is an update. Add a match summary and we can post this. Fuebaey (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note article has a match summary so should be added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – I don't know how usual the Australia–New Zealand rugby rivalry is, but I was hoping that any other nation would have made it. That shouldn't affect the annual tournament's recurrence. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Alt Blurb 2 is fine. No need to mention highest scoring or most successful team. AIRcorn (talk)
  • Support - This is a notable sporting achievement. The Cup also has a huge TV audience, so it is an event that many visitors would likely be interested by. (That being said, I'm a New Zealander, so maybe take my support with a grain of salt.) Kiwi128 (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as ITN/R now that a reasonably-sourced match summary has been added. Alt 2 blurb is the usual standard for sporting tournaments on ITN. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2. Post the result, not the trivia. Resolute 14:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted a few things still need referencing but the update for the final is okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Closest asteroid this big in at least 9 yearsEdit

Clear consensus against posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 TB145 (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?
Nominator's comments: This object we had no idea existed only 3 weeks ago will come within 1.25 Moon distances and a direct hit would've been well over "all nuclear bombs in the world going off in one place at once". The fireball would've been hot enough to ignite trees within a 270 kilometer wide circle; 45 miles away, it would get the brightness of 51 suns in 0.185 seconds, then wood would ignite, then there'd be a magnitude 7.4 earthquake, then it'd rain rocks the weight of light bowling balls (solid or molten? IDK), then there'd be enough overpressure to tear human limbs off and 301mph winds (worst tornado ever level).


This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029 (1 Moon width every 2 minutes!). Scientists will use the opportunity to get the highest resolution images ever of an asteroid from Earth,


Also it's on Halloween, most likely a dead comet, and it looks like a freaking skull Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This seems much more suited as a DYK, and the fact the NASA blurb downplays any potential impact aspects, it's hard to justify this for inclusion at ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Even days after discovery probability of impact was 150 sigmas which is impossible. That'd be like a person with a 2350 or minus 2150 IQ (if it were a perfect bell curve, it's not). NASA doesn't need to upplay potential impact risks because stupider or dishonester people do that too much already and they're actually honest people that speak accurately, unlike CEOs or FIFA or marketers or politicians or lawyers. Also, the error ellipse is 3 kilometers wide (thanks to radar) which means they know how much it clears by to better than one part in 100,000. It's the ones decades in the future where there's a maybe 1 in 1 million chance of impact that'll shrink to zero when they get more data. If there actually was any chance of hitting we would have the location pinned down to 3km at worst now and probably wouldn't have had time do shit about it (besides evacuate). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem. For most people, a non-event. Sca (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this (and the fact that we are an encyclopedia) is the relevant statement: "This is the closest object this size that we know of between 2027 and 2006 or even 1925. It's 0.6 kilometers wide and the fastest object to enter Earth's "sphere of influence" in 3 centuries (126,000 kph). (I can't find a list that covers more than 1900 to 2200AD). It'll have the fastest angular motion of any potentially hazardous object between 1927 and 2029". The article is in good shape, and I am frankly surprised people think this is not ITNworthy because the object will not strike the earth. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can see why some find this interesting, and I can see why others goes meh. It's relatively big, but not actually *that* close. (Think <1 lunar distance.) At no stage is the object AFAICT above a routine 1 on the Torino Scale. -- KTC (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Well some people wouldn't think of meters as relatively big cause they don't realize how powerful solar system speeds are but really anything having to do with hitting is not relevant or needed for ITN cause they're such low probability events. Near Earth objects, extrasolar planets and cosmology-type things are some of the biggest current research areas in astronomy and as additions to human knowledge about something beyond than our small blue dot they're posted sometimes. And doubling resolution seems like the least important of the remainder (electronics advance all the time). So I agree with Medeis' assessment. It's not that beyond the Moon, either. Only 1.2 times further when the Moon is far from Earth. (It passed 0.74 lunar distances from the Moon before Earth but I didn't think that was important enough to mention). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting a non-happening; seems appropriate for DYK. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • So it's only a "support" if we're doomed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • It would be more accurate to say that it would definitely be a support if we were doomed. ;) Other aspects of the situation could have made it more appropriate for ITN, such as observation potential. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support – Sensationalist comments in the nomination aside, asteroids are not something we often get to feature. It's in that murky area at the border of ITN and DYK, but given the media attention to it I see no harm in showcasing this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Wikipedia isn't a reference to itself. And this asteroid is passing quite a ways away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It's close by astronomy standards (the NASA list of close approaches can only be set to display 5, 10, ~20, ~40, ~80, ~120 and ~200 lunar distance maximums (the orbits of Earth and Mars average 205 lunar distances apart) and even if TB had been only 150 meters @ 1.266 LD that seems to happen about twice per decade). Only the brightness of the one in 2006 is known so TB is only probabilistically more likely to be larger than the 2006 one so that couldn't possibly be the blurb. Of all the ways one could word the relative infrequency I was not suggesting comparing it to Wikipedia with an asterisk* needed, that would be incredibly unimaginative and navel gazing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This sort of thing interests me greatly, but I don't think it is ITN material because of its lack of relevance for most visitors. It seems like most people would not have seen it (observation was apparently reasonably difficult), and it posed no threat whatsoever. However, it would be great DYK material. Kiwi128 (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Kogalymavia Flight 9268Edit

Article: Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (talk, history)
Blurb: Kogalymavia Flight 9268 (aircraft pictured) crashes in the Sinai Peninsula en route to St. Petersburg, Russia with the loss of all 224 people on board.
News source(s): Aviation Herald Mirror Sputnik

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Casualties not yet known for sure and whether there are survivors as it occurred just a few hours ago. Many deaths reported (if not all). Updated a lot recently about the movments, etc. Lihaas (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with expansion. The BBC is now reporting that most of the people on board have died. [2] Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon update; major aircraft accident. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As it is the top story for last 12 hours on most news channels around the world and why not Wikipedia. Sheriff (report) 11:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
btw- its not even been 12 hours since it happened. Someone in the media must b highly prophetic (or responsible?).Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, notability is obvious. sst✈discuss 11:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - top story. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - easily notable enough. Dismas|(talk) 12:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Per previous. Let's get this out there quickly. Sca (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Article in good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As already been noted, notable enough. Jim Carter 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 100 victims is a sufficiently large plane I'd think. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Target article says 224 deaths (no survivors). Same per AP, Reuters. Sca (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I've reworked the blurb now it is known there are no survivors. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there anything in the article about ISIS claiming to have shot it down? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Sca (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

October 30Edit


[Merge-Posted] 2015 Bucharest nightclub fireEdit

Article: Colectiv nightclub fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 29 people are killed in a nighclub fire in Bucharest, Romania.
Alternative blurb: ​A nighclub fire in Bucharest, Romania, resuts in at least 29 deaths and 184 injuries.
News source(s): BBC The Independent NBC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High death toll incident (and with 155 in hospital it could rise) in a country we don't cover often, it has gained reaction from the Romanian president and is currently the second most read on BBC News. The article needs very significant work before it could be featured though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

oppose mere macabre death count doesn't make it noteworthy of itself.Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring any significant impact on the world at large. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Masem: The instructions say "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country.". Please can you explain how your comment is not an instance of this? Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
      • My statement is not to meant to make the country were it happened a factor. It was a very much preventable accident in a nightclub somwhere. That does not make it a notable long term event that meets WP:NEVENT nor WP:NOT NEWS because it does not appear to have any long term impact out of the club and ppl involved (read: to the rest of the world at large). --MASEM (t) 12:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support upon update; notable event being widely covered in an undercovered part of the world(on ITN). The fire affected largely youth as it was at a rock concert. Government leaders in Romania have commented on this and altered their schedules; an emergency official said this was "without precedent". 331dot (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator, major disaster without precedent in Eastern Europe. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Support' major disaster, highest death toll since Brazil nightclub fire. Gizmocorot (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Withdraw support article posting out of current ITN context. Gizmocorot (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per those above, a sad event but not really ITN; nightclub fires are unfortunately fairly common. Where is all this "without precedent in Eastern Europe" coming from? It's not even without precedent in the last three years in Romania, and there have certainly been considerably worse incidents in East Europe in recent history. IIRC we did run the similar Formosa Fun Coast explosion, but with 500 injuries and significant ongoing international coverage that was an exceptional case. ‑ iridescent 10:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • When has there been a nightclub fire with a high death toll? Donnie Park (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Romanian officials are stating this is without precedent(in the NBC article). 331dot (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • An event with 17 injuries (10 serious) is hardly precedent for one with 27 deaths and over 150 hospitalised. It is being cited as without precedent in Romania, not without precedent in Eastern Europe. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Eugen Simon above uses the term "Eastern Europe". 331dot (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Thryduulf, look up; someone is claiming this is 'without precedent in Eastern Europe' two lines above me, which it clearly isn't. @331dot, both the other incidents I mention (Lame Horse fire and 2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions) were certainly nightclub fires. ‑ iridescent 10:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I apologize; though the bigger event was in Russia while the other was much smaller in scale than this one. What matters is how this is viewed in Romania. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Good spot Iridescent, clearly politicians talk crap to pander,. there word is not gospel.Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a high number and not been such incident for a long time. Donnie Park (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The Formosa Fun Coast explosion only killed 13 people. Seems notable to me that so many years after The Station nightclub fire and the other sound-foam ignition fires (eg Lame Horse fire, Kiss nightclub fire) that there are still clubs with non-flame retardant sound foam. -- Callinus (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since, there were incidents in last few days which are more important and had more far reaching affects than this. This is more of Romanian centered story instead of a global story. Putting this on ITN would mar other important stories by pushing them down in the list. Sheriff (report) 11:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You can request ITN be expanded to include more entries. Not a valid argument that more 'important' events happened same week... Gizmocorot (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@SheriffIsInTown: A common complaint here is that we have not enough turnover, not too much. Turnover is not a bad thing. If there are 'more important' events (importance is relative to the person) I invite you to nominate them. Also, the fact that this event is in Romania is immaterial(see "Please do not..." above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant number of deaths, notable. Top news in all media along with the plane crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Nightclub fires are a well-known genre of accident and often follow a pattern (poorly signed exits etc.), so an interesting topic to cover as well as a clearly notable event. Blythwood (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose – Tragic for victims and families, but I don't see the wider significance. Nightclub fires with multiple deaths, some more lethal than this one, are fairly common worldwide. This wil fade quickly as a topic. (But I can see I'm in the minority.) Sca (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There was only one person dead at the Fun Coast for awhile, then two for awhile and I had no idea it eventually reached 13. Some mortally wounded might hang on for quite awhile here too so the death toll could rise. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, decades ago as a reporter I covered this one, in which 165 died. There have been quite a few of these tragedies. Sca (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A relatively high number of casualties (injured included) and these kind of fires make for important case studies for organizers and safety officials world-wide. --Pudeo' 15:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is borderline, the notability being only due to the death toll, not some heretofore unknown principle that heavy metal fireworks displays kill nightclub audiences. But even if we were to post based on deathcount, the article now begins "The Colectiv nightclub fire was a fire". Serious quality improvements are needed. μηδείς (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't decide yet, but I won't make comparisons, especially to the Taiwanese park dust explosion, which I nominated months ago. The injuries toll is tremendous, and deaths are tragic and sudden. Unauthorised polytechnics must have been responsible for this; two band members died. The standards of ITN have been set high; we editors might be split in this because there have been other similar incidents before. We already posted this at Wikinews; so did the press. But ITN's quality of news shouldn't be the same as American (or restricted Chinese) mainstream news. C'mon, we should make ITN's quality higher, but I'm still undecided. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You might want to look at The Station nightclub fire where a heavy metal band's pyrotechnics killed 100 people in almost identical circumstances. The horrible thing is that the Romanian band didn't learn that lesson. But ITN is not about causes. I will not be upset whichever way this goes, but looking at it from a historical perspective it doesn't strike me as making the cut, except for the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  Sca (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with ISIS or Boko Haram. Can you explain what you mean by "regular mass shootings encouraged in other places around the globe"? μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Standard unwarranted jab at America to continue beating this poor, dead horse. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I tried my best to make ITN different from the international (not American) mainstream press, but somehow death and injury tolls, circumstances, and even the nature of the incident are too overwhelming to make it different from the press anymore. Still, I'm not happy with overemphasis on usual interior nightclub fires, not counting this year's Taiwanese one, which took place outdoors. I thought, "Can the city or Romania enhance the safety of nightclubs?" I want to lean toward "oppose" because other stories that we've posted are more usually impactful than this. However, it's too overwhelming to go to this path. But I'm not leaning "support" either... yet. This is "unusual", but airplane crashes (usual they have been), sports events, awards, and elections make "unusual" criterion useless and futile. More blurbs can be added to emphasize the tragedy; why not add a Romanian heavy metal band's involvement, a stampede, and/or an unauthorized equipment? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 21:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Casualty counting form a well-known issue with pyrotechnics. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think this is notable on an international level. With all of the items vying for ITN, an isolated fire of this size with a well-understood (and not surprising) cause is not front-page material IMO. And the causality count is not enormous compared to many other tragic events that occur regularly. Kiwi128 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - that is a major disaster in Romanian recent history with three days of mourning. - Gsvadds (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This event only has regional notability, not global. Plenty of people die from fires every day. South Nashua (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no requirement of "international notability"; we discourage such arguments under "Please do not..." above. We cover events affecting only a single country all the time. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Affecting a single country is different than being notable only in a single country. This item is not notable outside of where it happened given the context. South Nashua (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The fact remains that single-country arguments are not valid. I read much news coverage about this where I live, so it has some degree of notability outside Romania. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I disagree with your statement. Guidelines are recommendations for decisions, nothing more. Otherwise, there wouldn't be discussions on decisions, the decisions would just be made by following the guidelines. There's nothing wrong with a disagreement, and again, I also disagree with you about the notability of this news item. South Nashua (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I certainly hope that people are making decisions based on the guidelines, as otherwise they would have little meaning. Most of what we post is notable in only one country(most general elections, sporting events, some natural disasters, etc.) and if we declined to post them all because of that, very little would be posted. But yes, you can certainly make whatever arguments you wish, regardless of their validity. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
              • Likewise. A natural disaster is far different than a fire in a club. And calling someone else's comments invalid doesn't help increase the validity of your own comments. South Nashua (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
                • I'm not intending to increase the validity of my comments. It isn't me saying so, it is 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." Nevertheless, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
                    • Not sure what that page is and I'm unsure how that addresses my concern (broader notability, there are plenty of notable things that are notable beyond just where they are), but that's okay. I also thank you for this discussion. South Nashua (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Right now, the oldest blurb is the airplane disaster in Egypt, which happened a day later. Time for all of us to cool down and go elsewhere. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

    I see that the DYK will outbalance the other side in a couple hours. I'm not closing this discussion yet, but there won't be enough room for this story for long. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Never mind; I measured the length incorrectly. --George Ho (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Ho hum, posted anyway... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics ChampionshipsEdit

Article: 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: Kōhei Uchimura wins his sixth and Simone Biles wins her third consecutive all-around title at the 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships.
Alternative blurb: Kōhei Uchimura wins his sixth and Simone Biles wins her third consecutive all-around title at the 2015 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships.
News source(s): NBC Sports, Reuters, Guardian, ESPN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Possibly the greatest gymnast in recent times and an up-and-coming 18 year old winning record world title hauls. The event hasn't completely finished (apparatus finals still to go) but the all-round title is the highest individual title available. Depending on the blurb: main article needs a lot more prose, and the individual articles could do with some extra sourcingFuebaey (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Donnie Park (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't it "all-around" and not "all-round"? 59.88.205.4 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, my mistake. Fixed. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • These articles still need a lot of work. Female bio is tagged for lacking adequate sources. Event article looks short in prose. Male bio looks like it's in good shape, but it's the only one.
Did a bit of copyediting. Altblurb should be good to go. Fuebaey (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm seeing very little in the way of inline referencing, where do I go to verify the medal tables, the individual results etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought I had an extra day to work on this, on something I'm mildly interested in as well. Oh well, too many fresh stories at the moment. Fuebaey (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Mel DanielsEdit

Article: Mel Daniels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sports Illustrated

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: Basketball Hall of Famer, one of four players to have his number retired by the Indiana PacersSmerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - Seems to me like this would only meet Recent Death Criteria 2, and probably only weakly. Daniels seems important in his field, but IMO he might not be notable enough for ITN. Kiwi128 (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if improved Major player, member of the Basketball Hall of Fame demonstrates RD#2, as do all of his other honors (ABA All-Time Team, 2x ABA MVP, 7x ABA All-Star). – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Daniels is a Hall of Famer. 02:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per Muboshgu.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Article is pretty short and we've historically applied stricter scrutiny to athletes than simply being in their sport's hall of fame. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Leaving aside the Hall of Fame, he was a seven-time all star and two time MVP. Seems to meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for such a supposedly notable individual, article is barely above stub class, has about 1/3 without inline referencing and includes something called "Mel Daniels curiosidades y datos en espanol". Expand and reference, and we have a possible contender. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Wizardman 20:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

October 29Edit


[Posted] 2015 Japan SeriesEdit

Article: 2015 Japan Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Tokyo Yakult Swallows to win the 2015 Japan Series.
Alternative blurb: ​In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, led by Series MVP Lee Dae-ho (pictured), defeat the Tokyo Yakult Swallows to win the 2015 Japan Series.
News source(s): Japan Times, USA Today, CBS Sports

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: Noticed this on ITN/R, even though I'm not someone who follows baseball. Will probably be overshadowed by its more famous cousin next week. Needs some match summaries, if any baseball fans out there care to work on this. Fuebaey (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • It's ITN/R. I'll get WP:BASEBALL on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've updated the article. It's not nearly the size of 2015 World Series, but this should be sufficient for the main page. I'll be adding more details for the next hour or so, and tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure whether this is ready. It's a baseball tournament, so it is listed in ITN/R. "Game 5" section looks short, despite efforts to emphasize it. What troubles me more is the lack of consensus here. I mean, there isn't one person voting for it yet. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 19:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's on ITN/R, so nobody needs to "vote" on it. It only needs to be approved in terms of quality/update. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the summaries are there. I don't think there was an issue with Game 5, but Game 4 could do with more than two sentences. Rest seem short but adequate. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair point. I added more for Game 4. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Being a recurring event strikes again *sigh*. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Does an admin mind posting this before it gets stale? Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, TRM. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Tanzanian presidential electionEdit

Article: Tanzanian general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: CCM's John Magufuli (pictured) is elected President of Tanzania.
News source(s): NYT, SABC, WSJ

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: Closest fought election in decades. Based on official result but main opposition has yet to concede. Please note that the result came out on Thursday (African votes are comparatively slow). Since we don't post until confirmed, I'd rather we treat these like late RDs (where deaths are posted when they are announced in the media, not when they occur) instead of lumping them with stories that are about to roll off ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Wow, impressive article. Easy call based on notability and quality for strong support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
wait the election is still undr dispute. I added some to the page on the controversy. Or at the very least mention the controversy over the CCM (and the first time the opposition united under 1 candidate)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Raif BadawiEdit

Articles: Raif Badawi (talk, history) and Sakharov Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize.
Alternative blurb: ​Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize for the defense of freedom of thought and human rights.
Alternative blurb II: ​Saudi blogger Raif Badawi is awarded the 2015 Sakharov Prize for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian European Parliament

Article updated

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

 cyrfaw (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Another free-speech hero. (The comma after Saudi bloger isn't necessary or correct.) Sca (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a reasonable ITN blurb, but that said, looking over Badawi's article, there's one section unsourced (though it contains a named quote source, so should be easy) but I'm more considered on the second half of the article. I would like a second opinion because my first read through it it felt like it was WP:COATRACK on how much attention the Charlie Hebdo incident (particularly the post-incident rallies) in contrast to what attention Badawi's lashings got that happened at the same time. It is not that there isn't discussion outlining the different responses but as not an area I'm really familiar with it does feel wording choices are made to focus heavily on the different reactions, calling out on the world on why they didn't support Badawi more. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant, it is the first time a Saudi was given this award. --Egeymi (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember we posted news regarding this award in the past. And this time, too, it is clearly significant. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - significant. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Significance on the merits is already established as this is ITNR; as Masem states there are some sourcing issues. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a long-term, high-profile free speech campaigner granted an prestigious award, placing him alongside many very prominent public figures. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sakharov_Prize#Laureates has numerous notable people. Important topic that has implications for EU foreign policy. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, comments on the merits are not necessary as this is ITNR. Sourcing needs improvement before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Added sourcing. --cyrfaw (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd run with the third wording (alt II), as it's useful to avoid regionally-different spellings when we can. GRAPPLE X 14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I reformatted the whole "International reactions" section, but it still has a lot of quotes; more like quotefarming. George Ho (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It definitely is far too much quotefarming. The COATRACKing issue is not as bad but I feel that with that many quotes (and as long as they are), it's pushing a very specific POV; yes, much of the rest of the world was critical of the fact that he faced the lashings for standing up to human rights, that's important, but it needs a bit more neutrality before it can be ITN. We don't need to document every single reaction out there, a summary with a few choice quotes from predominant world leaders would be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Gutted another 10kB of quotes/refs. I think it might be passable now, though could do with another set of eyes to recheck. Fuebaey (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: once the last citation tag in the "Personal life" section is dealt with and the under-construction template is removed, I'll go ahead and post it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Fuebaey and I were able to make the article very clean from yucky stuff. Now the article is all set to go... right? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 02:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb II – Kudos to Fuebaey and George Ho for vastly improving the article in a timely manner. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] China abolishes one-child policyEdit

Article: One-child policy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy, introduced in 1978.
Alternative blurb: ​The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy and imposes a two-child policy.
Alternative blurb II: ​The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy and introduces a two-child policy.
Alternative blurb III: ​The People's Republic of China abolishes its one-child policy in favour of a two-child policy.
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A significant political step in one of the world's leading nations. Also, it's the sort of news that ITN seldomly covers (no catastrophe or sport event). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. A notable change in public policy for China. Brief updates have been added to the lead and in the article itself; a little more would be nice, I think. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - This change is definitely ITN appropriate and the article is fine, my only hesitation is from the linked article above this is a plan and not yet the actual revocation of the law/policy; it would likely make more sense to post on when the law is officially removed from the books. But I suspect this will be the point of major coverage. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the blurb should be clarified to mention that China, though it's abolishing the one-child policy, is effectively switching to a "two-child policy", which is still a government-imposed limit.--WaltCip (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ever heard Love Minus Zero/No Limit? Sca (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but suggest more specific blurb per WaltCip. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as WaltCip has noted, perhaps "in favour of a two-child policy". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as very notable, interesting news. I also think that the blurb should highlight the two-child policy, rather than implying that government restrictions have ended. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the alt-blurb. Notable change, and One-child policy is a reasonably quality article that will help readers learn more on the subject. Pedro :  Chat  15:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but oppose use of word impose in blurb. Gizmocorot (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
impose: "1. To establish or apply by authority. " Seems to fit perfectly. Also conveniently contrasts in diction with the positive-connotation word "abolish". Mamyles (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
added alt blurb with introduces instead of impose Gizmocorot (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Introduces implies a sort of optionalness not known for in policies of this nature put forth by the PRC leadership. Introduces implies they're making a suggestion or a recommendation. Imposes is exactly what is going on here; the PRC leadership tells the country what it will do with regards to their reproductive system, that sounds a lot like imposing. --Jayron32 01:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we make "two-child policy" the 2nd article to bold? This is George Ho actually (Talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I wanted to post but then realized that there's an update missing - the main article says nothing about the new policy. And the update is super thin at the moment. Makes sense to fix this first. --Tone 18:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added a sentence to the article linking to two-child policy, and mentioning continued criticism of China's reproductive policy. Still not a large update, but it should serve to meet ITN's minimum update guidelines. Mamyles (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a major political development regarding a very prominent policy. My preference is for "in favour of" in the blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - will likely have significant impact on the future demographics of China and the world. Prefer Alt Blurb 3. -Zanhe (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a major development in a major world power. Prefer Alt Blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - a substantial change of a very controversial policy in a world superpower. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb per reasoning by Jayron32. Feel free to pick at it and swap to "favo(u)r" or "introduces" if discussions swing that way. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Bidhya Devi BhandariEdit

Article: Bidhya Devi Bhandari (talk, history)
Blurb: Bidhya Devi Bhandari (pictured) is elected President of Nepal and the first woman to hold the office.
Alternative blurb: Bidhya Devi Bhandari is elected Nepal's first female President.
Alternative blurb II: Bidhya Devi Bhandari (pictured) is elected President of Nepal.
News source(s): (BBC News),(The Guardian)

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: First female President.  Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 07:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The article needs some work but otherwise a new head of state is ITNR. --Tone 07:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Head of State is ITN/R, albeit for a ceremonial role. While she is Nepal's first female President, her predecessor was the country's first President (the country previously was a constitutional monarchy prior to 2008). Update wise, this was a stub yesterday and now no longer is. However, the first two sections lack inline citations. Fuebaey (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fuebaey: Citation added. Thanks-- Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 09:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this ceremonial? Our articles on the seats of power in Nepal are very vague on this and while I know they are not the target article it would help tremendously to be clear if the president position is ceremonial or one of power. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    I had a look at https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/AGuidetoGovernmentinNepal.pdf (chapter 2). Yes, it's ceremonial, the president can delay but not reject decisions. Narayanese (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I would still Support since it is a elected position with some power, and her article is in decent shape, as well as ITNR. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR. Article is of decent quality. 117.221.121.244 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportSca (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Support as ITNR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli was not posted because of article quality issue. Let's not miss this one. Article is in decent shape. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "first woman" in blurb. It is about as condescending as possible. "First woman X" started being insulting about 80 years ago. Just say she was elected, please. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Added another ALTblurb. Satisfied, μηδείς? --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the "first woman" blurb. It is a landmark and real progress in Nepal, and nothing condescending about that. -Zanhe (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that she is the first female president is also being prominently featured in the news coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Tx.. Medeis- I don't think there is condescending about the blurb at all, Even the guardian and the NYT reported saying she is the first female president. Thanks-- Biplab Anand (Talk with me) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Alternative Blurb I think for a female to get elected as a president of a country is a good enough reason to be In The News, there is no need to mention "(pictured)", sounds odd since the picture is there and must be of the person featured in the story. United States couldn't elect a female president in over two hundred years while Nepal's second president is female. Mentioning the gender adds an additional value to the story. Sheriff (report) 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - this would be front page news material (as an election) even if Bhandari wasn't the first female president. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb (with picture), adds flavor to what would otherwise be a bland ITN/R post (and it's a notable part of the story). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

October 28Edit


[Closed] Cassini Enceladus flybyEdit

No consensus, nomination has gone stale. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Atmosphere of Enceladus (talk, history) and Cassini–Huygens (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Cassini probe performs a close flyby of Saturn moon Enceladus, studying its atmosphere.
Nominator's comments: A story with far less fanfare than the Pluto flyby but with some excellent science nevertheless. Both articles need updates (likely to happen when data start coming). --Tone 13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Tone 13:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looks like routine scientific mission, unless I'm missing something. No extraordinary findings either. Brandmeistertalk 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Actually, this pass by the moon wil be at a very low altitude and is designed to fly through a plume of fluid being ejected from the surface. Jusdafax 21:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support EXCEPT the blurb doesn't have a single target article in it. The nominator should look at other nominations if this is an issue. I'd support per se, but I am not sure what I'd be supporting, given how the nomination is formatted. μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually this has had a lot of "fanfare" with the ice, water, etc. More importantly, the discovery of oxygen on that comet was more notable as changing the theories of the formation of the universe.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Brandmeister. This does appear to be a routine scientific mission, considering NASA had done a flyby of Enceladus at least eight different times before this. There doesn't appear to be any significant findings of interest, either, at least to my knowledge. Prhdbt [talk] 01:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Somewhat notable flyby, but it isn't front page material IMO. If some groundbreaking discovery is made because of the flyby, then a re-nomination might be an order. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Ongoing: Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil WarEdit

Closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" is featured on Main Page. I have yet to see event developments aside from Reactions, even when the event is covered by news frequently. Pull it out? George Ho (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: No longer breaking news and no longer being regularly updated in such a way that it merits front-page status. The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen is still going on too, and we pulled it off months ago... -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace with Syrian Civil War. The Russian intervention is the last act of this ongoing event. If this is not an alternative and it's between keeping or removing Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War only, I am for keep: It's a war that involves multiple world powers, and I see plenty of news articles on it. Banedon (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with replacing it with the Syrian Civil War, as suggested by Banedon. Although a terrifyingly large article (>300 kB with over 800 references), it appears regularly updated whenever major events happen with links to numerous articles about notable offensives that take place. Probably the most useful link we can provide in regards to this conflict. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace as suggested above; Russia's involvement is now at the point where it is not top news, along with the involvement of other nations, but the conflict is still news in general and the page being updated.331dot (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: If we're going to replace it, we need a different article than Syrian Civil War. That article is not being updated at a rate I would consider to be in line with the purpose of the "Ongoing" section. There have been only two significant additions in the past 9 days. The most recent, [3] involves outdated information (from January!!! or earlier) and the other is mostly stylistic and organizational changes, [4] and did not add any new information. Thus, in the past 9 days (from the 50 diff page history) we haven't had a single substantive update on the Syrian Civil War to that article. If it were an article in the main ITN section, it'd have rotated off by now. I can't support this for a good replacement. As of now, unless someone can massively update that article, and/or propose a new target, I have to vote for Remove and not replace. --Jayron32 11:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove there is no need to replace it with one of the numerous conflicts going on around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove I don't see significant updates to the Syrian Civil War to use that in its place as more notable than other conflicts at the present time. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just a comment, the Syrian Civil War receives more news coverage than any other ongoing conflict I'm aware of. It also involves four of the world's five UN security council members. What other present conflict is there that is comparable to this? Banedon (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Lots of conflicts and situations get continuing news coverage, but the question is how much of that leads to encyclopedic content. That's the value we need to judge here and I don't see that for the Syrian civil war right now; it's happening, but it's not always significant events. (as when Russia opted to get involved). --MASEM (t) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Not to say you're wrong, but IF there is more information about the Syrian Civil War available which could be added to our article, it has yet to be added to the article. The purpose of the "ongoing" section of ITN is the same as the rest of ITN: To highlight quality, new Wikipedia content on quality articles. Whether or not the Syrian Civil War is still getting new news reports isn't important, if no one is using that news to update the article in question. All that matters, the ONLY thing that matters here, if you want this to be in ITN, is that the article has quality updates. Any other argument makes no bit of difference. If you want it posted, fix the article. It will be posted. --Jayron32 15:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War; will let discussion about replacing it with Syrian Civil War play out a little further. SpencerT♦C 20:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 27Edit


[Posted] RD: Philip FrenchEdit

Article: Philip French (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian

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: One of notable British film critics and radio producers. He was appointed OBE and given "Critic of the Year" in 2009. George Ho (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as very important to his field; we posted Roger Ebert and this person seems to be similar. His successor said he inspired "a generation of film critics", had gotten recognition related to his field. The update seems cited but I don't know if anything more can be said about his death. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I added another small detail about his death, but that's all I can do. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Article looks fine. Notability as a leading critic is enough to merit posting. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Leading writer on his specialist topic. I've read his book Westerns which is absolutely fascinating and insightful, so support. Blythwood (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per above supports, which I find convincing. Article marked "ready" so suggest we post. Jusdafax 17:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ranjit Roy ChaudhuryEdit

Article: Ranjit Roy Chaudhury (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Business Standard

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: One of prominent Indian pharmacologists. Also chairman of WHO–Indian Gov. joint programme. He had two awards. George Ho (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Sure seems to meet RD#2. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not entirely sure about whether he meets the RD bar (not my field), but I think the state of the article nudges this over. Sad how many notable non-Western bios only get written after they've died. Fuebaey (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

October 26Edit


[Posted] Afghanistan earthquakeEdit

Article: 2015 Afghanistan earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An earthquake of 7.5-magnitude strikes Afghanistan.
Alternative blurb: ​A 7.5-magnitude earthquake strikes Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan killing more than 150.
News source(s): (NBC News),(Fox News)

Nominator's comments: Major earthquake of 7.7 magnitude Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 11:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support - pending article improvement. --Saqib (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the article a bit. Should be ready enough to go on the main page? Blurb needs to be changed. Majority of casualties are from Pakistan so this is not purely Afghanistan earthquake.--Saqib (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements - No question on importance. I would just give this a few hours to get the initial details and death estimates right and clean up the article a bit. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Visited 5 different news source and gotten 4 different death and injuries count, none of which matches what's currently on the article. Give it a little time for more information to come out. -- KTC (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Article not ready yet.--WaltCip (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb with death toll... Gizmocorot (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and marked as ready. Just needs agreement on a blurb ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - alternative blurb and with the article in its renamed form (Hindu Kush earthquake) Spiderone 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb with death toll. Capitalistroadster (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Although, it's after the fact but you need to remove India from the headline as earthquake did not affect India much, it felt in India but then it felt in so many other countries as well, if we are not mentioning those then we do not need to mention India. Casualties are only being reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Sheriff (report) 17:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Update death toll to 310+ or atleast over 300.--Stemoc 07:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    It was already   Done although WP:ERRORS is the more appropriate place to report items after they have already been posted to the MP. --Jayron32 00:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

October 25Edit


[Stale] RD: Flip SaundersEdit

Article: Flip Saunders (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBA.com

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 prominent NBA coaches who died so suddenly. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Saunders was a good coach, but he was not of the transcendent level, like a Dean Smith or Jerry Tarkanian (who both deserved RD, so please don't re-litigate those postings). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Appears to have been just a regular coach who had some success. No championships, and no coach of the year honors. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Ivorian presidential electionEdit

Article: Ivorian presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Alassane Ouattara (pictured) is re-elected for a second term as President of the Ivory Coast.
News source(s): France24, Reuters, VOA

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.

 Fuebaey (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: ITN/R. Article could be larger, but it is adequate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Not exciting or splashy, but decent article and INT/R as noted. Jusdafax 10:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits not required as this is ITNR; update and blurb are all that it is needed. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not gonna close this nomination. Unfortunately, newer stories have been posted, leaving no room for this story. I mark this as "Stale". --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 02:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support National-level election. South Nashua (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

[Stale] Omani electionsEdit

Article: Omani general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Oman, almost 612,000 voters elect a new Consultative Assembly.
News source(s): Tagesschau, Times of Oman

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: Well, as a general election in a sovereign state, this is ITN/R as far as I understand. However, the election does not really make a difference and there is no winning party as parties are illegal in Oman. Feel free to discuss. Maybe someone could create a table with all the winning candidates? I don't really have time for that now... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: At this point, the article should not be posted in my opinion. If one were to replace the dates, # of voters and names of candidates, this article could reasonably used as an article for an Oman election from a previous year. There should be text outlining what makes this election different, even though it's "fixed". Without an update like that, I wouldn't consider the article to be sufficiently updated. SpencerT♦C 15:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This falls under ITN/R, but I agree somewhat with Spencer in that the update is insufficient. It should ideally summarise the results of the election, even if the candidates all stand as independents. The final paragraph (four sentences) attempts to do this but only mentions one winning candidate, out of 85. Fuebaey (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That was the only candidate that I could find that was picked out in the coverage of the election. For everyone else, there is just a winner's list... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guatemalan presidential electionEdit

Article: Guatemalan general election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Jimmy Morales is elected President of Guatemala after winning a run-off.
News source(s): Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC

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: Former comedian versus former first lady in a presidential run-off, with a landslide. Fuebaey (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Support – important governmental change. --Jenda H. (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Update odd there is no update I can see, given the actor Morales won 70% of the vote. I can't get to this for a few hours, but it should obviously be posted once it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a late night nom, so I didn't get to it until now. I've added some prose, albeit incomparable to the seemingly comprehensive Spanish version. There's scope to expand, but I think it gets the main point across. Fuebaey (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • ASAP more than 3KB five sentence three source expansion for rather unusual landslide opposition presidential election. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - explanation needed on this notable election? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hamilton F1 World ChampionEdit

Articles: Lewis Hamilton (talk, history) and 2015 Formula One season (talk, history)
Blurb: Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins a third World Drivers' Championship in Formula One, after his team Mercedes secured the Constructors' Championship.
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Lewis Hamilton (pictured) wins the Formula One World Drivers' Championship and Mercedes secures the Constructors' Championship.
News source(s): Guardian

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: Notability should be a no brainer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Highly notable. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support and sit back waiting for all the "well it's not over yet, what about the other races" brigade to demonstrate their position. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment: (edit conflict) The blurb implies the constructors' championship was only just decided when it was decided earlier in the season. The bolded article should be 2015 Formula One season rather than Hamilton or Mercedes. Newsworthiness isn't an issue as both are covered under ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to suggest an altblurb, I agree that it should be made clearer that the constructors' was decided earlier, but I tried to keep the blurb short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If it's such a big deal, replace the word "as" with "after" before "his team". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Added Altblurb. The season (ITN/R article) is updated but not fully sourced. For those that don't follow F1, we could use the infobox picture rather than one that looks like a random driver in a car. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I believe he is quite well recognizable with his helmet. Also, he is a racing driver after all, and he achieved the feat looking like that. The infobox photo is a little old, there's a newer one from two weeks ago, but he looks like a jackass in that one... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a person who hasn't followed F1 in years, "recognisable" assumes that everyone knows what his helmet looks like, which is similar to a football (soccer) fan describing Cristiano Ronaldo, to a layman, by the colour of his boots. Fuebaey (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, what the hell is wrong with an actual photo of Hamilton himself? This bizarre image is impenetrable to most of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. He has secured the championship. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Winning (or clinching?) the title in one of the world's largest, if not the world's largest, motorsport is an obviously huge deal. Zappa24Mati 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but oppose both blurbs as is - the blurbs should make it clear that it is the 2015 Formula One season that is being referred to. So for instance in the alternative blurb, instead of "Formula One World Drivers' Championship", I'd prefer "2015 Formula One World Drivers' Championship". Banedon (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Polish electionsEdit

Article: Polish parliamentary election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Law and Justice party (prime minister designate Beata Szydło pictured) wins the most seats in the Sejm.
Alternative blurb: ​The Law and Justice party, led by Jarosław Kaczyński, gains the largest vote share in the Polish parliamentary elections.
Alternative blurb II: ​Le parti Droit et Justice remporte les élections parlementaires en Pologne.
Alternative blurb III: ​Die nationalkonservative Partei Recht und Gerechtigkeit (PiS) um Spitzenkandidatin Beata Szydło (Bild) hat die Parlamentswahl in Polen gewonnen.
News source(s): BBC, Politico, NYT

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.

 Fuebaey (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support First conservative win since collapse of communism in Poland in 1989. Gizmocorot (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment glad to see we're not itching to use "plurality" which makes little sense to most English speakers. Lead is still based around exit polls so obviously oppose until the reality dawns. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, if the exit polls are correct, this is going to be an outright majority, so this wouldn't be an occasion to use the word "plurality". It's not really the first conservative win (Law and Justice was already in power 2005–2007), but it would be the first time since 1989 that the winning party woulnd't need to form a coalition. — Kpalion(talk) 11:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support pending article improvement. Article has quite a few unsourced sections. -Zanhe (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until Monday. Official results are announced then. All we have at the moment are exit polls. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

* Strong support – Law and Justice winning 39 percent is an ominous development for the EU. (Note: I don't think Sejm, the Polish word for parliament, will be understood by most English-lang. readers.) Sca (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Sejm" is one of those words that for some reason is used a lot in the media (for example the Telegraph uses it without a gloss), probably because it lacks a direct English translation (similarly, articles on German politics usually use Bundestag, because the most literal translation "Federal Diet" is rather confusing). Smurrayinchester 16:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: nearly all english language readers have the ability to click the blue link... --Jayron32 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Why not make the blurb instantly intelligible to the reader? Or would that not be the Wiki way? Sca (talk)
PS: I'd never heard the word sejm 'til I lived Warsaw in the mid-'90s. It's not an English word, and its Polish orthography makes it unpronounceable to unschooled English speakers (even though it's actually easy to pronounce). Sca (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the alternative blurb. Important development in Europe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait until Tuesday, The official results have been released showing Law and Justice getting 37.5 per cent of the vote but the official number of seats will not be announced until Tuesday. I would suggest that we not put anything up until we get the official results. See US News and World Report
Preceding comment posted by CapitalistroadsterSca (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I wasn't able Tuesday to find "official" results, but I don't think we should delay posting this significant story any longer. Sca (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support blurb mentioning Ms Szydlo, as she is the candidate to be Prime Minister, although she is not the party's overall leader '''tAD''' (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post already. The etymology of 'sejm' "household" is clear enough that challenging it is beyond bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
'Sejm' old offensive blather. Sca (talk)
  • Note - As of my post, the article has been tagged for accuracy. Might be a good idea to clear that up before putting this one on the Main Page. Jusdafax 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – updated with official results from Reuters. Sca (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Still top-tagged with disputed factual accuracy. Could someone resolve it? Brandmeistertalk 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it may be "post now" or "post already" but with a nasty maintenance tag, we need to work it out. Having said that, I'm not clear on what parts of the article need fixing, There are whole paragraphs without inline referencing and the table claiming to referenced by [38] is pure fiction. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready: Tag has been removed as Talk page indicates clear consensus for the current presentation (prime ministerial candidates instead of party leaders in infobox). -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Sca (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Old news. Sca (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know why altblurbs are written in Polish language. There must be a reason or a mistake. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
George, this is the Pollish-langauge version:
W wyborach parlamentarnych w Polsce zwyciężyło Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (na zdjęciu prezes partii Jarosław Kaczyński) uzyskując 37,58 % głosów w wyborach do sejmu.Sca (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The only Polish found in the blurbs are proper nouns. I'm not sure why the second (French) and third (German) blurbs were added but perhaps you could ask the proposer. Fuebaey (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
To show how far behind we are. Sca (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT. Ask some questions if it doesn't make sense to you. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Fish, vistors, and news.... Sca (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. Consensus seems to be the updates are sufficient, and maintenance issues seem to have been dealt with. --Jayron32 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: Extremely disappointing to see this took three days to post, with the rationale for holding up posting being a tendentious tag that even a cursory glance at the Talk page would demonstrate shouldn't have been placed. I'm glad it's finally up, but jeez, one hopes to see more initiative from the editing community -- yes, that includes the good folks here at ITN/C -- in getting stuff like this ship-shape. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Fully agree with preceding comment by Kudzu. – Sca (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

October 24Edit


[Posted] RD: Maureen O'HaraEdit

Article: Maureen O'Hara (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): 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: Very legendary and successful actress --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • support - notable and accomplished actress.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support but needs improvement - As TRM points out, most of the article is unreferenced. I'm not fully sure on her meeting the RD criteria but would edge in favor of meeting that. --MASEM (t) 17:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious candidate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. Notable, influential definitely - one of the last of her generation, but the article needs much more thorough sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Per Masem. Very famous. Sca (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Famous actress with a long career and numerous film roles with John Ford and John Wayne. The article needs some improvements, but that shouldn't stop her from an inclusion. --Clibenfoart (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the last people from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Her filmography turned into a separate page. I need help on reinserting it to parent article. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong or unusual about having the filmography at its own article, given its size. You might want to pick out a few works and list her first and last movies briefly below the redirect to the separate article. I'll be busy for the next several hours, or I'd do it myself now. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
As a comment, while we would not worry about the state of linked articles that stem from the bolded one for ITN, having that many unsourced quotes on the filmography page is a bad thing and should be remedied, though that would not hold up her main article. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support article has a couple of tags need addressing, but her career and recognition obviously merit posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance; household name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly RD-worthy. Agree with George Ho that the filmography should be restored to the article, instead of another click away. Jusdafax 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have referenced every tagged item. I don't oppose restoring the filmography per se, but doing so would be highly problematic since there are quite a few editorial statements about the works that have no references. Simply adding a selected works list with bluelinked works in which she's credited would be fine, if someone wants to do that. I see no reason not to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • While this clears the CNs, there's several whole paragraphs unsourced that are more than just listing film credits (that is, contain claims that needs statements). --MASEM (t) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Please tag a few items then. Most of the "she appeared in" stuff does not need a ref if there's a bluelink to a work she's been credited in. It is a lot easier to look for refs for tagged items than to read peoples' minds as to what they would like reffed but haven't specified. PS< I will only be on line a few minutes at a time for the next 3 1/2 hours, so the nominator is invited to help with the article. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
At minimum each paragraph needs an inline source, period. (And if there were unsourced quotes on the page, they would need those). I've also found that editors get very upset when you orange tag or CN tag an article that's been nominated at ITN, because they seen it as a malicious action, so it becomes counter productive. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I CN tag such nominees all the time, but if no one wants more than at least one ref per paragraph that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
A minimum of one inline per paragraph helps to make sure that readers have a good expectation where to find a source to back up material, and gives potential editors a sign that material should be sourced when they add. More sources are always appreciated and a few places (in general, not here) where sources are required like on quotes, but a minimum of one inline per paragraph is a good rule of thumb. (I'm adding this comment after its been posted and the diff Medeis links below and it's fine now). --MASEM (t) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
W'll, jeez, Masem, barnstars is . . . thataway. μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is updated by well over 2KB with more than some two dozen sources, at worst one per paragraph, although usually well better. This should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 03:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Spencer:, that was quick! μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 23Edit


RD: Murphy AndersonEdit

Article: Murphy Anderson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/prolific-dc-comics-artist-murphy-anderson-passes-away-at-89

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: Major comic book artist, forty year career. In several comic book halls of fame. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Article is in pretty good shape, needs a few refs but not much overall. I won't vote on this since it is not a field I am intimate with, but the guy seems storied enough that I suggest editors here have a look. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Don't really see how this gentleman was more significant than the average comic book artist. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

RD: Thomas G. StembergEdit

Article: Thomas G. Stemberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Boston Globe Fortune

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: Businessman who founded Staples Inc. and pioneered the office supply store. Kudzu1 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Criteria seems there. Article is fine save for one sentence that needs a source "Stemberg is also an ardent philanthropist in myriad of areas pertaining to education." but that should be easy to add and/or remove it until one can be found. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I doubt he's recognizable outside the US, even if Staples Inc. has branches in several countries. Brandmeistertalk 19:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending some article flow and sourcing improvements. It's not just that Stemberg founded Staples, listen to Mitt Romney talk about his significance:

Romney recalled that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn’t really considered before.

“Without Tom pushing it, I don’t think we would have had Romneycare,” Romney said. “Without Romneycare, I don’t think we would have Obamacare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn’t have health insurance.”[1]

References

  1. ^ Luna, Taryn (October 23, 2015). "Staples founder Thomas Stemberg dies at 66". Boston Globe. Retrieved October 23, 2015.
So that's impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per criterias met.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are thousands upon thousands of companies. Co-founding one, even a very notable one, doesn't necessarily equal ITN-level significance in one's field, and he doesn't appear to be a particularly recognizable figure, either inside the US or out. I also don't give much weight to the Obamacare angle - lots of people had suggested similar proposals, and I doubt Obamacare is what Stemberg had in mind. Having said that, I suppose he was an innovator in retail office supply, but that seems like a pretty narrow field. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not meeting the RD criteria. As stated, founding a notable company doesn't make one very important to their field. His influence on the ACA (likely unintended) doesn't make him notable to a field. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous two comments. Mr. Stemberg seems notable only within a discrete U.S. business niche. Sca (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd just like to point out that nearly all businesspeople engage in charitable giving due to the benefits in the tax code and for the approbation of their peers, and mentioning their charity in RD nominations does nothing for the chances of getting posted. Abductive (reasoning) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Some people give enough to charity to earn the title "philanthropist", and it does mean something. The Walton family engages in almost zero charitable efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane PatriciaEdit

Article: Hurricane Patricia (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Patricia, the strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere, makes landfall in Mexico.
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Patricia, on the Pacific coast of Mexico becomes the strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere.
News source(s): weather.com, CNN 'the most dangerous storm in history', BBC Hurricane Patricia: Mexico awaits 'strongest ever' storm

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article in good shape, storm is monstrous record breaker, should be ready to post on landfall μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I'd say a major hurricane, especially with a qualifier like "strongest ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere", is worth posting. It helps that the article is in nice shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Wait until landfall actually occurs before posting, of course. Still offshore at the moment. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I was surprised this wasn't up yet, so the blurb is prenature by a few hours. I see no reason we can't post with an appropriate blurb, then update is as needed. There is no question whether it will make landfall. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait Per my comments on the talkpage, wait until landfall and until there's a clearer picture of what damage it's causing. We already have Typhoon Koppu in ITN—if this runs now, we'll have the perverse situation of "storm uproots a few trees and is possibly linked to a landslide" running above "storm kills 50 people and leaves 100,000 homeless". ‑ iridescent 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree this should wait till landfall, which will be by this evening (the next 6 hours or so), but the hurricane is being compared to Typhoon Haiyan which killed 6,300, and has sustained winds of 200mph 350 kmph.
I mostly agree, except that 200+ mph and a record 879 mbar is by itself more a piece of news than uprooting a few trees. Cato censor (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While we can't post a "makes landfall" blurb yet, we can definitely post a blurb about it being the strongest hurricane on record. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, on that basis I have added an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, You can also give some figures in the blurb as "strongest ever" may not convey that much information anymore in this day and age where such records get broken almost every year. E.g. one can mention the 325 km/h sustained wind speeds and the 400 km/h wind gusts. Count Iblis (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Strongest ever, eh? Yeah that's notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 19:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above. It is already causing heavy weather on coastal towns. See The wheather channel. Cato censor (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Marking ready on the basis it is the strongest hurricane ever, that altblurb can be used now. The storm already killed six as it was forming, if that matters, but most importantly our readers will be looking for this, given the coverage. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I posted a cut-down alt blurb. The "on the Pacific coast of Mexico" part of the original altblurb sounded ungrammatical to me, so I left it out for now. Perhaps someone can suggest a better formulation if people feel we need the "near Mexico" part. In any case, the blurb should be updated once it makes landfall. Thue (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Very much agree with posting it now. The blurb can be updated as necessary when there are new updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It has also made landfall, but I appreciate the effort made in shortening blurbs. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised by posting without much effect...but good job on tweaking it. IOfcourse we can update if, lord forbid, its so bad.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The blurb currently sounds like a fragment. Should it not say "Hurricane Patricia (satellite image pictured) becomes the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere."? Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. SpencerT♦C 06:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      • @Spencer: I think you should replace the word "hurricane" with the word "tropical cyclone" because technically, since only tropical cyclones in the North Pacific east of the International Date Line and the North Atlantic are called hurricanes, Hurricane Patricia is the most intense "hurricane" ever recorded. Dustin (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Dustin V. S.: I'm admittedly not very experienced in storm nomenclature and I see both terms used seemingly interchangeably in the article; this is probably best brought up at WP:ERRORS. SpencerT♦C 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Puisseguin road crashEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Puisseguin road crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 40 people are killed in a road crash near Puisseguin, France.
News source(s): Der Spiegel, BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major incident. Article still needs some work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending article expansion Oppose per below ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose article in current state, would support if the article was in a better state. It's too short, the article contains little more text than would be in the blurb above. --Jayron32 12:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is an unfortunate traffic accident, but there's presently no evidence of any purposeful misdoings here. This would likely fail WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
oppose tis mere counting of casualties dotes not notability make. Also per Masem.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on improvements it is a worst France road accident in more than 30 years. Number of causalities is also significant. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Horrific mass-casualty event and something highly unusual in a developed country. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not thatunusual. Germanwings went down ad there have been other road/bus accidents involving tourists etc(in Switzerland a year or so ago if memory serves).Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This would of been posted if it had taken place in...--109.149.136.178 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No, there's nothing about the nation where this happened to consider. It was a unfortunate traffic accident: a truck driver (with no evidence they were doing anything outside of proper driving) lost control of his truck, tried to but failed to avoid hitting a bus carrying a number of senior passengers, and when the bus crashed and caught fire, they couldn't get most of them out in time. Tragic regardless where in the world it happened, but it is not going to make any significant impact on the world at large being a random traffic accident. This is why it fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NEVENT. Perfect story for Wikinews, but not ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
      • If it happened in Times Square with the same outcome? Well would it be the same outcome. No doubt it would get 10x the media coverage, even if it was a tragic accident. --109.149.136.178 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
        • If the exact same situation occurred in Times Square, it would still not be appropriate for WP or ITN, even if it got 10x the coverage. It's a very short-tailed news story because it was simply a tragic traffic accident. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the IP above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A bad accident, but (a) we should not be using the number of fatalities to decide to post or not, and (b) we should only be promoting solid content. This article is 617 B of prose at the moment of my typing this. That's not the kind of article we should be showcasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to note, it's been four hours since I posted my oppose, and the article is still 617 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's now been more than 24 hours since I opposed and the article is 839 bytes. Still not postable even if there was consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Contrary to the implication that this would have been posted had it taken place in the US or UK, no it wouldn't. Take a look through List of traffic collisions (2010–present) and you'll see that comparable incidents in the Anglosphere generally don't even have articles. (2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash is an exception, but that's probably owing to the major legal case still going on about it.) The closest recent equivalent, 2015 Karachi traffic accident, wasn't even suggested for ITN; Acayucan bus crash was suggested but overwhelmingly opposed. ‑ iridescent 18:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support iff improved - significant road accident with high death toll. But the article cannot be posted in its current condition. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per international covarage. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is just an isolated traffic accident with no deeper meaning, consequence, or connection. Thue (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very tragic accident indeed. Still a lot of overemphasis in attempt to prove that media are interested in French local news. Coverage in the article is limited at best. And I don't give a damn about whether bus and lorry accidents are rare in France. Bus crashes are... newsworthy, but they do not reach to the Wikipedic standards of ITN, especially when nominations on past bus crashes (as said by someone else) resulted in "no consensus". Now as I realize, consensus are editors-in-chief (or editors in charge)... sorta. George Ho (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If an aeroplane accident killed 40 people, it would undoubtedly be posted. No-one has ever given a persuasive explanation of why an aeroplane accident that kills lots of people is far more notable than a road accident that kills the same number. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Because no one asked that question. Airplane accidents are rare, and car accidents are common. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      • And I really think we should reconsider posting every air accident, even the smaller ones. Some of them are just not that important. Thue (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
        • A key thing to remember about accidents involving any type of public or large commercial transportation service (Airplanes, trains, and water-going vessels) is that these industries are generally highly regulated and any accident is going to be explored in depth by authorities and potentially many others. That draws attention to them and gives them some type of long-tail story if a number of deaths are involved. Traffic accidents like this will have some exploration by local authorities but there is nowhere close to the level of scrutiny that the larger accidents would get, hence why they tend to not be articles on WP much less ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sure. But sometimes a 40-casulties air crash is just "low-standards third-world aircraft company doesn't follow good practice, makes obvious mistake", which isn't really that interesting. Thue (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, agreed - just that I'd consider it a rule of thumb to consider the differences between commercial air/rail/sea transport accidents and traffic accidents, not a hard line as implied. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think fatality count absolutely can be a factor in some cases, but the List of traffic collisions (2010–present) shows this is the fourth traffic accident to claim over 40 lives this year alone, and a quick survey of the list as a whole shows most such incidents don't even get articles, making it a safe bet they didn't get posted ITN either. Granted, this is an exceptionally large accident for France, and most such accidents take place in countries with considerably more dangerous roads, but I think that's a bit too fine of a line to draw for ITN purposes. This is another case where my gut reaction was "of course it should get posted" but due diligence convinces me otherwise. - OldManNeptune 02:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I do not find this interesting. In fact, I'll go further to say that I think the article is worthy for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. It is just a simple traffic accident, nothing more. Banedon (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – While tragic for the numerous victims and their families, and widely carried Friday by Eng.-lang. media, the event lacks wider significance or ramifications, and will fade fast as a topic. Sca (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - tragic and high number of deaths. beyond the usual crash. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose from nominator. I nominated this in the hope that the article would be updated, which I don't have the time for. Since that didn't happen, I don't see the quality anywhere near main page status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 22Edit


[Closed] Sweden school attackEdit

It doesn't seem we'll get a consensus to post here. Therefore, the best idea is to close the nomination. --Tone 08:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Trollhättan school attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A masked man attacks students at Kronan School in Trollhättan, Sweden, killing two people and injuring two more students.
News source(s): [5], [6], [7]
Nominator's comments: A unique event in Sweden, has received attention world wide. BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sad, but not an extraordinary occurrence among school attacks worldwide. Brandmeistertalk 15:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OpposeWeak support Per Brandmeister; a tragedy but not significant on the larger scale of things. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Compared to American school mass killings I suppose? "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    As details of this become clearer, the reason this story is notable is the apparent motive (what looks to be strong anti-immigrant beliefs) and the method (the fact he used the Halloween time of year to disguise himself and enter the school with a bladed weapon). It's not the numbers though that makes this ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This would not be an extraordinary occurrence in the United States. Let's be clear about that. The last time there was a school attack in Sweden was when Khrushchev was the leader of the Soviet Union.--WaltCip (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak OpposeSmall-event with very localized effects. Loss of life is sad, but aside from taking place in a school it's nothing different from any other daily homicide/double homicide that happen en masse across the globe. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Small event with very localized effect = swedish and not american.. when it happens in America is happens to the world, when it happens in Sweden it is "local". Just pointing it out.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    That's not the case. Umpqua Community College shooting got dismissed as "parochial". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, it didn't; it got dismissed as not being unusual for the country in which it happened. I would have supported such a major event in Sweden. Having said that, I am opposing this as well. Black Kite (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, it was dismissed as "business as usual" in America, where nothing changes every time children and teachers get murdered thanks to the amendment. Muboshgu, you have been informed countless times that mass murders occur on US soil daily, so why are complaining about this incredibly rare and unusual event? How can you compare this to the daily slaughter of Americans through gun crime? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    For me personally, it hearkens back to the Vietnam War when Walter Cronkite would close out every broadcast by announcing the number of Americans that had died fighting in Vietnam that day. Entirely different realm from this story.--WaltCip (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I don't appreciate the accusation of bias here in the least and suggest you refrain from doing so again in the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Small incident, even by Scandinavian standards. Abductive (reasoning) 16:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Nice save.. lol.. but not true though.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    2011 Norway attacks. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, which was the worst atrocity since the Second World War. This is super-rare, just because the rest of the world has become accustomed to mass slaughter of teachers and children almost daily, you need to consider the context, e.g. "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history.".... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I would be a hypocrite if I supported this after opposing pretty much all of the parade of US school murders. I'm actually surprised this is getting international coverage; I suspect this is due to the sensational nature (armed with a sword?). I understand this is a very rare event in most countries, let alone Sweden, but I am wary of allowing us to post any attack on a school that results in fatalities. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support extraordinarily rare event, unlike all the US mass shootings we see daily, this will have a long term impact as the authorities change things in light of what happened, unlike in the US where mass shootings and murders of teachers and children are now accepted as commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Remember that it wasn't a shooting here. It was a guy with a sword (he was shot during apprehension). It's crystal balling to assume this will have an impact. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It is crystal balling to assume it will not. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • And the fact that it is not a shooting but stabbings are further evidence towards it being an unusual event in this part of the world.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
          • On the other hand stabbings are not so rare in Sweden at lest this year. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It's crystal balling either way. Presently, we have a case of this being a spot of violence that has left 3 people (including the attacker) dead. That on the larger scope of things is negligible when many many more people die from violence in areas like the Middle East each day. That could change (see Almighty Drill's comment about potentially a larger story here), but right now it's a story that happened. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same here. Let's not overemphasize this as media have been doing lately. George Ho (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Odd point George: " "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." hardly over-emphasising stuff is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – I created this article, and I see what people are saying for and against. However, there is circulation on the perpetrator which I won't go into here, but if true, would have a profound effect on this case's importance '''tAD''' (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Well it sounds like you should go into it. Why be so nebulous? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Unsure why TAD is being coy about this, since it's appeared in at least one reliable source; there's an allegation (unconfirmed) that this was an attempted Breivik-style terrorist attack by a far-right extremist. I personally wouldn't consider that as having any effect either way on notability, unless he turns out to be part of a broader conspiracy. ‑ iridescent 18:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • When I wrote that comment, I had only seen Anonymous' doxing on Twitter. They could well have doxed an unrelated person. It is quite clear now that they had not '''tAD''' (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Now support: Likely political motive and first attack on a Swedish school since JFK was in the White House. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Violent crime is not as common in Scandinavia as it is in many other places, but this is still far too low level of an event to warrant attention on ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Ironic: "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." - if this was the case in the US, we'd be posting yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed ironic. When a similar thing happens in America it is of "world interest" when it happens in Sweden it is "a local story of little importance". How ironic :)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    I find it ironic that TRM is pushing for a single isolated attack that as far as I can tell has no greater significance, while opposing any gun violence in the U.S. that demonstrates our inherent and ongoing gun problem, which is resulting in attempts at legislation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Speculation on your part. You are not here to weigh this against an American gun violence issue. So, you can do better.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Just trying to make sense of a perceived inconsistency. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    I find it ironic that you make that claim. The US is completely blind to its internal problem of mass slaughter of children on a daily basis. More advanced societies find this to be abhorrent, hence why this news item is so significant. I'm sure I don't need to repeat the statement "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" to make it clear how significant this is. To cover all the mass murders in America, we'd need a ticker which would update more than once per day. This is absolutely different, and important because of that difference. If the Americans here think it's just "meh" then more fool them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    You mischaracterize the situation by saying we're "completely blind" to it. We're not. Gun control activists are at a weakened state while the National Rifle Association has demonstrated it has more power than we ever thought. This comment just shows me you don't understand the issue of gun violence in the U.S. And since it doesn't relate to this nom, I'm done on it. I already supported this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unless VIPs were involved, I cannot recall any criminal violence being posted here with only two victims. On a side note I must ask, yet again, that people refrain from commentary that clearly violates WP:FORUM. This is and has been for some time an ongoing problem whenever these kinds of stories come up. I honestly don't care what anyone's views of American gun laws are. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR POLITICAL EDITORIALIZING. To all concerned, please stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No, but it is a place for some parts of the world to recognise that the murder of children in schools isn't a daily occurrence. Clearly this is a significant news story (otherwise why would it be headlining around the world?) and it's odd to try to suppress it simply because it doesn't meet some arbitrary death count, which is exceeded daily by mass murders in the US. We're talking about an attack in a first world country who value the lives of their citizens and especially their children. Your shouting is noted, but not required. If it helps you focus, I'll repeat: "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history." If you switch out Swedish for American, would you expect to post the new item? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind this being posted but if you switch out Michigander or North Carolinian or Georgian (not the country) for Swedish would you still have supported their worst school attack? Nine and a half million live in Sweden and about ten million in each state. Sweden is awesome though, they go decades between school attacks, I'm jealous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, we're talking about a country here that isn't America. Perhaps that's not clear. It's not about the population, the proportions, the numbers, it's about the fact it's Sweden, and this stuff doesn't happen there ever. Unlike the US where it happens every single day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Each and every story is unique and should be treated that way. This story shouldn't get preference because there's less violence in Sweden, likewise shootings in the U.S. shouldn't be dismissed just because there are so many of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's absurd, this story is fundamentally more important simply because it is so rare. Mass shootings in the US happen every day, attacks on schools in Sweden happen every other decade. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not political editorializing to say that school shootings at every level have become routine in the United States, because that is something that every person on both side of the political spectrum in the U.S., when pressed, will admit. There is just no comparison. America is letting their kids die on a near-monthly basis due in no small part to horrendously lax gun laws. This does not happen in any other developed country, and certainly not Scandinavia.--WaltCip (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I held off until now on deciding one way or the other. The possible motive of right-wing anti-immigration is sufficient for me to post, as opposed to a random attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean "oppose", Muboshgu. "As opposed" would imply that you oppose posting this. This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I meant that I support "as opposed" to if this was a random attack, in which case I would oppose. But after reading some of the opposers below, I'll change to weak support. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WaltCip. It wouldn't definitely have been an extraordinary occurrence had this happened in the United States. Unfortunately, this happened in Sweden, a European country where many would surely not remember the last such school attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support in proportional terms with respect to population, attack more grave and tragic than Umpqua Community College shooting. Gizmocorot (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • We should never use relative numbers based on country population to determine if something is more tragic than another event. (3 ppl in a 10M country like Sweden would then be equated to 300 ppl in a place like China, which seems far too high to determine if something is tragic or not). There are other reasons to consider the nation of the event, no question, but not number of people relative to the country. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Indeed, since it's "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history", even you Masem should be moved to agree with yourself and support this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Using superlative language like "deadliest" when only 2 innocents died is really pushing importance. (And arguably the previous one in 1961 had more wounded than this one, so that still is begging on the language issue). The fact that Sweden generally does not have such incidents, and now what is being reported as the motive and methods used in the killings, are the salient points, not the fact that this questionably the deadliest one. We particularly should not be using the anti-nationalistic "school shootings happen all the time in the US, we just ignore those" thought process. Case by case treatment is required. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      Scale is definitely important, not necessarily 1:1 ratio, partially logarithmic.. with due weight to motive/type, past similar events.... Gizmocorot (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. What really matters is whether or not this is notable in Sweden, which it certainly is, and this is getting coverage worldwide from what I can see. The attack seems unusual additionally because it was with a sword(from what I read). 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Can't recall us ever posting an ITN incident with such a small death toll. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Can't recall us not posting "the deadliest attack on a school in [insert your country here] history." The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Kudzu1: There is no death toll requirement; each nomination is evaluated on its own merits. We post some things with zero deaths and things with many deaths; we also do not post some events with zero deaths and with many deaths. It all depends. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support deadliest school attack in Sweden. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The section is "In the News", not "What we think ought to be in the news", and whether right or wrong this is getting significantly more coverage—and not just in Sweden—than comparable incidents elsewhere. ‑ iridescent 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Except that we don't just mirror the news, otherwise we just might as well shut down ITN and replace it with an RSS feed from the BBC. We are selective based on the encyclopedic quality of the news story. Coverage is not always a strong indication of encyclopedic worthiness (such as would be the case for most celebrity news). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A double homicide of non-notable persons should rarely be in the section, I think, despite the yellow press' obsession with school related attacks akin to the missing white girl syndrome. The possible political motive can't be used as a supporative argument either given that the police has simply stated they will not comment at this point but will study it, at this point it is based on the tabloids checking Facebook and Youtube likes. --Pudeo' 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose As discussed repeatedly here before, a double-homicide of non-notable individuals does not meet the importance criterion of ITN. I am not persuaded by logic that this is a "record" school attack in Sweden - there are records occurring every day that we don't post. Unconfirmed rumors of political motivations are also not persuasive. I do, however, offer condolences to the Swedish community in dealing with this loss. Us not posting this event does not diminish its tragic nature. Mamyles (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Very well said. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mamyles and others. Calidum 22:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mamyles and Puedo, among others. Highly tragic but not an ITN-level subject, in my view.Jusdafax 04:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as essentially a non-record. This guy killed a single person, which makes it the most deadly school attack in Sweden since year X. If the guy had not killed anybody, but still harmed the others, it still would have been the most vicious school attack since year X. Had he merely threatened the students, he still would have set a record for the most threatening school threat since year X. The only facet of this that gives it any hope on ITN is the fact that it happened in Sweden. In the Anglosphere, this would be non-notable. If the Swedes want to post this, then let them post it on their version of ITN.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    Nonsense. It makes it the deadliest school attack ever. It absolutely is notable in the "Anglosphere", that's why it's all over English language news sites. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is the deadliest school attack in Swedish history, not counting deaths due to war or civil upheaval. That's already quite a bit pigeonholing already. I just checked the NYTimes, WashPost and Guardian. This story is on the frontpage of Guardian, has a tiny snippet at the bottom of the page in the Times, and is not mentioned at all on the Post's frontpage. That's a pretty mixed result for supposedly being "all over" the news.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, when it happens in America it is a World event story, when it happens in Sweden it is local. It is the way the world works sadly. Not only on Wikipedia. It is however strange that Wikipedians apply a "American standard" on a crime that happens in Sweden, the US is now used to these kind of school attacks but you can not apply the American standard to Sweden. I also suspect that several users here are from countries "used to violence" of this sort and are a bit numb. Just being real. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It is almost as if, people who speak different languages take notice of events differently for some reason, and this is inexplicably reflected in the language-specific frontpages of Wikipedia.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 21Edit


[Posted] Chelonoidis donfaustoiEdit

Article: Chelonoidis donfaustoi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists describe a new species of giant tortoise, Chelonoidis donfaustoi.
News source(s): PLOS ONE, Washington Post

Nominator's comments: Even though a reclassification, the elevation to the full species status of such big animals seems significant. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeistertalk 11:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support truly a giant news, it is a type of stories which should be promoted on wikipedia front page. It's sad that we have no image. --Jenda H. (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - of course. important and interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I like turtles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. Banedon (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, although the article is a little short. Stephen 03:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Typhoon KoppuEdit

Article: Typhoon Koppu (2015) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Koppu (satellite image pictured) kills at least 50 people and displaces more than 100,000 others across the Philippines.
News source(s): TWC, BBC, AlJazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deadliest typhoon of the year (specific to the 2015 Pacific typhoon season) with widespread and long lasting effects across Luzon. Nearly 1 million people have been directly affected by the storm, of whom more than 100,000 are displaced according to the latest Sit Rep from the NDRRMC. Also worth noting that at one point, 9 million people—approximately 9% of the entire country—were without power. I've been hesitant on nominating this since by Philippine standards it's not exceptionally bad but it's still a major natural disaster that's worth posting on ITN. Impact section could use some expansion, which I'm currently working on, but the pressing details are up-to-date and should meet ITN standards. Wasn't sure what day to place the nomination on since the storm struck on October 17 but effects are still ongoing (more fatalities occurred yesterday, fwiw). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Significant death toll and large number of displaced persons. Neljack (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Significant storm and human impact, article is well-sourced from the start. --MASEM (t) 00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Prhdbt [talk] 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Well updated and although not unusual for the area, still worthy of mention to our Pacific readers. The next editor with a justified support should consider marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant weather event with widespread impact. Would mark as ready if I knew how. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Seong-Jin Cho wins the XVII International Chopin Piano CompetitionEdit

No consensus to post, and no clear indication of a willingness to improve the target articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Seong-Jin Cho (talk, history) and XVII International Chopin Piano Competition (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seong-Jin Cho is named the winner of the 17th International Chopin Piano Competition
News source(s): BBC ABC News Business Insider
Nominator's comments: Advanced apologies if I'm doing the nomination incorrectly, as this is my first time to do an ITN nomination :) The South Korean Seong-Jin Cho was named the winner of the 17th Chopin competition in Poland, and I think that this one deserves a mention as the Chopin is a prestigious competition in classical music that happens every five years only. I've created a stub with some minimal information, will try to get back to editing it further during my lunch break. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks for the nomination. Part of determining the consensus to post this depends on its coverage in the news; can you provide some links to news stories about this event indicating it is 'in the news'? 331dot (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
How many news items would be needed for this? Here are some of the English-language news items I've picked up so far:
There also seem to be others in Polish, [https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=dAxGwzfmkkZPbaMD5O8Om3VfaGjXM&q=seong+jin+cho&lr=English&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0CCcQqgIwAmoVChMIw6fI2MfSyAIVjgmOCh1BCgKp Spanish and German [12] news websites, but I'm not well-versed in those languages to check the contents. There also appears to be a couple of news items in Korean, too. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on article quality - The links above do show the competition appears notable but the articles needs more prose and the like to be a suitable ITN entry - just a list of competition results is not sufficient. I don't know how much can be added for that, however. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like an important competition in the world of music. I believe the article is in adequate shape and decently sourced. Could it be expanded? Probably. But I am not seeing any issues that would bar linking it on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • There are only 103 words in the prose of the article, or about 600b of text. That is nowhere sufficient, even if sourced, for a front page item. We have rejected ITNRs that lack such prose (such as the recent US tennis Open). --MASEM (t) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. |Haven't seen this in the press, and while the nom itself mentions the XVIIIth competition, the target article is the XVIIth competition. I think that speaks volumes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I am fairly confident that XVIII is a typo. A cursory reading of the XVII article clearly indicates it is the correct one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose both articles are way below the quality we want to see on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like sports, this is not really important in a world history context. So IMO the only argument to post it would be if it was prominently covered in the news - which it is not. Thue (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose on quality. While this does seem to be covered in the news, and seems a notable competition in an area not often covered here, as stated by others the article quality is just not there(mostly lacking in prose). If that changed I would be willing to revisit my opinion, and either way I thank the nominator Tito Pao for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on importance, but this may be one of those cases where sources just aren't there to write an in depth article on either the competition or the performer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality per TRM. Ping me when this meats the normal standards. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
siupport different topic and in RS media of note. (pending quality of course)Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 20Edit


RD: Sir John ScottEdit

Article: John Scott (medical researcher) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Decorated medical researcher. Not a great deal on the subjects of his research, but the subject was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire and former president of the Royal Society of New ZealandSmerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have not found any news coverage of Sir John's death (I do find it a bit surprising that it hasn't made the news here in New Zealand, so please say if I'm missing something). Some degree of news coverage is obviously a prerequisite for featuring on In the News. As for whether he was a very significant figure in his field, I don't think a knighthood and the presidency of the Royal Society of New Zealand establish that by themselves. I would want to see an explanation of the significance of his research before deciding whether he meets the threshold. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This fails on quality and RD Notability. I have seen this nowhere in the news, and the article is basically at stub level, with a one-sentence lead. If it is greatly improved, ping me and I might say otherwise. But at this point it is a no. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it looks like he did good research, there's no indication that he was at the top of his field. SpencerT♦C 07:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

[Pulled] Remove "2015 Southeast Asian haze" from ongoing?Edit

Other than table updates, which is disputed and discussed at Talk:2015 Southeast Asian haze, I do not see any substantial prose updates within last five days about "2015 Southeast Asian haze". And I mean prose. --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support removal. This has relatively mellowed out, and the article hasn't had substantial updates for days. Mamyles (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This has gone stale, time to pull it. Jusdafax 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I really believe this hasn't been newsworthy for some weeks, so glad to see it being suggested for removal again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pulled. --Jayron32 14:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Of course I have no personal knowledge of this topic, but I noticed that Deutsche Welle's English-language TV news show today (Tues.) carried a segment on the Indonesia haze that said, among other things, that it remains severe and could continue for the rest of the year. Sca (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue in this case isn't whether or not news stories are still being written about the topic, except tangentially. The main issue is whether the highlighted Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with appropriate new material. Directing readers to articles on "ongoing" stories which are not being updated with quality new information on said stories is not keeping in line with the stated mission of ITN. --Jayron32 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
So it remains severe and lasts all year, is that really something we need to persist on Wikipedia's Ongoing ticker? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
R U asking me to decide? I thought it was based on consensus. Sca (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No, definitely not. Decision has already been made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I see. Sca (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

October 19Edit


[Posted] Swiss federal election, 2015Edit

Article: Swiss federal election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Swiss People's Party, led by Toni Brunner, retains its plurality in the Swiss National Council.
News source(s): Time

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.

 '''tAD''' (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Ready the article is well updated, over 5.8kb since the 15th and meets the prose requirements. The overall outcom,e is clear, even if a few races are not yet called. The English language press is probably a good 6-24 hours behind the Swiss media. I won't mark this ready yet, in case there's some odd factor that I am unaware of that someone wants to bring up. But my opinion is an admin should feel free to post it now. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider waiting as the composition of the executive could change. (unique system that Switzerland has)Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The update consisted of one sentence to the lead, two about the migrant crisis and a results table. It could do with more campaign issues and/or, at the bare minimum, prose to the body about the result. Fuebaey (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Given this is a new article, what is necessary is three paragraphs of prose with five sources. This isn't an old article. The winning plurality is not in doubt. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Not sure about your definition of new, but I doubt an article first created back in February 2014 fits that bill. I'm going to oppose based on the quality issues I've outlined above. Fuebaey (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support clearly covers the major issues, sufficiently long, no major quality issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I added a bit to the lede, regarding Swiss voter concerns re: immigration as a driving force in the rightward shift. Still could use expansion in the "Results" section of the article, but it's ready to post per TRM. Jusdafax 14:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 20:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This should say gains a record plurality given that is what our article says. That's a bit different from simply winning reelection. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That claim isn't currently cited in the article; I can update if this can be confirmed. SpencerT♦C 06:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Per the report at WP:ERRORS (which seems to duplicate this comment), the party won 11 more seats than the previous election. Let's just keep some perspective and stick to reporting the absolute facts, and let our readers determine if such a feat is impressive. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - notable event. major issue.BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Canadian federal election, 2015Edit

Article: Canadian federal election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Canadian federal election, the Liberal Party wins an absolute majority in the House of Commons as Justin Trudeau (pictured) is elected Prime Minister of Canada.
Alternative blurb: ​The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins an absolute majority in the Canadian federal 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.

Nominator's comments: Preemptive nomination for an election of a G7 country. Pretty big deal regardless of whoever wins. No sources given yet since the results haven't come in yet. (They will come in around (9:30pm EST) Aerospeed (Talk) 00:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The blurb should follow our usual form for parliamentary elections - "X, led by Y, wins the most seats in the Canadian federal election" - rather than saying so-and-so is elected PM. The proposed blurb would be particular misleading if - as seems very likely - no party wins an overall majority. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. An alt blurb has been added. Thanks! Aerospeed (Talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Polls close in, what, 19 hours? We might not know the result for about 24 hours. Why nominate so early? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Notable election. The early nomination has the advantage that when the result is known the blurb can be added quickly to the main page. It's good to have something quick on the main page so it looks that WP is verry up-to-date (and there were so less new items the last week.) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – Interesting candidates reinforce this obvious ITN choice. Sca (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As this is ITNR support on the merits is not necessary; being on the ITNR list presumes such support. Only a blurb needs discussion and article quality assessed once the election results are announced. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is support on the merits prohibited? Sca (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Posting support on the merits for an ITNR item contributes nothing to the discussion, since that has already been decided. One can certainly post whatever they wish if they want to put the effort into doing something that isn't needed. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has called the election as a Liberal majority government. According to their live tracker, the Liberals have the lead in 184 ridings, with 110 seats confirmed (170 seats needed for a majority). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Original blurb is misleading, as Canadians don't elect a Prime Minister, per se. That job usually just falls to the leader of the party with the most seats in the House. Canuck89 (talk to me) 04:16, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Added second alt blurb, which I support now that more than 170 ridings have been claimed by the Liberals. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb for accuracy in a parliamentary democracy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb is more compact. -- Callinus (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but what's the advantage of the phrase "absolute majority' over the word "majority"?79.76.126.240 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support alt 2, but echo the questioning of the need for the word "absolute". Citobun (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a blurb like this - The Liberal Party, led by Justin Trudeau (pictured), wins a majority in the Canadian federal election by winning 184 of 338 seats in Parliament. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The "absolute" in "absolute majority" is redundant. --LukeSurl t c 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - and suggest we post. Jusdafax 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Yes. Agree that "absolute" is redundant, though. Time to post this – tops all the main Eng.-lang. news sites. Sca (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

October 18Edit


RD: Gamal El-GhitaniEdit

Article: Gamal El-Ghitani (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): International Business Times Associated Press BBC News

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

Nominator's comments: Award-winning Egyptian author and journalist with international recognition and acclaim. Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Smerdis on quality. The article hasn't even been updted for tense, given his passing. It has an entirety of two (2) sources, and as stated, the bibliography is solely in transcibed arabic. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Guinean presidential election, 2015Edit

Article: Guinean presidential election, 2015 (talk, history)
Blurb: Alpha Condé is reelected President of Guinea.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC News

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.

 Ali Fazal (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak support not the greatest article I've ever seen but at least it's supported by decent referencing and clearly meets the criteria for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support There were some uncited quotes in the article that I found references for; looks good to go. SpencerT♦C 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Reasonable-looking article. Should be posted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose No, this is not a particularly important election result. We need to cut down on these auto-postings and post stuff that matters. Any putative significance of this election is the fact that the first freely elected president was reelected, in what is described as a fair election. Unless the blurb and the article states why this election is particularly significant as elections go we shouldnt even consider it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This election is included in WP:ITN/R, as as such has already satisfied the "importance" criterion to post. If you would like to change that, feel free to post on ITN/R's talk page. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize that ITN has absurd criteria for inclusion, and no I dont care to try and change those except by pointing out when they lead to absurd editorial decisions such as for example automaticall posting the reelection of a president of tiny country and the automatic exclusion of a significant act of politically motivated violence in a major nation that has not experienced this kind of event for decades.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with Maunus, the Lukashenko re-election is about as much news as the fact that Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. But the problem is we'll end up with a stale or empty queue otherwise. If there were a lot of good nominations, we could argue whether A should push Z off the front page. At this point we're not looking at the prospect of still-fresh news being eliminated by a less important matter. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Being ITNR, even if the article is in good shape, is not a guarantee of posting if consensus thinks that on that specific recurring event, it really isn't as notable as other occurrences. This allows for easy-to-write-and-understand ITNR allowances that can be debated for the exceptional cases (as this one might be). --MASEM (t) 01:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing else has been posted at ITN in the past five days; this is hardly crowding out "stuff that matters", but if you feel that other potential items are being overlooked, please nominate them here at WP:ITN/C. Best, SpencerT♦C 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality looks good. Marking as ready. Mamyles (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Good article shape for an election. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

October 17Edit


[Closed] RD: Howard KendallEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Howard Kendall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eurosport BBC UEFA

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: Notable football player and manager throughout his career. George Ho (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sourcing on this article seems very thin, absent in some sections - the statistics section relies on a sub-only service as a source, or no source at all. In addition - I am not seeing how he meets the bar, for notability or influence - the lead of the article does not do the job of outlining who he was, or what his influence was, aside from a few bullet points in his career, which started young. Challenger l (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on sourcing / article quality. In particular, the honours section is unreferenced. A two-time manager of the year and national hall of fame member would be arguable for RD. The "manager of the year" award for English football is a bit confusing - the article on this site about manager of the year awards only go back to 1992/93 (LMA Manager of the Year) or 1993/94 (Premier League Manager of the Season). This may have something to do with the restructure in English football around that time (the Premier League clubs broke away from the Football League in 1992). Biographies of various managers (Kendall, Bob Paisley, Bill Shankly) claim that they won "manager of the year" awards before then, but there doesn't seem to be any supporting evidence (either in their articles or in other wiki pages). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on notability provided that the quality issues are resolved. Just about a support on notability - he was a notable player, famously youthful FA Cup finalist and a significant part of a championship-winning team, but never played at the highest level for England; his fame as a manager rests principally on his first spell at Everton where he a built a team which is one of the best seen in the English game in my living memory. On the point raised above, I think the manager of the year award at the time pretty much went to the league champions' manager regardless, so its probably not a key piece of supporting evidence. But he was certainly regarded as an important figure in the English game, so I'll support the nomination.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose a sad loss to the British game, and a truly great manager (probably Everton's finest ever) but not quite making it to RD level. We'd struggle to claim he was at the top of his field when we have contemporaries such as Ferguson and Wenger, and although being Everton's top manager, a couple of league titles, one European trophy and some other bits and pieces don't quite cut it. Article also needs a lot of referencing work, should consensus be in favour of his notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose mainly based on sourcing. Clearly known to Everton fans and anybody who watched English football in the 1980s, and gone too soon, but he wasn't as groundbreaking and internationally known as Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho et al. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Henriette Reker stabbingEdit

SNOW close good faith nomination, but this single act of political violence won't be posted. It might be a reason to keep the migrant situation at Ongoing, but not as a separate blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Henriette Reker (talk, history)
Blurb: Henriette Reker, a candidate in Cologne's mayoral race, is stabbed in the neck by a man claiming to be angry over the Germany's refugee policies.
News source(s): (BBC), (DW), (The Independent), (Euronews)
 An independent candidate for mayor of the German city of Cologne, who is supported by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU party, has been stabbed by a man while campaigning in the city. Henriette Reker and an aide were seriously injured. Mrs. Reker is in a critical condition. Three other people were injured when they intervened to help. Police say they arrested a 44-year-old man, who said he was motivated by Reker’s support for refugees. Reker is also backed by the FDP and Greens, and has been involved in supporting and helping house refugees in the city. The election takes place on Sunday. (Euronews) Jenda H. (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is already "European migrant crisis". And I doubt that, even with possibly mayoral changes, this would impact Germany's policies on migrants. George Ho (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Horribly sad, but not ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly minor acts of political violence occur daily all over the world. We can't put them all on ITN. IMHO this sort of thing should only be posted if a very high level official is the target. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As above, not ITN. And there's much more violence going on that we should cover first (if at all) before this one. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 16Edit


[Closed] RD: Mikhail BurtsevEdit

No consensus to post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Mikhail Burtsev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TASS obituary

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: RD blurb says he's a six time world champion in fencing (saber). Olympic career of two golds, two silvers from 1976 to 1988. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not on RD/importance merit, but I don't think this won't have a chance of being improved for RD posting. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The article is little more than a stub, but it is adequately sourced and the subject undoubtedly meets ITNDC #2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is expanded significantly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Seems questionable re DC2 due to passage of time. Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
How does the passage of time detract from the multiple medals he won? 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't, but I think it makes it less likely that today he would be "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field." (But that's just a thought, hence a comment.) Sca (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough; thanks 331dot (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, and as stated by Masem it seems unlikely to be improved, but if it is, I would support as a multiple medal winner. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI I put an ITN Nom tag on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose As most of the medals were won in team competitions. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support once more than a stub: the notability, unlike Lugnuts, winning serious medals over a long timespan, regardless of team or otherwise, is notable. However, the article really is nothing more than a stub. We can do better, and don't forget, we're supposed to be promoting "quality" to the main page here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality given the lead restates the body of the text, the article does not meet the three pros-paragraph minimum for new articles. If Russophile users JackofOz or Любослов Езыкин or Ihcoyc want to update it, it may be worth posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 15Edit


[Posted] RD: Kenneth D. TaylorEdit

Article: Kenneth D. Taylor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News Los Angeles Times Sydney Morning Herald The Atlantic

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: The Canadian ambassador to Iran during the 1979 Iran hostage crisis who helped six American envoys escape in the "Canadian Caper" operation. Bloom6132 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Article should be brought up to code before posting, but a very notable figure in his field and an important player in world history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Arguably the hostage rescue was not a single "event" - as sources suggest, it took some time of planning with Taylor's help to figure out how to do it and enact it. Add that he was also an ambassador from one country to another, which is not something to sneeze at by itself (it's not a line for automatic notability/importance but it is a position that requires some degree of recognition) --MASEM (t) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "ambassador from one country to another", do you know how many of those there are and how many there have been on planet Earth?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Roughly 200 squared at any current time. Which is why I said it wasn't an automatic pass at notability or importance, but it is an additional bit of merit that clearly doesn't make the person a BLP1E problem. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Not on an RD level. It's almost inconsequential. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Alone, no, of course not. Just being an ambassador doesn't even assure meeting notability here. The reason this person's being nominated is because of his role in freeing the Iran hostages, major even of the late 20th century. The point about noting that he was an ambassador is that WP:BLP1E would not apply here even if you took the hostage crisis as a "single" event, because beyond being involved in that, he was also an ambassador. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No, not at all, being an ambassador is hardly relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvements: While there is an unsourced paragraph, it is about the history of the Iran hostage situation and is not controversial. That said, I feel this articles doesn't do a sufficient job at explaining Taylor's role in the rescue, and the fact there is more about Argo than the actual event is a weakness to this article. I recognize we have other articles that cover the rescue effort in full but more can definitely be brought into this one. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose like Abductive, this appears that he's notable for just one event, indeed there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who have done similar things, who just don't get the publicity via Hollywood. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Or maybe he got the attention of Hollywood because his actions far exceed those of a typical diplomat? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as meeting DC2. A notable historic figure and important to his field(ambassadors). Article does need improvement as stated but not many ambassadors become notable in the way he did. Death being covered in many places. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support notable historic figure. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support An ambassadorship alone isn't RD material, but his role in the Iranian hostage crisis demonstrates his significant importance in his field of ambassadoring. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's very little about the person or his career. The lead and main body of the article is about the hostage event, but that section is mostly about the films, not the person, and reads like a movie review. And what's not about the films, includes contradictory statements such as "CIA organized the rescue" and "let Taylor take the credit for political purposes." But as a bio it's missing too much. --Light show (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What he did made no real difference at all. Suppose he hadn't been there: Then there would have been 58 hostages instead of 52. The course of history would not have been altered. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ask the six people who got out if it made a real difference. Aside from the personal aspect, it greatly solidified US-Canada relations. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
And harmed Canada–Iran relations. They didn't talk for years afterwards. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, but either way, he was notable as an ambassador for his role. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Very very famous Canadian and significant figure in on of the most significant foreign relations crises of the later 20th century. The subject of several movies.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A very famous figure in the 1980s diplomacy. cyrfaw (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though the article might be ready, I doubt this has any real chance of being posted.--WaltCip (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Can you explain the purpose of your comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Why?--WaltCip (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    Because it appears to add absolutely nothing to the decision-making process. While I'm used to this with you, I'd like you to explain to the rest of us why you would make such a comment. Of course, you don't need to, that would be typical too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment while, unlike WaltCip, I believe this will just get the free pass, it's worth commenting on some of the above. I'm reading "very very famous", but that doesn't equate to anything encyclopedic. I'm reading "field of ambassadoring", what is that? So an ambassador was ambassadorial? Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands have been ambassadorial. Subject of movies? Not true, included in movies about a very specific political issue. Anyway, I'll put my hat, cat and mat on this being main page within 12 hours, so big dog deal, it's no longer important that this is English-language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - While Geoffrey Howe did not do any real significance during his role as Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (until his resignation in protest), Taylor did something more heroic. And it's just an honorable mention. His obituary won't become a blurb or anything like that, right? George Ho (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

October 14Edit


[Closed] Ongoing? Intifada 3.0Edit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Since Rosh Hashanah, clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces and settlers has been ongoing almost daily.
News source(s): RTRT2 From Sept: Israel national newsIsrael national news2

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Surprised it hasn't been nominated here, but the practicall y daily stabbings and counter violence (Arson, etc) are a big escalation in a region about to blow (it has, I would say?). Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Currently has an AFD. SpencerT♦C 23:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That AFD is going to close as the article has had a massive revamp since that was created (could be speedy close as we're notw working towards resolution). At any rate, its not going to end before the 7 days are up (if it does then we can close it)...I the interim we can discuss the merits of it and see if its worth posting to ITN when ready.Lihaas (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose until the AfD is resolved. Predictions as to how that will end are neither here nor there and I do not think the nom should have been reopened until that issue is settled. If the article survives then I will reexamine this proposal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor (such as this) and not-so-minor scuffles (e.g. Saudi bombing Yemen daily) are going on around the world on a day to day basis, we don't need to list them all, this one in particular seems trivial on the face of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now. Still seems like a relatively minor situation at the moment. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose while POV issues and AFD is on the target, and given the death toll in other middle east conflicts, it's a bad idea to list this target on the front page. -- Callinus (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Mathieu KérékouEdit

Article: Mathieu Kérékou (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Bloomberg Le Monde Globo

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 Beninese president known as one of few African dictators to leave office and then later be elected by popular vote. Death is receiving international attention, as the sources show. Kudzu1 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Subject meets ITNDC. Article could use a little touching up but is not in bad shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. However he first came to power, he was a long-term national leader. Article seems good enough to me but what do I know? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable leader. Beats out "Geoffrey Howe" to me. However, I'm checking its sources and fixing problems. George Ho (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sources seem all right. George Ho (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Sourcing looks good for posting. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting head of state, unusual for relinquishing power after a coup, then returning after a popular vote, and a well-written article. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

October 13Edit


2015 Man Booker PrizeEdit

Article: 2015 Man Booker Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: A Brief History of Seven Killings by Marlon James wins the 2015 Man Booker Prize.
News source(s): New York Times BBC

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: ITN/R award. Andise1 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • 2015 Man Booker Prize, which I believe is the article to be judged, has 431 bytes of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • 2014 Man Booker Prize was ITN last year, and it almost has the same amount of prose and referencing. I don't think this means this years is good to go, I think it needs improvement (a brief summary of what the award is, etc.) --MASEM (t) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The mistakes of the past should not bind us to make equally bad mistakes in perpetuity. --Jayron32 09:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree on that. There needs to be serious improvement on the 2015 Man Booker prize article before it can be posted. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The article needs at least three full prose paragraphs to be posted, and is nowhere near that. Perhaps the item should be removed from ITN/R given the total lack of interest? μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] AB InBev and SABMillerEdit

Not the location for unproductive personal attacks. Please carry on such discussions elsewhere. --Jayron32 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Anheuser-Busch InBev (talk, history) and SABMiller (talk, history)
Blurb: Anheuser-Busch InBev agrees to purchase SABMiller for £68 billion ($104 billion).
News source(s): The Guardian BBC Wall Street Journal

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: If this goes through it would create the world's largest brewer, with a 30 percent market share. There are some regulatory hurdles to clear, but better to post now while it's actually news. Calidum 12:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable development in the beer industry. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
As the op said there are regulatory issues. with nearly 50% of the industry's profits the monopoly regulatubions which are harder in Europe are a strong factor.Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Both major players in the beer industry. While the articles aren't in poor shape in terms of sourcing, I think a bit of help to clean them up and flesh out a few places where non-contentious statements are made to add additional sources (eg the international activities for each brewer) --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support A big deal. The size of the acquisition is reason enough for me to support this. Banedon (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Not usually one for business stories but the figure is quite significant—that's a lot of money for watery beer. GRAPPLE X 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another mere corporate consolidation. Some bottling plants will close, there will be buy-outs and early retirements. They won't be bringing back Zima. We should feature mergers that promise some sort of innovative synergy, not just downsizing of middle management. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – This isn't just any old corporate merger, it's the world's two biggest megabuck purveyors of panther p---. Sca (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Though a merger would still never convince me to drink any of their swill.--WaltCip (talk)
Stella on tap is not bad if you're in Fosters on tap country...bloody rip off though ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - big merger. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major deal – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This back-and-forth sniping is ALSO not a !vote. --Jayron32 15:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Technically that is a "support pending article improvements" !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. You aren't judging the merits of the story's newsworthiness. A flat "oppose" !vote makes no sense in this context.--WaltCip (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Something more useful than your strange "oppose" !vote? Sure. Will do.--WaltCip (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when updated. Huge merger for the beverage industry. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. If the Dell/EMC merger was posted then this should be too. Abductive (reasoning) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major business deal. -Zanhe (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's just beer, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support US 104 billion is a big deal, both companies have well known brands all though the Anglophone world. -- Callinus (talk) 07:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support biggest beer deal ever according to CNN Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Why does Dell buying EMC get posted and this substantially bigger deal doesn't? Sca (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Insufficient update, apparently.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As noted numerous times in this forum, and in the rules, the purpose of ITN is to highlight quality Wikipedia content. If the articles in question don't have quality updates (or the articles themselves have major issues) then we don't post. It has nothing to do with anything else. That is the first, last, and only reason why this has not yet been posted, and will continue to be the first, last, and only reason why it will not be posted, up until someone fixes it. If you want it posted, you're the person most responsible for fixing the problem, and then demonstrating to us it is fixed, so we know it's time to post. "But MOM, Jimmy gets to stay up late tonight! Why don't I get to stay up late!" doesn't really apply here as an argument type for posting. That another article was posted has no relation to why this one has not been. If you want this one posted, fix it and then let us know you fixed it. --Jayron32 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No need to condescend. I wasn't aware the article was substandard. Sca (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron, hopefully WaltCip will now have more of a clue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully TRM will make his positions more clear.--WaltCip (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already asked you to go and do something more useful than this, please consider that carefully and try improving something rather than just being a pest. P.S. If you don't understand " I'm not seeing sufficient updates in both bold articles for this to be posted." then there's no hope for you I'm afraid. Go and pester someone else who cares about your odd opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is literally a big deal. The state of the articles is a minor consideration because people will be reading them regardless. What matters is the content which we have on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Incorrect. Articles have to be quality and their update has to be sufficient. If you wish to ignore that, or propose a different set of criteria for ITN, please do so, but in the meantime you assertion is completely erroneous. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    I am well aware of your view but do not share it. We should be encouraging readers to pitch in rather than giving them the false impression that our topics are always polished and presentable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Then please advocate a change to the criterion which states we should be promoting "quality" articles to the main page. Otherwise your vote(s) are in direct violation of the criteria, and are therefore pointless. Of course, you can stick to DYK if that's your approach, most of the stuff there is far from polished or presentable, seems a perfect playground for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    Per WP:IAR, it is a core principle of Wikipedia that we use common sense rather than formal rules. WP:NOTLAW tells us that policy follows actual practice. The place to get changes made is therefore in the front line or coal face where the detailed decisions are made. The key argument in this case is that, having just posted one big deal, it would be inconsistent not to post an even bigger deal. The state of the various articles is a comparatively minor consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, very good, it's so easy to IAR. If you want to continue to advocate posting poor quality items to ITN then please address it correctly by raising an RFC against the extant criteria. Or stick to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    If you don't like IAR, then you can take it up with Jimbo. In the meantime, the articles in question have been posted even though they still have ITN banner tags. That's good enough for me so I'm moving on. I now see another interesting item in the news and will indeed promote it via DYK which doesn't have this silly voting process. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, go for it!! That's a brilliant idea, keep focused on good old DYKs. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    Are you quite through with your badgering, good sir? And apparently I'm the pest.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Update – OK, added three grafs of detail re market shares, brands. Others are welcome to pitch in! Sca (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also CXd prospective U.S. market share. Sca (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Updates to the Anheuser Busch InBev article are sufficient, consensus to post on significance is clear. --Jayron32 20:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17Edit

No consensus to post: I think we can safely say we are not gong to reach agreement on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Dutch Safety Board releases their final report into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster that concludes that the flight was shot-down by a Russian-made Buk missile system in July 2014.
Alternative blurb: ​The Dutch Safety Board releases their final report into the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster.
News source(s): (Sky News) (BBC) (Al Jazeera) (9News)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We need a disaster-related event.  (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This was already known information, and we don't "need" a disaster related event. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    It was not known, it was assumed. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is barely an important news with nothing outstanding revealed. Buk missiles are widely used in the part of the world where the aircraft was shot down and it still doesn't say too much on the perpetrators.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Support posting that the report was published but oppose posting a blurb that indicates to a single finding. It seems that there are other important findings than the country of origin of the missile, which is something already known and nothing outstanding for that part of the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This only formalizes what was already known; the report also make no finding of fault(which would likely be worth posting) 331dot (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - This basically is the formal report that everyone of authority had already assumed. It would have been different if the result was not this. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Support – Yeah, well it's topping most mainstream news sites Tuesday. Sca (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
True, but mention the controversiy from the other side as notable and NPOV.Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The other side? Like the egregious destruction of a precious Russian missile, that was minding its own business in mid-air, by a reckless Malaysian Airlines pilot? GRAPPLE X 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to do that, per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Sca, this is news, unlike Playboy, and it was pretty bloody obvious that the nominator was joking when he mentioned the need for a disaster-related event at ITN, irony fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless Malaysia declares war on Russia or at least something of consequence happens as a result of the report. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Important conclusion to an international investigation that has grabbed headlines worldwide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Important report, with large impact. It implies that Russia is guilty. Worldwide in the news. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The report makes no finding of fault; it only says a Russian missile was responsible(which we already knew), and both sides in the conflict have such missiles. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The report seems to reveal other findings of, at least, equal significance as the country of origin of the missile (five key findings reported here). Shall we not post a blurb documenting that the final report was published with no indication to a specific finding if this gets consensus for posting?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It's the putative smoking gun. Have you noticed how the Russians are doing everything they can to discredit it? Sca (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but here we deal with news and facts. It's not our job to judge what the Russians or Ukrainians do.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Kiril, please note that I said putative, not proven. Anyhow, to some extent it's ITN's job to reflect media coverage.
Alas, this story is another that's fast becoming a stale fish. Sca (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. Not a groundbreaking report, but it's getting a lot of coverage. Banedon (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - per significant update on a very media covered plane crash/bombing. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, coverage was limited and faded quickly. Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This airplane disaster was featured once due to media's overemphasis and ITN's commitment to be global. But Dutch report won't make the topic newsworthy anymore. Sad that the man researching AIDS met his demise, but the attack as a whole lost newsworthy luster over time. At least "On This Day" can make this encyclopedic. Either blurb doesn't help much. Also, if we post the main blurb, Russia would be scapegoated, and readers would jump to conclusions and be misled. Russian-made doesn't make Russia responsible. George Ho (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable report with a lot of media attention. MFriedman (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 12Edit


[Closed] Playboy discontinues full nudityEdit

Closed with consensus against posting (13 oppose, 7 support, 1 wait). RD for Playboy Centerfold, as suggested by Medeis, is certainly tempting, though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Playboy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American men's magazine Playboy announces plans to discontinue featuring full nudity starting from March 2016 issue.
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times, Boston Globe

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not the end of the world, but looks like the first such a decision in the magazine's 62-year history. This is what happens when you try to compete with free web porn. Brandmeistertalk 09:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Quite an unusual nomination, but I like it. Printed porn has been a huge industry, with Playboy being the standard-bearer. Playboy leaving print porn is the symbolic end of the industry. Thue (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable change by a forerunner of an industry. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Not earth-shattering, but interesting and unusual news from a well-known entity. I thought it was some sort of early April Fools joke at first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I'll admit it is a curious change, at the end of the day this is a business story in fairly small industry, and as such this strikes me as not significant enough of a story to warrant inclusion at ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    According to our article porn is a $13 billion industry just in the US. Hardly a small industry. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Porn might be considered big business, but porn magazines are not. Porn mags are the least successful market segment of the current porn industry. Playboy Enterprises total revenue was only $135 million (as of 2012) and only a few tens of millions of that came directly from Playboy the magazine. Dragons flight (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    Porn magazines were big business, which is kinda the point with Playboy's decision here. They are getting out of the industry they helped popularize and create. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    They certainly did not help "create" the industry. That happened decades before. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Try centuries. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Millennia GRAPPLE X 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but they were a big part of its recent history. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if this were of enough significance to post, which I don't feel that it is (Playboy was always a mix of pictures and articles anyway or so I hear; get back to me when Brazzers goes fully-clothed), this is a pretty premature story given that it's not due to happen for at least five months. GRAPPLE X 11:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume they have to wait to make the change due to contracts or the next five issues already being in the pipeline. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
per request of both disputants, I'm closing this --Jayron32 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The most well known brand in an industry(essentially creating it) having decided to get out of the industry is a triviality? If GM decided to stop making cars or Microsoft decided to stop making operating systems, would that be trivial? 331dot (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Bad examples, and as Grapple X notes, Playboy has always been more than just a bunch of pictures of naked girls, and this is an announcement, not the actual event. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • So you read it for the articles, huh? You and I both know this will not be news when the first non-nude issue is released; ITN is stacked against business stories(announcements are not posted because they are announcements but the actual event is almost always in the news less). 331dot (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry 331dot, but this isn't really that interesting at all. And may well not happen. So I'm afraid I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Have it your way, and I seek no further reply from you if that is what you wish, but "not interesting" is a poor argument. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
              • You linked to arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, not arguments to avoid at ITN. If an item is not interesting, and not actually happening, it shouldn't be considered for ITN. Period. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                • A poor argument is a poor argument wherever it is made. Everything is not interesting to someone. Please provide sources which even just speculate this will not happen. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • I think you're entirely missing the point. If something is not interesting, not happening, not particularly newsworthy for a global encyclopedia, it shouldn't be at ITN. Now please stop badgering the opposers, you've made your point, we've made ours. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • I am not 'badgering' anyone; simply responding to poor arguments, as you do all the time. I am not forcing you to reply(and specifically state you didn't have to above); it is factually incorrect that this is "not happening"(again, please provide sources). I don't think I'm the one missing the point. But to each their own. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • Please stop badgering me, and unless you have a crystal ball, I suggest you wait until this does happen, then we can go through this whole sorry saga one more time, once again declaring it to be trivial, of no real significance, of no real interest and of no long-term impact on anything anywhere. We all get it that you support it, you can now stop responding to each and every person who disagrees with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • "Interest" is a completely different animal for ITN than it is for the site as a whole. If we posted everything someone felt was "interesting" at ITN, we'd clog up the ticker every time Kate Middleton farted. A significant portion of why these nominations are discussed like this is gauge a consensus on what is merely interesting versus what is noteworthy. GRAPPLE X 14:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                        • But by the same token, we shouldn't not post something because some find it "not interesting". Everything is not interesting to someone. If people want to argue this isn't a big industry, or some other actual argument, fine- but "not interesting" is a poor argument in and of itself, just as "interesting" is. I just think we need to keep in mind what the actual purpose of ITN is here and this is one occasion where we are taking our eye off the ball. I appreciate your constructive comment. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
                          • Enough, 331dot, enough. It's my opinion that this is not of interest to a global encyclopedia's main page. That's why we are allowed to give opinion here. Now please, do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I will no longer reply to your comments on this matter, but you cannot tell me who I can and cannot reply to. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I asked you nicely about four times to stop badgering me. Now stop badgering me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Could an uninvolved admin please collapse this pointless badgering so we can focus on the topic in hand please? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I consent to collapsing; If you don't like how I did it, you may do so as you wish. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Please stop continuing this. Allow someone uninvolved to deal with it, as I asked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for march 2016 issue. Nothing has happend yet. --Jenda H. (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jenda H.: As with most business announcements, the announcement gets more attention than the actual event. This also seems unlikely to be reversed. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting trivia, but not ITN significant; what a business opts to do without pressure from others is rarely important. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Even if it's an iconic magazine it's not that big a magazine - based on its page for example the circulation isn't even one million. This is in contrast to companies like GM and Microsoft. There are close to a billion PCs in the world most of which run Microsoft operating systems, while GM not only makes almost 10 million cars a year, it's a company with market capitalization of $50 billion. I can understand the reasons for supporting (hence I only weakly oppose this) but Playboy is not comparable. Banedon (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this meets the bar for ITN, as a content change of a rather low-circulation magazine. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a significant change to a central cultural institution of the past 50 years. Also we need some variety - this should get points for not being either a catastrophe, and election or a sporting event.•maunussnunɐɯ• 14:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – If Playboy started running nude pix of men, that would be news (of a sort). This is a snooze. Sca (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – per historic significance and the fact that Playboy probably is one of the worlds most recognizable magazines.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
But is this history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist?? Sca (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Of real significance, of real interest, and of long-term encyclopedic impact.--WaltCip (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nudity is not mentioned as being part of its notability or stated anywhere in the lead. It's mentioned only once in the 3500-word article. Plus the blurb is too long. "Playboy announces plans to discontinue featuring full nudity" could be tightened to "Playboy surrenders..." to competitors and the less inhibited sources. Anyway, most of us only cared about the interviews.--Light show (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The article is not that good (the lead mentions cartoonists it published but not a single celebrity to pose for it?), but Playboy really changed the porno game back in the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support Playboy was a game changer back in the day, so for the cultural impact of Playboy, and what it says about the prevalence of Internet porn, I'll lean support. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is just an announcement on what they'll change in their product. It's not as if they're gonna discontinue the magazine or something. 117.192.162.88 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's entertainment trivia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support RD "The Playboy Centerfold". Of course, we should have to wait for the last issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not thaaaat important... Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Playboy's circulation has been going down for years, and they ran a disastrous strategy of allowing porn behemoth MindGeek run their online site until 2014. With Mindgeek sites making it nearly impossible to convince customers to pay for erotic images, Playboy is desperately trying to reinvent itself as a second rate male lifestyle/fashion brand. -- Callinus (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not much lasting impact in the field because of this change. SpencerT♦C 18:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment probably worth closing this now and moving onto something which is actually newsworthy and interesting to our global encyclopedia audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Dell acquires EMCEdit

Article: EMC Corporation (talk, history)
Blurb: Dell Inc. announces acquisition of EMC Corporation (logo pictured) for US$67 billion.
News source(s): NY Times BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Why the hell not? Highly publicized, but I'm nominating this as filler. George Ho (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Dell is on the NASDAQ-100 and SNP 500, and is well known as a household brand across the Anglophone world.-- Callinus (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just to note, Dell is no longer on the NASDAQ or SNP 500. It went private not so long ago. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Dell maybe a household name but my issue is that EMC is not a company the mainstream public identify themselves with. Donnie Park (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. EMC may not be a household name (though I'd say they are), but this would be the largest acquisition of a tech company at history. Calidum 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's a deal worth $67 billion. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it is a major business deal and a lot of money involved, the relative obscurity of EMC (I had to look them up) and what type of impact will be rather low here; this is, for example, not like the AT&T/Direct TV merger that will readily affect millions of people immediately. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No offense, but your ignorance of EMC (a company Dell values at $67 billion, with a 'b') should not count as a reason to not feature this. Your not having heard of this company doesn't make its net worth any weaker, nor should it affect whether we feature the acquisition or not. Banedon (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Even considering the nature of EMC's value and reputation, the net result here does not seem to be a major shift in the computer and technology sector - it is Dell making sure they remain important by having a strong computer storage company under their belt. The articles provided as sources both indicate that the importance of the deal is for Dell to stay relevant as cloud computing becomes more common. It is not going to affect most of the population otherwise. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think your personal analysis is important in assessing this globally significant business deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, a 67-billion deal that's the largest tech company acquisition ever. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support major business deal is size and scope – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a major business deal involving two large companies in the computer field. 117.192.162.88 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support assuming we have a decent enough update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nepal PMEdit

Article: Khadga Prasad Oli (talk, history)
Blurb: Khadga Prasad Oli is elected prime minister of Nepal following the enactment of a controversial constitution.
News source(s): First Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is ITNR as its not a popular election nor that of head of state. Nevertheless, the controversial constitution and a pm that is not "interim" following the civil war and removal of the monarchy is notable in that it is far from everyday. Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it should be considered ITN/R, but I have zero background on what's happening in Nepali politics, so I don't understand why there isn't an election article if Mr Oli was elected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
    • From what I am reading, it looks like the President has the seat of power, the PM someone that is elected by the legislative branch (not a public election) to serve under the President. So that might not be equivalent to, say, PM for England. But someone with more expertise in this area should comment. --MASEM (t) 06:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like the French system then, where there's a democratic president and an appointed prime minister; we would cover the election of Francois Hollande but not Manuel Valls. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up: The PM was elected popularly. This is unusual under the circumstance as the constituent assemtnbly was elected and the constitution just passed after about 3-4 years and hence this PM was ot popularly elected. He's not an "interim" PM presiding over the constitutional dsicussions for the first time since the end of the monarchy/civil war/constitutional convention. (as a note, the only Hindu country in the world now has a communist PM too which is notable a move away from religious grounding (India has been constitutionally secular since 1947))Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Our articles say he was elected by a parliamentary vote, not popular, which is why it is confusing. The President is definitely a public vote, but doesn't look like the PM is. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, he was elected this way but the position is same as a parliamentary system. THATS why I queried it.Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - important change of government leader, but article needs improvement. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Enactment? Like a civil war battle? Constitutions are ratified or propagated. They are not played out as military re-enactments. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Economic SciencesEdit

Article: Angus Deaton (talk, history)
Blurb: Angus Deaton is awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his analysis of consumption, poverty, and welfare.
News source(s): (The Guardian), (The Washington Journal)

 Jenda H. (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – It's that time again. Article could be expanded. Sca (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR when ready... which it is not. Article require serious work, especially in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvements - Needs better referencing overall. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks all three of you, of course "support per ITNR" is pointless. Come back when you've updated the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose wording. It's not a Nobel Prize and it's not officially called that either. Bjerrebæk (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The term "Nobel Prize" is by far the most widely used in reliable sources and it is the term that most ordinary readers use. See WP:COMMONNAME. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It also is a Nobel Prize, and is awarded under the auspices of, and fully equal to the other prizes awarded by, the Nobel Foundation, at least according to their official website: [13] The only way it differs is chronologically (being created later than the other five) and in official name (largely due to the first difference). Otherwise, however, it is not "unofficial" nor "lesser" nor "not a Nobel Prize". It is officially, fully, and completely equally a Nobel Prize as much as Peace and Chemistry and all the rest. The fact that the formulation of the official name is slightly different than the earlier created prizes is an inconsequential difference, and as reliable sources report it using the "Nobel Prize in Economics" formulation, we do that as well. --Jayron32 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's either called "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". The former, as noted by Jayron, seems preferable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the latter is preferable, as the former is incorrect. Fgf10 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess it depends if you use common name or not. Certainly the former is used by reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Of all the names in this nomination to raise an eyebrow I thought it would be another one. GRAPPLE X 09:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure why this has been posted. The sourcing remains well below our usual standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The sourcing seems fine, but I have hidden what look like remarks about poverty that are actually remarks about wellbeing, which is referenced. In any case, I
Support the current posting as is. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I just now went through and removed and/or cn'ed, any uncited stuff. There really wasn't much. There were 2 uncited paragraphs that were in the entire article. One I removed as it was beyond rescue, the other I added a cn tag because it seems easily fixable. Otherwise, I can't find anything which should keep it off the main page. It's short, but not unreasonably so, and reasonably well sourced. --Jayron32 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ach! See above. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Belarusian presidential electionEdit

Articles: Belarusian presidential election, 2015 (talk, history) and Alexander Lukashenko (talk, history)
Blurb: Alexander Lukashenko is re-elected for a fifth term in the Belarusian presidential election.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Simply put: fifth term for another five years. Needs an update. Brandmeistertalk 08:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support head of state...no-brainerCas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose why we spam front page with countries where actually nothing has changed? --Jenda H. (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    In this case, because it's ITNR, and once it's been suitably updated, it will be posted. Are you suggesting we shouldn't run results of a US Presedential Election or a UK General Election if the incumbent was re-elected? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I think it's more a case of not periodically posting that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead; your examples are of actual elections held in democracies. GRAPPLE X 10:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    Right great wrongs, etc etc. If you want to include a list of non-democratically elected leaders over at ITNR to be excluded, then please feel free to do so. And we all know about Chadgate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I know it'll get posted, I'm just explaining the sentiment. GRAPPLE X 10:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    I understood the sentiment, I wanted to know where Jenda H. draws the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
    There are countries which didn't experienced governmental change since their independence 25 years ago, despite official election. So, the line is there. --Jenda H. (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Yes, nothing has changed but other candidates were allowed to run for a presidential term, meaning that it wasn't completely certain what the outcome from this election would be. In case he were the only candidate in the election, it'd have made more sense to question the significance of such presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. If not for anything else I think it is good that we highlight dictatorships false elections.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Normally this should be posted but I am reaaaaly weary of bumping off Nobel laureates in exchange for such bogus elections. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per previous comments. Article might be a bit thin. (Nergaal: It's Chinatown.) Sca (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits or "support per ITNR" is unnecessary and not required; ITNR presumes support on the merits. ITNR discussions are only for assessing quality and discussing a blurb. Opposing on the merits or wanting to somehow limit election postings should be done at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support when ready per ITNR. I had planned to call for a qualifier in the blurb, taking note of international criticism of a bogus election. However, to my intense surprise the report of the international observers was rather muted in its criticism. Not to say there was none, but they did not call this a farce, which I was honestly expecting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 11Edit


[Posted] RD: Richard F. HeckEdit

Article: Richard F. Heck (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Reuters

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: Nobel Prize winning chemist. Article in good enough condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I think there's a few paragraphs that could have a few more sources but they're far from controversial claims. But Nobel-winning person is definitely RD material. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Heck was clearly a notable chemist whose discovery presents a stepping point towards future research. He was also awarded with Nobel Prize in Chemistry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly notable enough for mention at RD,--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with a minor quibble – The first para under 'Palladium-catalyzed coupling reactions' section is unsourced. Vensatry (ping) 14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Simply winning a Nobel Prize in and of itself has never been considered sufficient reason for posting at RD, and neither does "clearly notable enough for mention at RD" explain why the nominee actually is clearly notable enough for mention at RD. The Heck reaction is apparently quite important, but from reading our article on it, only the synthesis of Naproxen stands out as an example. It would be helpful if we had some sort of mention of important compounds that can now be synthesized due to the Heck reaction. Otherwise we are simply left with an article that says he won a prize for doing some thing in chemistry. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Given that the Nobel is pretty much the only major broadly notable achievement in excellent in research in the chemical field, that's a pretty strong sign that Heck was important to the field. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think anyone can question that a Nobel winner is important to their field. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If everybody who won a Nobel is unquestionable, then why isn't it in ITN/R? Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The issue of does a Nobel mean an automatic listing at RD was discussed at length at the time of the death and posting (soon after RD was instituted in late 2012) of Rita Levi-Montalcini who was a Nobelist, but also accomplished on other fronts. The consensus was that a Nobel alone didn't merit posting at RD.
Of course I am not saying that a Nobel is unimportant, or that Heck is not important. But the problem is as I stated; at least Heck or Heck Reaction should make clear to the reader the actual concrete impact of his work. Something like, the Heck Reaction made possible these classes of compounds, which include such important medicines as Naproxen, and several other examples. In other words, if ""It's not winning the Nobel, it's the work that won them the Nobel", then what was the concrete result of that work? At this point, we really aren't telling the readership much beyond he got the Nobel along with a few others for inventing some mysterious process with a very expensive metal. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Medais had me good this time. Whilst a Nobel Prize winner is honorably mentioned, quality while improving is left to be desired. Also, we cannot know how much work he has done that earned him the Prize. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, although at this point my oppose is really technical. With a real update of five sentences with three sources saying what his palladium process has actually made possible, my assumption is that I would support this. When I took Organic Chem in the 80's he was not even mentioned, and we certainly never used palladium as a catalyst in lab. But I was a bio and philosophy major. So I am hoping we have a chemist who can give some lay-friendly information on what sorts of modern compounds we can attribute to his innovation. I suspect Naproxen is just a toe dipped in the swimming pool. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the Heck reaction is an intermediate - an important one but not a final one - in making complicated organic molecules, so we're primarily talking in areas of things like drug synthesis or the like. It is not like, say, the Haber process for making a commodity chemical like ammonia; it is a specialized reaction that is made for speciality chemicals so you're not likely going to find a good example.
What is important about it is that it allows for highly selective addition of one type of hydrocarbon to an existing one at a very specific site. Normally such additions are not very selective which means you have to spend extra time and resources to purify your end product. While Heck reactions are not 100% selective, they are tons better than alternatives, assuring a reasonable yield for a desired product, which helps to reduce costs of chemical processing at large scale. Very importantly where one can possibly make cis or trans products (which when you talk interactions with the human body can make a huge difference), the Heck mechanism favors trans over cis. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The chemistry pioneered by him is absolutely crucial for modern organic chemistry. Fgf10 (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 10Edit


[Withdrawn] RD: Manorama (Tamil actress)Edit

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Manorama (Tamil actress) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Hindu, The Economic Times

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 legendary actress in Tamil cinema. Made into the Guinness World Records when she completed 1,000 films Vensatry (ping) 07:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Absoultely "top of her field", meets the RD criteria.90.55.229.188 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Several BLP issues with the article, including quotes without citations. Once those are addressed, I'm inclined to support the nomination based on her notability as an actress and status as a world record-holder. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support too, but Kudzu1 is right that it needs some work. I see a lot of the refs are YouTube videos. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Highly popular actress, but referencing issues need to be addressed before posting. -Zanhe (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my nomination – Looking at the enthusiasm (from IPs and newbies) I don't think I can improve the article; the article underwent a two-fold expansion over the last two days through unattributed quotes, personal analysis, fan POVs, etc., It's a shame that we couldn't get this to the main page. Vensatry (ping) 15:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Ankara bombingsEdit

Article: 2015 Ankara bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 80 people are killed and more than 180 injured in twin bombings at a peace rally in Ankara, Turkey.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support High death toll and politically significant. This bombings can potentially lead to major developments just before the November elections. Also, the latest reports say more than 50 people have been killed by the bombs [14] [15] --Երևանցի talk 12:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but wait Heavy variations in death toll and injuries at the moment, plus article is fast being developed. Maybe adjust the blurb as soon as an official death toll becomes clear (some say 30, some 47, some 52, some 57). Nub Cake (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major event prior to important elections in Turkey.--Joseph (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major unprecedented attack. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, major and significant. At least 86 people now known to have died. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Per Blackie. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Posted, the article seems adequate, though obviously still being updated. Thue (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Landslide in GuatemalaEdit

Already posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2015 Guatemala landslide (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: A landslide in Guatemala triggered by heavy rainfall has killed at least 253 people and left 386 others missing.
Alternative blurb: ​A landslide in Guatemala triggered by heavy rainfall has killed at least 253 people and left several hundred others missing.
News source(s): Yahoo! 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: High death count Decentman12 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Note – This event was already featured on ITN earlier in the week. It just got pushed off the ticker because of the flood of Nobel Prizes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

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

October 9Edit


[Posted] RD: Geoffrey HoweEdit

Article: Geoffrey Howe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: British politician, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Foreign Secretary. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I supported Denis Healey, but that was because for much of the 1970s he was effectively co-PM owing to Harold Wilson's drinking and Alzheimer's. Howe wasn't in the same league; the important Chancellor of the Thatcher era was Nigel Lawson, while his time as Foreign Secretary included nothing memorable, given Thatcher's habit of going over his head and dealing with the important negotiations with Reagan, Gorbachev and the EEC/EC directly. ‑ iridescent 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. While for sure not as charismatic as Denis Healey, Howe's time as shadow-chancellor and then chancellor for Thatcher was nevertheless highly significant, in particular the outright rejection of Keynesian demand management which had been the economic orthodoxy in the UK since the 1940s. Howe was Thatcher's right hand in this, against the considerable protestations of more traditionally-minded elements in her party. In particular, the decision in his 1981 budget to squeeze the economy hard even at the very lowest depths of recession, following two years of uncompromisingly high interest rates, has since been estimated to have added an extra 1 million to unemployment, over and beyond what would have achieved the falling inflation profile they were looking for. Had it not been for the Falklands War, this would have been the defining feature of a one-term Thatcher premiership, and it is likely she would not have been re-elected in 1983. Some of Lawson's later actions may have had more sparkle, but it was Howe's term as Chancellor that set the economic tone for the Thatcher administration -- a radical break with what had gone before. Jheald (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Was a strategically significant person to Thatcher's government, but one that has not managed to keep his legacy in the public spotlight. It may have received a good amount of media attention, but he isn't important eno